You should ask yourself how would you feel if somebody developed your work and integrated it into theirs without being clear about your contribution. Results can be organised as lemmas technical results you need later but not of self-contained interest, propositions moderately interesting new results, and theorem main new results. Each of these should be an irreducible 'gem': You can follow these with some corollaries, which are more like tasty desserts.
The proof of a theorems or proposition should be substantial and not a cheap logical trick in which it's immediate from some other work that's a corollary or a remark. Ideally, the proof of the main theorem should use as many as possible of the lemmas and propositions already proven, to show that they were all needed and worthwhile. Statements of theorems etc should be as self-contained as possible.
Under this constraint, the shorter ones are the most powerful, i. The statement itself should be boiled down to the part that is really new and important. The end of the section is a good place to put any informal remarks. Anything you want to claim, assert or conjecture but which you haven't thought through formally to make a theorem, can appear here. Things are easily forgiven at the ends of sections if the section already had good results in it.
These remarks could also lead onto the next section. But don't overdo that since the beginning of the next section is going to reintroduce itself anyway.
Bad writing often goes hand-in-hand with murky thinking, so by writing clearly you are forced to clarify your understanding also. Thinking about layout, ordering of sentences and even simple things like punctuation are very important and can have a surprisingly good effect on your own understanding of the material. To some extent, the best rule of good writing is to write and write. Eventually it gets better.
In the meantime, some things to watch out for are as follows. Sentences should logically lead on from one to the next as smoothly as walking. English has a preference for short sentences with a great deal of structure connecting across sentences.
Words or ideas used a few sentences back will still be in the reader's mind, so there should not be any jarring change of topic. If you want to change the topic, no problem, but warn the reader by key phrases like 'on the other hand', 'meanwhile', 'in contrast to this', 'moreover' etc. A shift of general topic is signalled by a new paragraph. Again, previous paragraphs are still active in the readers mind so any very big shift should be excused by a suitable explanation like 'Now we come to The signals could refer back to the introduction and outline, or might indicate a surprise for the reader.
A conceptual sandwich is where you begin with one idea, move on to another, and then move back to the first one. This can happen at all scales: It indicates poor organisation and should be avoided.
Can you move the middle of the sandwich to the top or the bottom, thereby pooling together the two related topic? The more general topic should usually come first, with the more specific sub-topic following, unless you deliberately want to be pedagogical. The idea of avoiding a sandwich is that when you bring up a topic, say all that you will want to say about it in the near future, before moving on to further questions arising from it.
Chopping and changing uses up the reader's energy. A similar phenomenon can occur with a sentence too. A common problem is that the second half of the sentence came as an afterthought but more properly belongs as the first half of the sentence. So always ask yourself if you should reverse the order of a sentence. Every assertion should have a clear validation status. By this I mean that it should be clear to the reader from context or from signals in the syntax exactly how the reader is supposed to know that the assertion is correct.
Some languages have long sentences with lots of commas, but English does not have the grammar to support this. Rather, sentences should be short and sharp.
Russians say that English people sound like barking dogs. A common fear is to avoid losing the context by finishing the sentence, leading the author to put a comma and run on with another one. There is no need to be afraid of that because words will still remain active for a short while after the period.
A good rule is to look for sentences longer than one or two lines and see if ', which' or ', where' etc can be replaced by fresh sentences. Beware of pronouns like 'this' and 'it'. Is it absolutely clear and unambiguous what they refer back to? You may know what you had in mind but will the reader? And don't use 'this' for 'the present'. Beware of 'never' and 'only'. These are strong assertions and unless you've really proven them it's best to water them down with 'appears to be' or 'it seems'.
However, don't use 'probably'. The first thing you need to do is to come up with no more than three sentences that express your thesis. Your committee must agree that your statements form a valid thesis statement. You too must be happy with the statement -- it should be what you will tell anyone if they ask you what your thesis is few people will want to hear an hour presentation as a response.
Once you have a statement of thesis, you can begin to develop the dissertation. The abstract, for instance, should be a one-page description of your thesis and how you present the proof of it. The abstract should summarize the results of the thesis and should stress the contributions to science made thereby.
Perhaps the best way to understand how an abstract should look would be to examine the abstracts of several dozen dissertations that have already been accepted. Our university library has a collection of them.
This is a good approach to see how an entire dissertation is structured and presented. MIT press has published the ACM doctoral dissertation award series for over a decade, so you may find some of those to be good examples to read -- they should be in any large technical library.
The dissertation itself should be structured into 4 to 6 chapters. The following is one commonly-used structure:. Here, you should clearly state the thesis and its importance. This is also where you give definitions of terms and other concepts used elsewhere.
There is no need to write 80 pages of background on your topic here. Instead, you can cover almost everything by saying: The progress of science is that we learn and use the work of others with appropriate credit. Assume you have a technically literate readership familiar with or able to find common references. Do not reference popular literature or WWW sites if you can help it this is a matter of style more than anything else -- you want to reference articles in refereed conferences and journals, if possible, or in other theses.
Also in the introduction, you want to survey any related work that attempted something similar to your own, or that has a significant supporting role in your research. This should refer only to published references. You cite the work in the references, not the researchers themselves. Every factual statement you make must have a specific citation tied to it in this chapter, or else it must be common knowledge don't rely on this too much.
Your results are to be of lasting value. Further, we considered the possibility of detector dogs, and we found that, provided sufficient use, canine detection would be a cost-effective option.
Dbytes 14 September Dbytes. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Home About Me Contact Publications.
Spatial control of invasive species in conservation landscapes In this paper, we introduced the population dynamic model that I used for most of my thesis. Placing invasive species management in a spatiotemporal context In this paper, we considered the spatial problem, along with the associated problem of removing an invasive species from an island.
Modelling tropical fire ant Solenopsis geminata dynamics and detection to inform an eradication project In this paper, we focused on fire ant control at Ashmore Reef in the Timor Sea. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. One Response to PhD papers Pingback: Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email required Address never made public.
These are some hints for starting PhD students on how to write papers. It is assumed of course that you have some results worth presenting (as no amount of good writing can cover up a lack of content).
Our writing service hires dissertation experts with advanced degrees to create our custom PhD level papers. Pay now at our web-site and get PhD thesis help immediately!
PhD Paper Writing Service is our special focus for scholars who feel to stand out in their research field. We never be a goat who blindly follows other goat. Aug 17, · My final PhD paper is finally out! So, I think this is the perfect time to post an overview of what I did & lessons learnt. While all of the papers focus on invasive species control, they vary from being quite theoretical to applied. Chapter 1: Spatial control .
How I wrote a PhD thesis in 3 months. August 13, February 28, by James Hayton. Thank you for the encouraging piece. I am in the fourth year of my PhD. I have already published few papers got the data, I should say very positive data, but even after all this last couple of months I had been killing time sitting in front of my PC. What is a Ph.D. Dissertation? Often, such additional results are published in a separate paper. Chapter VI. Conclusions and Future work. This is where you discuss what you found from your work, incidental ideas and results that were not central to your thesis but of value nonetheless, (if you did not have them in Chapter V) and other results.