Difference between revisions of "Kā rakstīt labas publikācijas"

From DiLab
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: Laba publikacija ir ne tikai laba (petniecības) darba un rezultātu atspoguļojums, bet arī laba to komunikācija lasītājiem. Par publikāciju saturu un struktūru: * Daudz kas sasauc...)
 
(Par publikāciju lasīšanu un recenzēšanu)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Laba publikacija ir ne tikai laba (petniecības) darba un rezultātu atspoguļojums, bet arī laba to komunikācija lasītājiem.
 
Laba publikacija ir ne tikai laba (petniecības) darba un rezultātu atspoguļojums, bet arī laba to komunikācija lasītājiem.
  
Par publikāciju saturu un struktūru:
+
=Par publikāciju saturu un struktūru=
* Daudz kas sasaucās ar maniem ieteikumiem [[Maģistra darba rakstīšanā]]
+
* Daudz kas sasaucās ar maniem ieteikumiem [[Maģistra Darba Struktūra | Maģistra darba rakstīšanā]]
 +
* Par labu [http://www.spe.org/papers/authors/paper_proposal_guidelines.php publikācijas struktūru] (lasiet līdz ''"Criteria for Selection"'')
 +
 
 +
=Par prezentāciju un valodu=
 +
* [http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-get-your-papers-accepted.html How to get your papers accepted] - Matt Welsh, Harvarda Universitātes profesors raksta savā blogā par skatu uz publikācijām no recenzenta viedokļa.
 +
* [http://www-net.cs.umass.edu/kurose/talks/conext_student_keynote_final.pdf 10 pieces of advice I wish my PhD advisor had given me] - Jim Kurose prezentacija studentiem CoNext konferencē.
  
Par prezentāciju un valodu:
 
* [http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-get-your-papers-accepted.html Labs bloga raksts] no Harvarda Universitātes profesora Matt Welsh
 
  
 
* Ļoti ieteicamas grāmatas par rakstīšanu angļu valodā:
 
* Ļoti ieteicamas grāmatas par rakstīšanu angļu valodā:
 +
** The Elements of Style - [http://books.google.lv/books?id=IAy6NCD0Iq0C&dq=Elements+of+Style&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=gC9PS4HKIZTumgODlbSSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false Google books], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style Wikipedia], Pilns teksts [http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html šeit] un [http://www.bartleby.com/141/ 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=
 +
 +
* [http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/paper-reading.pdf How to Read a Paper] - S. Keshav.
 +
* [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~michaelm/postscripts/ReadPaper.pdf How to Read a Research Paper] - Michael Mitzenmacher.
 +
* [http://people.inf.ethz.ch/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf Writing Reviews for Systems Conferences] - Timothy Roscoe.
 +
* [http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/CSE210/howtoread.html How to Read an Engineering Research Paper] - William Griswold.
 +
* [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Spencer.Rugaber/txt/research_paper.txt How to Read a Research Paper] - Spencer Rugaber.
 +
 +
* [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?
  
** Elements of Style - [http://books.google.lv/books?id=IAy6NCD0Iq0C&dq=Elements+of+Style&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=gC9PS4HKIZTumgODlbSSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false Google books], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style Wikipedia], Pilns teksts [http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html šeit] un [http://www.bartleby.com/141/ šeit].
+
You may be required to make a manuscript evaluation on a scale of 1 - 5, as follows:
  
** Words Fail Me
+
* 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.

Par publikāciju saturu un struktūru

Par prezentāciju un valodu


  • 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


Daži ieteikumi par žurnāla publikācijas recenzēšanu

Specific questions to consider in your evaluation include:

  1. Does the manuscript present a specific, easily identifiable advance in knowledge? Is it applicable and useful to the profession?
  2. Has the information already been published elsewhere, either wholly or in part?
  3. Is the subject matter within the scope of the journal? Or is it better suited to another journal?
  4. Do the title and abstract accurately describe the contents? Does the abstract include all of the main findings of the study?
  5. Is the review of literature limited to that framing the new knowledge? Are all references pertinent and complete?
  6. Is the methodology sufficiently well explained that someone else knowledgeable about the field could repeat the study?
  7. Is each figure and table necessary to the understanding of the conclusions? Can any be omitted without compromising the paper's message?
  8. Are the results soundly interpreted and related to existing knowledge on the topic?
  9. Are the conclusions sound and justified? Do they follow logically from data presented?
  10. Do all elements of the manuscript relate logically to the study's statement of purpose?
  11. 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