Specific claims proto-pattern

The program committee wants to know what is novel or exciting, and why. What, specifically, is the contribution? What is the increment over earlier work by the same authors? by other authors? Is this a sufficient increment, given the usual standards of subdiscipline?

Above all, the program committee also wants to know what you actually contributed to our store of knowledge about software engineering. Sure, you wrote this tool and tried it out. But was your contribution the technique that is embedded in the tool, or was it making a tool that’s more effective than other tools that implement the technique, or was it showing that the tool you described in a previous paper actually worked on a practical large-scale problem? It’s better for you as the author to explain than for the program committee to guess. Be clear about your claim …

Awful • I completely and generally solved … (unless you actually did!)
Bad • I worked on galumphing.
(or studied, investigated, sought, explored)
Poor • I worked on improving galumphing.
(or contributed to, participated in, helped with)
Good • I showed the feasibility of composing blitzing with flitzing.

• I significantly improved the accuracy of the standard detector.
(or proved, demonstrated, created, established, found, developed)

Better • I automated the production of flitz tables from specifications.

• With a novel application of the blivet transform, I achieved a 10% increase in speed and a 15% improvement in coverage over the standard method.

Use verbs that show results and achievement, not just effort and activity.

Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.” — Yoda .

Leave a Reply