Writing Research Papers for Publication

1. Writing Research Papers for Publication Y H Song Brunel University, UK

2. Outline of Presentation • General Guidelines • Authors’ Guide • Paper Review • Research Papers • Paper Structures • Revising manuscripts

3. General Guidelines • Select an appropriate journal to report your work • Read the author’s guide of your chosen journal • Read a sample paper from the journal • Writing order: • Write the main body of the paper • Write the conclusions • Write the introduction • Write the abstract • Give your paper a title • Give to someone to check for you • Do not use “ I propose …” or “We have done” • Passive and current tense

4. Authors’ Guide (the IEE) • Scientific merit: is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate and correct? • Clarity: are ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the concepts understandable? Is the discussion written in a way that is easy to read and understand? • Referencing: has reference been made to the most recent and most appropriate work? Is the recent work set in the context of the previous work? Is there a balance of references from archival materials (journals and conferences)? • Balance: is the overall and structure of the paper is good? Should the authors concentrate more on a specific area of the paper, or are there sections which are unnecessary and which could be reduced or eliminated?

5. Authors’ Guide (the IEE) • Appropriateness: is the material appropriate to the scope of the journal? English: is the English clear and well-written? Poorly written English may obscure the scientific merit of your paper. • Originality: is the work relevant and novel? Does the work contain significant additional material to that already published? • Motivation: does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous literature or novelty to motivate publication. • Repetition: we ask our referees to alert us to repeated or duplicated material that may already have been published. Follow-up papers must contain significant additional new material to that already reported.

6. Authors’ Guide (the IEE) • Length: is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length? Typically 3000-4000 words and not more than 10-12 illustrations. • Title: is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article? • Abstract: does it contain essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service? • Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: are they clear and essential? Are all figures and tables labelled and referred to in the text? • Screenshots: can these be clearly read? If the lettering is too small, ensure that each picture is enlarged so that everything can be read.

7. Authors’ Guide (the IEE) • Graphs and tables: are these clear and necessary? Where several graphs are on one axes, are they clearly distinguishable? Explanations should be in the caption, or in the immediately surrounding text. • Mathematics: is the mathematics necessary? Does it use commonly understood symbols? Are equations numbered if referred to in the text? • Related work: a separate section on related work I typically included. It can be as part of the introduction and motivation at the beginning. • Conclusion: does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarising what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?

8. Paper Review (1): the IEEE • Recommendation • Accept without changes • Revise and resubmit • Reject – do not resubmit • Technical Content • High • Average • Low • Interest for this Transactions • High • Average • Low

9. Paper Review (1): the IEEE • Innovation Level • Original ideas • Average • Old material • Presentation Quality • Clear, effective • Average • Poor • References to Prior Work • Excellent • Adequate • Insufficient

10. Paper Review (1): the IEEE • Legibility of Figures and Illustrations • Acceptable • Not acceptable • Has This paper Been Published before • Yes • No • Quality of Text • Acceptable as written • Needs editing • Needs a complete rewrite • Comments to the author supporting the recommendation (General comments and specific changes)

11. Paper Review (2): the IEE • Rating for the paper • Outstanding work of great significance • Good and useful advance in the field • Marginal • Not significant • Trivial • Erroneous • Does the paper describe original work • Yes • No • Is the paper more suitable for publication in a different journal • Yes • No

12. Paper Review (2): the IEE • Should the paper be shortened • Yes • No • Is the paper technically sound? • Yes • No • Are the references adequate • Yes • No

13. Paper Review (2): the IEE • Evaluate the technical content of the paper in respect of both theory and application • Theory • Poor, little content; Fair, minor contribution; Moderate; Good, major contribution; Outstanding • Application • Poor, little content; Fair, minor contribution; Moderate; Good, major contribution; Outstanding • Is the paper organised to show clearly what has been done? • Yes • No • Is the use of English clear and unambiguous • Yes • No

14. Paper Review (2): the IEE • Has the author demonstrated the value of the work • Yes • No • Recommendation • Accept • Accept subject to revision • Reject but resubmit after major revision • Reject • Comments to author to give guidance on revision or reasons for rejection

15. Research Paper • A good research paper has • a clear statement of the problem the paper is addressing • the proposed solutions • and the results achieved • clear description of what has been done before on the problem, and what is new

16. Research Paper • A good research paper • Describing the results in sufficient details to establish their validity • Identifying the novel aspects of the results, i.e., what new knowledge is reported and what makes it non-obvious • Identifying the significance of the results: what improvements and impact do they suggest

17. Research Structure (1): Title • Avoid all but the most readily understood abbreviations • Use adjectives that describe the distinctive features of your work • Normally not exceeds 20 words • Author name and affiliation: format (C.C. Wang)

18. Research Structure (1): Title • Dynamic Available Transfer Capability (ATC) Evaluation with Uncertainties

19. Research Structure (2): Abstract • Must not contain references as it may be used without the main paper • Avoid general motivation in the abstract • Highlight not just the problem, but also the principal results. Many people read abstracts and then decide whether to bother with the rest of the paper • Since the abstract will be used by search engines, be sure that terms that identify your work are found there. • Avoid equations and maths • Normally about 150-200 words

20. Research Structure (2): Abstract The paper proposes models and algorithms for Available Transfer Capability (ATC) evaluation by considering dynamic constraints, and discrete uncertainties. Equilibrium equations instead of load flow equations are used to describe the pre-fault and post-fault steady state of power system. Dot Product is employed to assess the rotor angle stability after a disturbance. The formulated optimization problem is solved using the Control Vector Parameterization (CVP) approach. Discrete uncertainties, such as device outages, are dealt with recourse. The IEEE reliability test system is used to illustrate the proposed method.

21. Research Structure (2): Keywords • Keywords or Indexing terms • These keywords should identify the field of your article and its major topics, and they should be specific and standard words. • Many journals use three levels of keywords: general terms (power system stability); subject descriptors (voltage collapse) and specific terms (singular value decomposition)

22. Research Structure (3): Introduction • Introduce the problem: • The statement of the problem should include a clear brief of what it is and why the problem is important (or interesting).

23. Research Structure (3): Introduction Since North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) published the document ‘Available Transfer Capability Definitions and Determination’ in 1996, much attention has been attracted to this subject. ATC is defined as a measure of the transfer capability remaining in the physical transmission network for further commercial activity over and above already committed use [1]. In fact, the concepts, such as transfer capability and transfer limits, have always existed. But in the environment of electricity market, these concepts have been developed to reflect the commercial values. As is announced in the NERC documents, ATC must accurately reflect the physical realities of the transmission network, while not being so complicated that it unduly constraints commerce [1]. Thus the accuracy of ATC value is of great importance. In order to achieve this goal, more and more factors have been considered, and various evaluation schemes have been proposed.

24. Research Structure (3): Introduction • Review related work: • Cite anything relevant from last 2-3 years or so volumes • Number references in the order of their appearances • Use about 15-20 references • Comments both pro and cons of others work • Identify points for improvements

25. Research Structure (3): Introduction • The ATC evaluation first considered only thermal limit [1]. Methods based on sensitivity can be solved without iteration [2,3]. Linear programming methods are also used, with the distribution factors introduced [4,5]. Then voltage limits, especially voltage collapse [6], are taken into account, and the Continuous Power Flow is a typical method for this kind of problem. Recently, the uncertainty factors are modeled as well. Techniques such as Monte Carlo method, and stochastic programming are used to solve the ATC evaluation problem [7-11].

26. Research Structure (3): Introduction But stability limits, one of the three limits restricting transfer capability, is seldom discussed. Since it is difficult to consider dynamic constraints, securities constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF) is used as an alternative solution [12]. The existence of stable equilibrium in post disturbance system is only a necessary condition of system stability [13]. It is also important to ensure that the system can safely make the transition from the pre- to post-disturbance operating point. In this respect, dynamic ATC methods based on second-kick ……

27. Research Structure (3): Introduction • Outline the proposed method and solutions • Outline the rest of the paper

28. Research Structure (3): Introduction Since there are no MOD identification and energy evaluation, the dot-product method is simpler to realize. And it also has an ability to detect multi-swing stability using the real response of the system. Based on the ‘Dot Product’ concept [18] and the stochastic model [11], this paper proposes a dynamic optimization approach to solve dynamic ATC evaluation with discrete uncertainties. Sections III and IV present deterministic model and algorithm for dynamic ATC evaluation. Section V develops the stochastic model and associated algorithm. The results on the IEEE Reliability Test System are given in section VI. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in section VII.

29. Research Structure (4): Main Body • Problem formulation • Proposed approach • Results and analysis • Be sure to explain your procedures, to present your results, and to interpret your results. Summarise your findings in meaningful ways, visualizing important data whenever possible. Discus the significance and limitations of your findings.

30. Research Structure (4): Conclusions • Conclusions: summary and future work • Acknowledgements • References (all the authors’ names, full details of the publications (Vol, No, and page numbers). Do not use et al.

31. Revising Manuscripts • In most cases, referees or the editor will ask you to revise your papers and also explain what you have done to further improve your paper • Mandatory changes: you have to do it. • Optional or suggested: you would better try your best to do it or explain why you have not done it. • Write a cover letter to point out what you have done