Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)

Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Basics of Paper Writing and
Publishing in TEL
Michael Derntl, Milos Kravcik, Ralf Klamma
RWTH Aachen University
Advanced Community Information Systems (ACIS)
{derntl,kravcik,klamma}@dbis.rwth-aachen.de
10th Joint European Summer School on
Technology Enhanced Learning (JTEL 2014)
April 28 – May 2, 2014
Malta

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
2
Managing Expectations
 What we will tackle today
– Paper structure
– Organizing a piece of text
– Commence mini conference for the week
 What we will tackle on Friday
– Discuss the mini conference reviews
– Elaborate a publication strategy in TEL
– Identify landmarks in your thesis field
– Mistakes to avoid

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
3
Scientific Texts –
Intentions vs Expectations
 Intentions (authors)
– Communicate with peers
– Protect intellectual property
– Gain reputation
– Get promoted
– Progress science
– Remember
– Understand
– Gain perspective
[BCWi95] [Stoc00] [Ocon05] [PEBK02]
 Expectations (readers)
– Standard form (sections,
paragraphs, sentences)
– Audience “coverage”
– Quality (relevance,
significance, soundness)
– Discussion (limitations,
embedding in existing
findings, implications, …)
– Correct language
All it takes is structure and practice!

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
4
Paper Structure
Hourglass Model [Swal93]
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
general
specific
specific
general
Section Theme

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
5
Paper Structure
“King Model” [Dern14]
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
6
Paper Structure:
Title
 Very important part – why?
 Rules of thumb:
– Fewest possible words that
adequately describe the paper
content
– Avoid waste words
– Nouns over verbs
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
7
Paper Structure:
Title
 Types of title
– Descriptive: Investigating the role of
academic conferences on shaping the
research agenda
– Declarative: Academic conferences
shape the short-term research agenda
– Interrogative: Do academic conferences
shape the research agenda?
– Compound, e.g. separated by ? or :
 Impact of title type:
– Interrogative: more downloads, fewer
cites
– Compound with colon: longer; fewer
downloads and cites
– Long titles: fewer downloads
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
[JaNi11]

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
8
Paper Structure:
Title
 Title checklist
– includes main topic
– unambiguous
– specific
– attractive
– short
– accurate
– adequate
– no abbreviations
– consider audience
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
9
Paper Structure:
Title
Title checklist
 includes main topic
 unambiguous
 specific
 attractive
 short
 accurate
 adequate
 no abbreviations
 consider audience
Examples titles:
1. Report of the results of an IMS Learning Design
expert workshop
2. Educational Technology and Culture: The Influence
of Ethnic and Professional Culture on Learners'
Technology Acceptance
3. A New Framework for Dynamic Adaptations and
Actions
4. CAMera for PLE
5. Go To Statement Considered Harmful
6. Users in the Driver's Seat: A New Approach to
Classifying Teaching Methods in a University
Repository
7. Considering formal assessment in learning analytics
within a PLE
8. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic
article, to read

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
10
Paper Structure:
Abstract
 Task:
– Read the four abstracts on the
handout
– Identify strong and weak points
– Identify criteria for good
abstracts
– Rank the four abstracts on the
ranking sheet
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
11
Paper Structure:
Abstract
Types
– Informative: what content is in the paper
– Indicative / descriptive: how is the content presented
Checklist, ~1 sentence each
– Motivation
– Problem definition
– Solution
– Results
– Implications
No go
– Exact title phrase
– Copy & paste from text
– Figures or tables
– Sources (depends)
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
12
Paper Structure:
Abstract
Low detail
No references
General example
Overview
High detail
All references
Specific examples
Reproducibility
Abstract Full text
A good abstract [ElseXX]:
 Is specific and precise
 Can stand alone
 Uses little technical jargon
 Uses no or few abbreviations

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
13
ABSTRACT RANKING

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
14
This paper presents rhythm reading, one of the elementary ear training
exercises, as a pedagogical software application of PWGL. We use
different kinds of stochastic and mathematical models to generate a
rhythmic database. The database is divided into several categories,
including, binary or ternary, euclidian, afro-cuban, corpus-based, and
contemporary. Our musical constraints systems is used to define a rule
set, which, in turn, can be used to automatically generate graded rhythm
reading exercises. The user is then presented with a musical score, and
he or she can perform a reading with any percussive instrument or voice
and a microphone connected to a computer. Our novel signal processing
system is utilized to analyze the reading. Finally, visual feedback and
statistics are displayed directly as a part of the exercise. In this paper we
present our rhythm reading application, and discuss the details of its
implementation.
This paper presents rhythm reading, one of the elementary ear training
exercises, as a pedagogical software application of PWGL. We use
different kinds of stochastic and mathematical models to generate a
rhythmic database. The database is divided into several categories,
including, binary or ternary, euclidian, afro-cuban, corpus-based, and
contemporary. Our musical constraints systems is used to define a rule
set, which, in turn, can be used to automatically generate graded rhythm
reading exercises. The user is then presented with a musical score, and
he or she can perform a reading with any percussive instrument or voice
and a microphone connected to a computer. Our novel signal processing
system is utilized to analyze the reading. Finally, visual feedback and
statistics are displayed directly as a part of the exercise. In this paper we
present our rhythm reading application, and discuss the details of its
implementation.
Motivation Problem Solution Results Implications
mixed
4th Place: Abstract A
M. Kuuskankare, V. Norilo (2013). Proc. EC-TEL 2013 (pp. 165-177) © Springer Verlag

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
15
3rd Place: Abstract C
Y. Jiang, Z. Wu, Z. Zhan, L. Xu (2010) Proc. ICWL 2010 Workshops (pp. 195-206) © Springer Verlag
This paper proposes a strategy to personalized the Internet
searching, which would help to filter, extract and integrate
the massive information from the web based on the specific
user requirements in the hopes that it can relieve them from
the tedious process of manually selecting and retrieving the
relevant information as well as the confusion caused by the
inconsistencies of the information. The strategy proposed in
this paper has been applied to the searching of the laptop
product information and the result shows a much less
human effort involved and a much more accurate price
range.
part of the solution descriptive informative

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
16
2nd Place: Abstract D
C. Alario-Hoyos et al. (2013) Proc. EC-TEL 2013, pp. 5-18 [best full paper] © Springer Verlag
informative informative mixed descriptive
MOOCs have been a disruptive educational trend in the last months.
Some MOOCs just replicate traditional teaching pedagogies, adding
multimedia elements like video lectures. Others go beyond, trying to
engage the massive number of participants by promoting discussions
and relying on their contributions to the course. MOOC platforms
usually provide some built-in social tools for this purpose, although
instructors or participants may suggest others to foster discussions and
crowdsourcing. This paper analyses the impact of two built-in (Q&A and
forum) and three external social tools (Facebook, Twitter and
MentorMob) in a MOOC on educational technologies. Most of the
participants agreed on the importance of social tools to be in touch with
their partners and share information related to the course, the forum
being the one preferred. Furthermore, the lessons learned from the
enactment of this MOOC employing social tools are summarized so that
others may benefit from them.

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
17
Y. Mor & O. Mogilevsky (2013). Proc. EC-TEL 2013 (pp. 233-245) © Springer Verlag
Recently we are urged to transform education into an evidence based profession,
and promote scientific standards or practice. These calls are not new – they seem
to emerge every few years. We do not argue with their goal, but we contend that
the suitable frame of reference is the paradigm of design science, rather than the
common metaphor of medical research. This paper proposes Design Inquiry of
Learning as a projection of educational design science into a professional
domain, and offers the Learning Design Studio as a pedagogical manifestation of
this approach. The learning design studio is a collaborative, blended, project
based framework for training educators in effective and evidence-based use of
educational technology. We present its theoretical underpinnings, note its
fundamental principles and structures, and review three independent cases where
it has been trialed. The results show that this model is effective in developing
learners’ theoretical knowledge as well as their practical skills, and allows them to
link the two. However, it requires a considerable commitment of both learners and
tutors, and may not be applicable in more casual settings.
informative informative mostly informative
1st place: Abstract B
informative informative

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
18
Paper Structure:
Introduction
 “Pick up” the reader (and
reviewer!)
– Some generally known statements
– Motivating example
– Tighten thematic focus
– Mention key literature
– General background info to
support understanding
– (Indicate the structure)
 Three phases [Swal93]
– (Where?) Establish territory
– (What?) Establish a niche
– (How?) Occupy niche
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
19
Paper Structure:
Introduction – Example
Example 1: Computers & Education 59 (2): 182-195
Establish territory / common-sense statement:
Peer review is an instructional method aiming to help
students elaborate on domain-specific knowledge, while
simultaneously developing methodological review skills.
Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:
We use the term „assigned-pair protocol“ here to refer to
the class of peer review methods that involve static author-
reviewer dyads.
Occupy niche / arrive at core paper topic:
Our focus was to (a) … and (b) …
Outline paper structure

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
20
Paper Structure:
Introduction – Example
Example 2: Transactions
on Learning Technologies
5 (1): 38-51
Establish territory / common-sense statement:
The concept of Adaptive Hypermedia Systems (AHS)
has existed for years now [19], and it has amply
proved its utility particularly in education …Establish niche / tighten thematic focus:
In fact, authors have to define a domain model …
Indeed, authors have to specify an adaptation model…Indicate existing solutions, point to shortcomings:
Multiple solutions have been proposed …
These works fail to answer the third challenge …
Occupy niche, indicate leap forward
This paper addresses these three challenges …
We perceive an adaptation strategy as a combination of
elementary parts …
Outline paper structure
This paper is organized as follows…

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
21
Paper Structure:
Body
 Reports actual research
done to answer research
question/problem
 Typically several
(sub)sections
 Structure, organization, and
content depend heavily on
the type of paper
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
22
Paper Structure:
Body
 Empirical paper
– Methodology, data, material, participants,
results, (discussion)
– Goal: reproducibility
 Case study paper
– Report application of existing methods, tools,
theories
– Goal: abstraction from case
 Survey paper
– Reviewing and synthesize existing work
– Typically little original contributions
– Goal: Completeness, soundness, …
 Theory paper
– Principles, concepts or models in the field
– Goals: Originality, soundness, Relevance
 Others: methodology papers, review papers,
…
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References
[CHI98]

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
23
Paper Structure:
Conclusion
 Discussion / Conclusion
– Counterpart to introduction
– Generalize results
– Sometimes separate (particularly
empirical papers)
– Recap of background and aims
– Summary and discussion /
implications of key findings
– Answer your research questions
– Compare results to published work
– Discussion of limitations,
shortcomings, significance
– Identification of follow-up research
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
24
Paper Structure:
References
 Key rules for reference list
– List all cited references
– Do not list non-cited references
– Cite all used references
– Do not cite references you have
not read
– Make sure the most relevant
references are in the list
– Adhere to publisher’s style
guide
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
References

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
25
Paper Structure:
Additional bits
 Authors + affiliations
– Who is on the author list?
– In what order?
 Acknowledgments
– Funding source(s), Study participants, Helpers, …
 Keywords
– Free-text and/or from taxonomy
 Classification
– ACM classification
 Appendix
– Detailed tables, source codes, proofs, …
– Author bios
– …

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
26
Task: Mini Conference
 Choose one of your recent submissions (where you
wrote the abstract!)
– If not available take your summer school submission, your
current state of the thesis, or any other piece of research
you’re involved in
 Rework your submission into a one-paragraph abstract of
max. 300 words
 Carefully choose a title
 Submit by tomorrow (Wednesday) night at
http://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=jtelpw2014
 Review your assigned abstracts by Thursday night
 Check out the received reviews until the Friday session
Task description also available at http://is.gd/jtel2014conf

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
27
Mini Conference – Results
Best Overall Scores
1. Antonio Balderas: A domain-specific language to
objectively assess generic competences [3.3 / 4]
2. Sandra Buron: A multitouch based learning environment
with a 3D paediatric patient. Does it work? [3.1 / 4]
3. Florian Heberle: Advancement of MOOCs with Learning
Pathways [2.8 / 4]

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
28
Nowadays, the competences assessment is a topic of growing importance in
terms of learning experiences. Unfortunately, assessing certain competences is a
subjective task, being problematic for both the evaluators and the evaluated.
Moreover, when the learning process is computer-supported and the number of
students increases, traditional assessment procedures suffer from scalability
problems. In this paper we introduce a system that supports grading learning
competences according to students' performance in an online course. We
automatically extract different objective indicators about students' work in a
Learning Management System (LMS). Evaluators can use an assessment-
specific query language to express a number of required indicators. Such
indicators are automatically extracted from the activity logs generated by the
LMS. The system has been applied in different courses and the results are
promising. Using these indicators, students can be assessed in their performance
in several generic competences.
Mini Conference – Best Abstract
A. Balderas (2014). JTEL Paper Writing Workshop 2014 © A. Balderas
informative informative informative unspecific informative?

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
29
Mini Conference – Other Top Scores
 Best Title
Nabeela Altrabsheh: The Effect of Ngrams and
Preprocessing in Analysing Students Feedback [4.33 / 5]
 Best Structure
Antonio Balderas: A domain-specific language to
objectively assess generic competences [4.67 / 5]
 Best Readability
Florian Heberle: Advancement of MOOCs with Learning
Pathways [5 / 5]

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
30
Publication Strategy for TEL –
Publication Outlets
 Depends on the primary scientific discipline of your thesis
 Journals
– High reputation; completed studies; significant original contribution;
lengthy process; no interaction with key people; detailed reviews
– Typical types: long, short, survey
 Conferences
– Reputation depends on discipline; original contributions; often smaller
delta or WIP acceptable; interaction with key people; review quality
depends on conference
– Typical types: long, short, poster, demo
 Workshops
– Focused topic; work in progress, ideas, positions etc. acceptable;
interaction with key people; Reputation not the key point; review quality
depends
– Typical types: short, long, positions
 Doctoral Consortia

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
31
Situation
 TEL is interdisciplinary
 Many different publication venues
 Venues have different subject focus
 Different venue types (journals, conferences,
workshops, exhibits, etc.)
 Different paper types (long, short, demo, poster, …)
 Different stages / significance of available results

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
32
Exercise
 Questions
– Which factors do/should determine your decision where to
publish a piece of (your) TEL research?
– During your PhD process, what is your publication
strategy?
 Task:
– Explore the above questions in a small group [10 mins]
– Pitch your results

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
33
Exercise
 Results
– Formal requirements (national, university-based) should be
first reference (e.g. you need to publish in indexed journals)
– There are indexes – check the impact factor
– Maximum exposure, use social network (e.g. linkedin),
participate in competitions (e.g. thesis competitions,
internatoinal)
– Interdisciplinary > macro: CS / TEL; micro: not all conference
expect the same stuff, depends on the journal/conf focus
– Funding: is there enough travel money for conference travels
– At the beginning need to find your community and key
conferences (connect with other researchers in the field) –
criteria e.g. acceptance rate, reputation

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
34
Venue (Pre-)Selection
 Pre-selection
– Go to scientific indexes and look for similar work  where
was it published?
– Identify the key people in your field  where do they publish?
– Subscribe to CFP mailing lists and portals  what’s up?
– Follow research blogs, e.g.
http://beamtenherrschaft.blogspot.com 
 Selection depends on
– Formal criteria in your institution?
– Significance / originality of the contribution?
– Affordable risk of rejection?
– Need to engage with community?

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
35
Publication venue decision
 Check distribution / subscription of the venue
 Check indexing of the venue
 Check citations to the venue
 Check list of relevant topics of the venue
 Consider closed access vs open access vs delayed open
access
 Formal requirements: length, deadline, funding, etc.
 Tools:
– AERCS Venue Comparison for DBLP: http://is.gd/seriescomp
– Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
36
Some Prominent Venues
See http://www.slideshare.net/mikederntl/the-european-technology-enhanced-learning-lanscape
Artificial
Intelligence
Web /
Hypermedia
HCI

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
37
Some Prominent Venues
Conferences
 EC-TEL
 ICALT
 ICWL
 ITS, AIED
 ICCE
 CSCL
 LAK, EDM
 CATE
 T4E
 WMTE
 DIGITEL
 …
Journals
 Educ. Tech. & Soc. (ETS)
 IEEE Trans. Learn. Tech. (TLT)
 Comput. & Educ. (C&E)
 Int. J. TEL (IJTEL)
 Res. Pract. TEL (RPTEL)
 Int. J. Emerg. Tech. Learn. (IJET)
 Int. J. Dist. Educ. Tech. (IJDET)
 Int. J. Know. Learn. (IJKL)
 Brit./Austr. J. Educ. Tech. (B/AJET)
 Int. J. Artifi. Intel. in Edu. (AIEDU)
 J. Comp. Ass. Learn. (JCAL)
 Int. J. CSCL (IJCSCL)
…
There are also several institutional lists of “acceptable” journals, e.g. at Open University of
the Netherlands: http://celstec.org/content/advanced-learning-technologies-journal-list
Make sure you know the preferred journals of your department!

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
38
The Landmarks in Your Thesis Field
 Hypothesis: If you can’t name the three most important
– Authors and their specific areas of interest,
– Journals, Conferences,
– Challenges,
– Papers that lay or have laid the path,
– Adjacent fields / communities
in your thesis field, then your PhD is doomed.
 Task
– Group around similar PhD subjects (max 5 per group)
– Discuss and shortlist the above items [8 mins]
– Pitch your results

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
39
Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid
Brainstorm!

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
40
Some Mistakes to Absolutely Avoid
 Results
– Not asking PhD advisor *before* submitting
– Keeping it as a secret
– Conten things:
– Not respect the “rules” of the conference (scope, formatting)
– Inventing a new structure (form)
– Neglect research language (it’s not a conversation);
– (Self) plagiarism
– Use one paper for different conferences without customization
– Simple typos and grammar errors -> check the language
– Forget or don’t care to cite related work, particularly
– if the related work is by a potential reviewer
– if it is considered a seminal piece in the field
– Resubmit a rejected paper without
– adapting to the new venue’s template
– considering comments in rejection letter

Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
41
References
[BCWi95] Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M.: The Craft of Research. Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)
[CHI98] CHI'98 Conference Webpage: Types of papers.
http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi98/call/papers.html#types (1998)
[Dern14] Derntl, M.: Basics of research paper writing and publishing. Unpublished
manuscript, http://is.gd/paperwriting (2011)
[ElseXX] How to write a world-class methodology paper.
http://www.paperpub.com.cn/admin/upload/file/200893103922625.pdf
[JaNi11] Jamali, H., Nikzad, M: Article title type and its relation with the number of
downloads and citation. Scientometrics (2011) 88:653–661
[Ocon05] O'Connor, M.: Writing Successfully in Science. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)
[PEBK02] Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., Keena, V.: Scientfic Writing - Easy when you know
how. BMJ Books, London (2002)
[Stoc00] Stock, W.G.: Was ist eine Publikation? Zum Problem der Einheitenbildung in der
Wissenschaftsforschung. In Fuchs-Kittowski, K., Laitko, H., Parthey, H., Umst•atter, W.,
eds.: Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 1998. Verlag f•ur Wissenschaftsforschung, Berlin
(2000) 239-282
[Swal93] Swales, J.M.: Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1993)

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)

Similar to Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop) (20)

More from Michael Derntl

More from Michael Derntl (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Basics of Paper Writing and Publishing in TEL (JTEL 2014 Workshop)