Difference between revisions of "Kā rakstīt labas publikācijas"
(→Par publikāciju lasīšanu un recenzēšanu) |
(→Par publikāciju lasīšanu un recenzēšanu) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* [http://icer.hosting.acm.org/general-info/tips-for-authors-and-reviewers/ Kā recenzēt/rakstīt publikāciju] |
* [http://icer.hosting.acm.org/general-info/tips-for-authors-and-reviewers/ Kā recenzēt/rakstīt publikāciju] |
||
=== Daži ieteikumi par žurnāla publikācijas recenzēšanu === |
|||
Specific questions to consider in your evaluation include: |
|||
# Does the manuscript present a specific, easily identifiable advance in knowledge? Is it applicable and useful to the profession? |
|||
# Has the information already been published elsewhere, either wholly or in part? |
|||
# Is the subject matter within the scope of the journal? Or is it better suited to another journal? |
|||
# Do the title and abstract accurately describe the contents? Does the abstract include all of the main findings of the study? |
|||
# Is the review of literature limited to that framing the new knowledge? Are all references pertinent and complete? |
|||
# Is the methodology sufficiently well explained that someone else knowledgeable about the field could repeat the study? |
|||
# Is each figure and table necessary to the understanding of the conclusions? Can any be omitted without compromising the paper's message? |
|||
# Are the results soundly interpreted and related to existing knowledge on the topic? |
|||
# Are the conclusions sound and justified? Do they follow logically from data presented? |
|||
# Do all elements of the manuscript relate logically to the study's statement of purpose? |
|||
# Can the paper be shortened without compromising its message? |
|||
You may be required to make a manuscript evaluation on a scale of 1 - 5, as follows: |
|||
* 1 Poor |
|||
* 2 Below average paper/not worthy of an award |
|||
* 3 Average paper; possibly, but not likely, of award caliber |
|||
* 4 Above average/possible award quality |
|||
* 5 Exceptional/award quality |
|||
Latest revision as of 22:20, 5 January 2017
Laba publikacija ir ne tikai laba (petniecības) darba un rezultātu atspoguļojums, bet arī laba to komunikācija lasītājiem.
Contents
Par publikāciju saturu un struktūru
- Daudz kas sasaucās ar maniem ieteikumiem Maģistra darba rakstīšanā
- Par labu publikācijas struktūru (lasiet līdz "Criteria for Selection")
Par prezentāciju un valodu
- How to get your papers accepted - Matt Welsh, Harvarda Universitātes profesors raksta savā blogā par skatu uz publikācijām no recenzenta viedokļa.
- 10 pieces of advice I wish my PhD advisor had given me - Jim Kurose prezentacija studentiem CoNext konferencē.
- Ļoti ieteicamas grāmatas par rakstīšanu angļu valodā:
- The Elements of Style - Google books, Wikipedia, Pilns teksts šeit un šeit.
- Words Fail Me (What everyone who writes should know about writing)- Patricia T. O'Conner
- Woe is I (The grammarphobe's guiode to better English in plain English) - Patricia T. O'Conner
Par publikāciju lasīšanu un recenzēšanu
- How to Read a Paper - S. Keshav.
- How to Read a Research Paper - Michael Mitzenmacher.
- Writing Reviews for Systems Conferences - Timothy Roscoe.
- How to Read an Engineering Research Paper - William Griswold.
- How to Read a Research Paper - Spencer Rugaber.
Daži ieteikumi par žurnāla publikācijas recenzēšanu
Specific questions to consider in your evaluation include:
- Does the manuscript present a specific, easily identifiable advance in knowledge? Is it applicable and useful to the profession?
- Has the information already been published elsewhere, either wholly or in part?
- Is the subject matter within the scope of the journal? Or is it better suited to another journal?
- Do the title and abstract accurately describe the contents? Does the abstract include all of the main findings of the study?
- Is the review of literature limited to that framing the new knowledge? Are all references pertinent and complete?
- Is the methodology sufficiently well explained that someone else knowledgeable about the field could repeat the study?
- Is each figure and table necessary to the understanding of the conclusions? Can any be omitted without compromising the paper's message?
- Are the results soundly interpreted and related to existing knowledge on the topic?
- Are the conclusions sound and justified? Do they follow logically from data presented?
- Do all elements of the manuscript relate logically to the study's statement of purpose?
- Can the paper be shortened without compromising its message?
You may be required to make a manuscript evaluation on a scale of 1 - 5, as follows:
- 1 Poor
- 2 Below average paper/not worthy of an award
- 3 Average paper; possibly, but not likely, of award caliber
- 4 Above average/possible award quality
- 5 Exceptional/award quality
