Philip Koopman, Carnegie Mellon University
October, 1997
Abstract
Because on-line search databases typically contain only abstracts, it is vital to write a complete but concise description of your work to entice potential readers into obtaining a copy of the full paper. This article describes how to write a good computer architecture abstract for both conference and journal papers. Writers should follow a checklist consisting of: motivation, problem statement, approach, results, and conclusions. Following this checklist should increase the chance of people taking the time to obtain and read your complete paper.
Introduction
Now that the use of on-line publication databases is prevalent, writing a really good abstract has become even more important than it was a decade ago. Abstracts have always served the function of "selling" your work. But now, instead of merely convincing the reader to keep reading the rest of the attached paper, an abstract must convince the reader to leave the comfort of an office and go hunt down a copy of the article from a library (or worse, obtain one after a long wait through inter-library loan). In a business context, an "executive summary" is often the only piece of a report read by the people who matter; and it should be similar in content if not tone to a journal paper abstract.
Checklist: Parts of an Abstract
Despite the fact that an abstract is quite brief, it must do almost as much work as the multi-page paper that follows it. In a computer architecture paper, this means that it should in most cases include the following sections. Each section is typically a single sentence, although there is room for creativity. In particular, the parts may be merged or spread among a set of sentences. Use the following as a checklist for your next abstract:
* Motivation:
Why do we care about the problem and the results? If the problem isn't obviously "interesting" it might be better to put motivation first; but if your work is incremental progress on a problem that is widely recognized as important, then it is probably better to put the problem statement first to indicate which piece of the larger problem you are breaking off to work on. This section should include the importance of your work, the difficulty of the area, and the impact it might have if successful.
* Problem statement:
What problem are you trying to solve? What is the scope of your work (a generalized approach, or for a specific situation)? Be careful not to use too much jargon. In some cases it is appropriate to put the problem statement before the motivation, but usually this only works if most readers already understand why the problem is important.
* Approach:
How did you go about solving or making progress on the problem? Did you use simulation, analytic models, prototype construction, or analysis of field data for an actual product? What was the extent of your work (did you look at one application program or a hundred programs in twenty different programming languages?) What important variables did you control, ignore, or measure?
* Results:
What's the answer? Specifically, most good computer architecture papers conclude that something is so many percent faster, cheaper, smaller, or otherwise better than something else. Put the result there, in numbers. Avoid vague, hand-waving results such as "very", "small", or "significant." If you must be vague, you are only given license to do so when you can talk about orders-of-magnitude improvement. There is a tension here in that you should not provide numbers that can be easily misinterpreted, but on the other hand you don't have room for all the caveats.
* Conclusions:
What are the implications of your answer? Is it going to change the world (unlikely), be a significant "win", be a nice hack, or simply serve as a road sign indicating that this path is a waste of time (all of the previous results are useful). Are your results general, potentially generalizable, or specific to a particular case?
Other Considerations
An abstract must be a fully self-contained, capsule description of the paper. It can't assume (or attempt to provoke) the reader into flipping through looking for an explanation of what is meant by some vague statement. It must make sense all by itself. Some points to consider include:
* Meet the word count limitation. If your abstract runs too long, either it will be rejected or someone will take a chainsaw to it to get it down to size. Your purposes will be better served by doing the difficult task of cutting yourself, rather than leaving it to someone else who might be more interested in meeting size restrictions than in representing your efforts in the best possible manner. An abstract word limit of 150 to 200 words is common.
* Any major restrictions or limitations on the results should be stated, if only by using "weasel-words" such as "might", "could", "may", and "seem".
* Think of a half-dozen search phrases and keywords that people looking for your work might use. Be sure that those exact phrases appear in your abstract, so that they will turn up at the top of a search result listing.
* Usually the context of a paper is set by the publication it appears in (for example, IEEE Computer magazine's articles are generally about computer technology). But, if your paper appears in a somewhat un-traditional venue, be sure to include in the problem statement the domain or topic area that it is really applicable to.
* Some publications request "keywords". These have two purposes. They are used to facilitate keyword index searches, which are greatly reduced in importance now that on-line abstract text searching is commonly used. However, they are also used to assign papers to review committees or editors, which can be extremely important to your fate. So make sure that the keywords you pick make assigning your paper to a review category obvious (for example, if there is a list of conference topics, use your chosen topic area as one of the keyword tuples).
Conclusion
Writing an efficient abstract is hard work, but will repay you with increased impact on the world by enticing people to read your publications. Make sure that all the components of a good abstract are included in the next one you write.
Further Reading
Michaelson, Herbert, How to Write & Publish Engineering Papers and Reports, Oryx Press, 1990. Chapter 6 discusses abstracts.
Cremmins, Edward, The Art of Abstracting 2nd Edition, Info Resources Press, April 1996. This is an entire book about abstracting, written primarily for professional abstractors.
© Copyright 1997, Philip Koopman, Carnegie Mellon University
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Recommendations for Tenure
Proposal Letter from Department Chair
Tenure
I. Introductory paragraph. State the candidate’s full name, degree, and academic rank.
II. Teaching. Provide a detailed assessment of the candidate's accomplishments as a teacher. Provide concrete examples of why the candidate's teaching accomplishments justify tenure.
III. Research. Discuss the candidate's accomplishments in research. Provide assessments of why the candidate's research accomplishments warrant considerations of tenure.
IV Scholarly publications. Review the strength and nature of the candidate's publications. Emphasize how the candidate's efforts have contributed to the research mission of the college.
V. Clinical Practice (Omit for non-clinical faculty). Describe the candidate's clinical practice and how the candidate has contributed to patient care in the College and community. What is the exceptional nature of the candidate's clinical practice that warrants tenure?
VI. Discuss the attributes of the candidate in light of the interests of the College and University. Consider professional judgment, wisdom, collegiality, citizenship in the academic community, the capacity to develop colleagues and students, contributions to the College's academic and societal mission, and the commitment to scholarly exchange and intellectual exploration.
VII. Summary and recommendations
Example Letters for Tenure
Dear (Dean):
I am pleased to have the privilege of proposing James E. Jones, MD, for tenure in the Department of . I have reviewed the criteria for tenure, which, I believe, Dr. Jones has ably fulfilled. Dr. Jones has held the rank of in the track since 19 . His accomplishments and contributions to the University have established his academic maturity and the mutual trust that merits tenure.
Teaching
Dr. Jones came to MUSC with recognized talents in education. In his first year at MUSC, he was selected as a Dean's Teaching Scholar and received training in curriculum development, teaching, and adult learning theory.
He has been an active participant in teaching of medical students, pediatric residents, medicine residents, and fellows in pulmonary and critical care. He is a lecturer in pulmonary pathophysiology for first and third year medical students and has served as a mentor for medical students on research electives and rotations through clinic and consult services. He presently works with 3 to 5 students during their third year clinical rotation in pulmonary every month in clinics and on consultation services. His student evaluations are always in the “very good” range and his scores are above faculty means.
Dr. Jones has served as faculty adviser for 7 graduate students during the last 5 years. All of these students have successfully completed their training and 6 are presently on the faculty of university research centers.
He has also participated extensively in developing the pulmonary curriculum for medical students through his role as chair of the committee to revise curriculum for the Year I Medical Respiratory course. He has incorporated into this curriculum new elements of pathology, embryology, outcomes, and imaging with more traditional elements of anatomy and physiology. He is considered by his colleagues to be a gifted educator. Dr. Jones also reorganized and won initial ACGME accreditation for the critical care fellowship at MUSC.
Dr. Jones lectures extensively at CME programs throughout South Carolina. He has been visiting professor at 5 academic centers within the last three years. He also has been an invited speaker at 5 annual meetings of his international professional societies.
Research
Dr. Jones’s research efforts have focused on respiratory physiology and the control of breathing. His salary has been fully support by extramural grants from the NIH for 5 of the last 6 years. Dr. Jones’s most important research accomplishments relate to his innovative use of non-invasive imaging technology to assess the respiratory effort of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. His basic understanding of respiratory physiology and his considerable collaborative efforts with radiology colleagues at Duke have allowed him to adapt diverse imaging tools to pursue questions of ventilatory drive. This ability to develop skills in different fields has made Dr. Jones a unique resource for investigators in several departments at MUSC. His collaboration with other investigators has been a critical element in their ability to receive extramural funding. Dr. Jones has also assumed leadership in our department for encouraging his colleagues in their investigative efforts. Three of our junior faculty collaborate extensively with Dr. Jones in investigations related to respiratory physiology. On of these faculty is now poised to become an independent investigator.
Scholarly Publications
Dr. Jones’s has published extensively in his field of investigation. He has 42 peer-reviewed publications in major journals in pulmonary, critical care, and physiology. Five of his publications have been cited in the Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews. During the last 5 years, Dr. Jones has been able to publish 8 papers generated by his two most recent grants that pertain to imaging assessment of respiratory drive. These papers have stimulated interest in our training program from fellow candidates interested in applied physiology research and academic careers. His clinical reviews of these topics have also generated interest in practitioners within South Carolina of applying some of his patient monitoring observations to clinical practice. Of note is his mentoring of research students and graduate students in his publications. He has a recently increasing proportion of publications for which he is senior author and the first authors are trainees in his laboratory. Dr. Jones's academic efforts have reached a degree of maturity that provides the University with multiple levels of benefit that merits tenure.
Clinical Practice
Despite his extensive research efforts, Dr. Jones has made major contributions to the area of clinical practice. He was recruited to MUSC because of his strengths both in physiology research and patient care. Since his arrival, he has established a chronic ventilator unit that is a model program for South Carolina. He attends both on this unit and in the ICU and is considered one of the region’s premier intensivists. His leadership in patient care has resulted in the organization of innovative clinical programs within the Medical Center. Largely through his efforts, MUSC has succeeded in providing the community state-of-the-art programs in critical care medicine. He has brought to MUSC new approaches to monitoring critically ill patients and accelerating their weaning from mechanical ventilation. MUSC has now become the place in the region for referral of ventilator-dependent patients. He is a frequent consultant for patient care services in regional hospitals. His devotion to clinical care has provided the University with a resource that would be difficult to replace.
Service and citizenship
In addition to the above accomplishments, Dr. Jones displays the special qualities and maturity of an academic physician who can further the interests of the College and University. His professional conduct, collegiality, and citizenship in the academic community are excellent. He has clearly demonstrated that his leadership and program development skills are superb. He assisted Change Management by moving the respiratory lab from a department function to a program within the hospital. He also facilitated the medical center’s planning retreat and articulated vision for the future of his department. His good judgment and long-term support of the College’s academic and societal mission have resulted in his appointment as director of research for his department. We expect with confidence that he will promote the commitment to scholarly exchange and the pursuit of intellectual communication within his department and the College of Medicine. His special attributes for negotiation, communication, and leadership extend contributions to the University well beyond the bounds of the College of Medicine.
In summary, on the basis of his multiple accomplishments and contributions to research, teaching, and patient care at MUSC, in the region, and nationally in addition to the mutual trust developed between him and the University, Dr. Jones clearly deserves tenure. He is an astute clinician and talented investigator and teacher who will be even more productive in the future. He has demonstrated leadership in patient care that has resulted in the development of clinical services that address the needs of citizens in South Carolina. He serves as a critical resource and role model for his colleagues in their efforts to support the mission of the University.
I appreciate your efforts in considering this proposal for tenure.
Sincerely,
Tenure
I. Introductory paragraph. State the candidate’s full name, degree, and academic rank.
II. Teaching. Provide a detailed assessment of the candidate's accomplishments as a teacher. Provide concrete examples of why the candidate's teaching accomplishments justify tenure.
III. Research. Discuss the candidate's accomplishments in research. Provide assessments of why the candidate's research accomplishments warrant considerations of tenure.
IV Scholarly publications. Review the strength and nature of the candidate's publications. Emphasize how the candidate's efforts have contributed to the research mission of the college.
V. Clinical Practice (Omit for non-clinical faculty). Describe the candidate's clinical practice and how the candidate has contributed to patient care in the College and community. What is the exceptional nature of the candidate's clinical practice that warrants tenure?
VI. Discuss the attributes of the candidate in light of the interests of the College and University. Consider professional judgment, wisdom, collegiality, citizenship in the academic community, the capacity to develop colleagues and students, contributions to the College's academic and societal mission, and the commitment to scholarly exchange and intellectual exploration.
VII. Summary and recommendations
Example Letters for Tenure
Dear (Dean):
I am pleased to have the privilege of proposing James E. Jones, MD, for tenure in the Department of . I have reviewed the criteria for tenure, which, I believe, Dr. Jones has ably fulfilled. Dr. Jones has held the rank of in the track since 19 . His accomplishments and contributions to the University have established his academic maturity and the mutual trust that merits tenure.
Teaching
Dr. Jones came to MUSC with recognized talents in education. In his first year at MUSC, he was selected as a Dean's Teaching Scholar and received training in curriculum development, teaching, and adult learning theory.
He has been an active participant in teaching of medical students, pediatric residents, medicine residents, and fellows in pulmonary and critical care. He is a lecturer in pulmonary pathophysiology for first and third year medical students and has served as a mentor for medical students on research electives and rotations through clinic and consult services. He presently works with 3 to 5 students during their third year clinical rotation in pulmonary every month in clinics and on consultation services. His student evaluations are always in the “very good” range and his scores are above faculty means.
Dr. Jones has served as faculty adviser for 7 graduate students during the last 5 years. All of these students have successfully completed their training and 6 are presently on the faculty of university research centers.
He has also participated extensively in developing the pulmonary curriculum for medical students through his role as chair of the committee to revise curriculum for the Year I Medical Respiratory course. He has incorporated into this curriculum new elements of pathology, embryology, outcomes, and imaging with more traditional elements of anatomy and physiology. He is considered by his colleagues to be a gifted educator. Dr. Jones also reorganized and won initial ACGME accreditation for the critical care fellowship at MUSC.
Dr. Jones lectures extensively at CME programs throughout South Carolina. He has been visiting professor at 5 academic centers within the last three years. He also has been an invited speaker at 5 annual meetings of his international professional societies.
Research
Dr. Jones’s research efforts have focused on respiratory physiology and the control of breathing. His salary has been fully support by extramural grants from the NIH for 5 of the last 6 years. Dr. Jones’s most important research accomplishments relate to his innovative use of non-invasive imaging technology to assess the respiratory effort of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. His basic understanding of respiratory physiology and his considerable collaborative efforts with radiology colleagues at Duke have allowed him to adapt diverse imaging tools to pursue questions of ventilatory drive. This ability to develop skills in different fields has made Dr. Jones a unique resource for investigators in several departments at MUSC. His collaboration with other investigators has been a critical element in their ability to receive extramural funding. Dr. Jones has also assumed leadership in our department for encouraging his colleagues in their investigative efforts. Three of our junior faculty collaborate extensively with Dr. Jones in investigations related to respiratory physiology. On of these faculty is now poised to become an independent investigator.
Scholarly Publications
Dr. Jones’s has published extensively in his field of investigation. He has 42 peer-reviewed publications in major journals in pulmonary, critical care, and physiology. Five of his publications have been cited in the Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews. During the last 5 years, Dr. Jones has been able to publish 8 papers generated by his two most recent grants that pertain to imaging assessment of respiratory drive. These papers have stimulated interest in our training program from fellow candidates interested in applied physiology research and academic careers. His clinical reviews of these topics have also generated interest in practitioners within South Carolina of applying some of his patient monitoring observations to clinical practice. Of note is his mentoring of research students and graduate students in his publications. He has a recently increasing proportion of publications for which he is senior author and the first authors are trainees in his laboratory. Dr. Jones's academic efforts have reached a degree of maturity that provides the University with multiple levels of benefit that merits tenure.
Clinical Practice
Despite his extensive research efforts, Dr. Jones has made major contributions to the area of clinical practice. He was recruited to MUSC because of his strengths both in physiology research and patient care. Since his arrival, he has established a chronic ventilator unit that is a model program for South Carolina. He attends both on this unit and in the ICU and is considered one of the region’s premier intensivists. His leadership in patient care has resulted in the organization of innovative clinical programs within the Medical Center. Largely through his efforts, MUSC has succeeded in providing the community state-of-the-art programs in critical care medicine. He has brought to MUSC new approaches to monitoring critically ill patients and accelerating their weaning from mechanical ventilation. MUSC has now become the place in the region for referral of ventilator-dependent patients. He is a frequent consultant for patient care services in regional hospitals. His devotion to clinical care has provided the University with a resource that would be difficult to replace.
Service and citizenship
In addition to the above accomplishments, Dr. Jones displays the special qualities and maturity of an academic physician who can further the interests of the College and University. His professional conduct, collegiality, and citizenship in the academic community are excellent. He has clearly demonstrated that his leadership and program development skills are superb. He assisted Change Management by moving the respiratory lab from a department function to a program within the hospital. He also facilitated the medical center’s planning retreat and articulated vision for the future of his department. His good judgment and long-term support of the College’s academic and societal mission have resulted in his appointment as director of research for his department. We expect with confidence that he will promote the commitment to scholarly exchange and the pursuit of intellectual communication within his department and the College of Medicine. His special attributes for negotiation, communication, and leadership extend contributions to the University well beyond the bounds of the College of Medicine.
In summary, on the basis of his multiple accomplishments and contributions to research, teaching, and patient care at MUSC, in the region, and nationally in addition to the mutual trust developed between him and the University, Dr. Jones clearly deserves tenure. He is an astute clinician and talented investigator and teacher who will be even more productive in the future. He has demonstrated leadership in patient care that has resulted in the development of clinical services that address the needs of citizens in South Carolina. He serves as a critical resource and role model for his colleagues in their efforts to support the mission of the University.
I appreciate your efforts in considering this proposal for tenure.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)