Literature Review – Part 2

1. Spring 2014 Literature Review – Part 2 Dr. Anjum Naveed Edited by: Dr. Peter Bloodsworth

2. This Week • Announcements • Recap • Gold Mining • The literature review – part 2 • How to review literature? • How to read a paper / book? • Reading groups • Group activity

3. Announcements!! • Attendance is finalised Tomorrow for Feb. • Policy: If you are not present when attendance is taken then you will not be marked as present. • If you are late (Once only) then I will mark your attendance for one lecture. • If it is my mistake then I will correct it. • During the break please see me to finalise this.

4. Recap: Build a Map for your Domain • Build up a “map” of your research area which identifies: • Influential authors • Key reference papers • Core books • Workshops / Conferences • Specific terminology • Research groups – Mphil/PhD student thesis topics • Journals • Latest news in the field • Funded projects • Timelines: how the field has developed over the years, which papers have had a large impact and where is current research activity focused? • This map will need to be continually refined as you do your research

5. Assignment 1 • Identify up to three areas that interest you and build a map for each. • You may submit one / two detailed maps or three less detailed ones – up to you. • Three pages (inclusive) max in electronic form using LaTeX • Submit using the LMS – E-mails not accepted • Hard copy will not be accepted!! • Deadline for Assignment 1 – Sunday 23rd of March 2014 at midnight, don’t be late! • Late assignments will lose 10% for each 24 hours they are late by. • Anyone found copying will receive automatic Fail grade.

6. Stages of Literature Review • Stage 1 • Objective: Problem identification, find related literature, build map. • Explained in previous lecture – but to be practiced again today • Stage 2 • Objective: Approaches used to solve the research problem or related research problem • Also style of reports considered later in the course • Stage 3 • Objective: If you plan to extend or enhance someone’s research, you need deeper understanding of every little detail of that work

7. Gold Mining 101 

8. Getting a Claim

9. Prospecting

10. Test holes

11. Start Mining the Area

12. Mining: Trommel

13. Mining: Sluicing

14. Gathering and Refining

15. Types of Paper and How to Read Them:Practical Examples Second stage of Literature Review

16. Poster Paper • Very short paper • Typically a couple of pages • Very little detail • Focused on the idea • Few if any results • Limited References • For early ideas

17. Conference/Workshop Paper • Often a medium length paper • Typically 6-12 pages • Fairly detailed • Focused on the idea and results • 3/5 technical detail 2/5 results • Mature results to back up ideas • Typically 12 – 30 references • For ideas that we have refined and are developing towards a journal paper

18. Journal Paper • Often a longer paper • Typically 12-25 pages or more • Very detailed • Focused on the results and outcomes • 2/5 technical detail 3/5 results • Very mature and comprehensive results back up ideas • Typically 25 – 50 references or more • For ideas that we have refined over several iterations and now want to present to the wider community

19. PhD Thesis • Very long read  • Typically 100-250 pages or more • Extremely detailed • Focused on the complete thesis topic • Solid facts relating single relatively narrow topic • Balance between technical detail and results • Very mature and comprehensive results back up ideas • Typically 50+ references or more • For ideas that we have refined over several iterations during three – five years on average

20. Stage 2 of Literature Review • What was the background to the paper? • Which area is the paper situated in? • What constraints / assumptions were made? • What are the key points of the paper? • What is the main argument? • What contribution does it make? • What did the authors do? • High level technical details • What future work is identified?

21. Stage 2: Relevance & Strength • Why is the paper relevant to your work? • Where does it fit? • You can extend it? • You can follow a similar approach? • Its slightly tangential but not unrelated? • What can you learn from it? • Argument building style • Analysis style • Analysis: Strengths? • What did the paper do well? • Are there any ideas you can take forward? • Stage 3 – For a single paper of this kind, dig deep into every detail • Did any results stand out? • Are there any form of benchmarks that you could also use?

22. Stage 2: Weaknesses • Analysis: Weaknesses? • What didn’t the paper address? • What problems remain? • Are there any drawbacks / limitations to the approach that is described? • Did any negative results stand out? • Has the paper really justified the claims that are made? • Does the paper match what is said in the abstract?

23. Stage 2: Potential Improvements • Analysis: How could you improve the paper technically? • What would make the results stronger? • How could the techniques that are described be improved? • Is there an alternate approach that you think can produce better results? • What benefits would the improvements have? • Is it incremental or significant? • What level is acceptable in the area. • Would any of these improvements also apply to your research? • What would you learn about the domain by making these changes?

24. Stage 2: Presentation • How is the paper presented? – Things to notice • Argument building? • Writing Style? • Presentation and terminology used • Type of Analysis done? • Experimental setup? • Useful figures • Do not copy. Use full reference if you want to use it • In general, How can you adapt your style to benefit from the paper under review?

25. Think of a Courtroom Scene