<p>Illustrations.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/p4PE5.png" alt="An illustration"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T20:23:21.087Z
(Had to add a figure to pad the length of the post. Unfortunately, with conference papers, it is usually the other way around.)
Jukka Suomela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T19:58:41.943Z
2011-05-29T19:58:41.943Z
Jukka Suomela
<p>Have better things to write about.  Write about them better.</p>

<p>Stephen King's advice for writers is surprisingly relevant: 
<a href="http://lookingforlola.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/stephen-kings-advice-for-writers/" rel="nofollow">http://lookingforlola.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/stephen-kings-advice-for-writers/</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T19:37:12.387Z
And there's the T-shirt banner !
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T19:35:13.420Z
2011-05-29T19:53:38.357Z
2011-05-29T19:53:38.357Z
Jeffε
<ol>
<li>Improving the writing always helps.</li>
<li>Better, more intuitive examples.   Are the ones you first thought of the best ones?</li>
<li>Adding/improving empirical
validation, including an
implementation with performance
evaluation or user studies, if
applicable. On the other hand, if the paper is empirical in nature, strengthening the
 theory will improve the story. (Maybe this isn't so relevant for TCS papers.)</li>
<li>Ensure that your notation is consistent, both internally and with the "standards" of the community. </li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:34:19.740Z
+1 for examples and 
+1 for consistent notations
It always is a pain to have the same symbol used for two distinct meanings in the same paper (e.g. permutation $\sigma$ and alphabet size $\sigma$ later), or to have two symbols introduced for the same concept (e.g. one in previous work and one in real work), when one has only a limited, too short, time to spend on a paper.
J.y B.y
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T19:11:48.930Z
2011-05-30T12:21:32.963Z
2011-05-30T12:21:32.963Z
Dave Clarke
<p><em>Concerning technical writing</em>: </p>

<p>Check spell your paper, review your notations (even though an index of notation cannot be included in a conference submission in general, doing it early helps for later, longer versions, and for the clarity of the early versions), have someone else than those involved in the writing  to read it and check it is understandable.</p>

<p><em>Concerning content</em>: Justify <em>all</em> your choices. </p>

<p>When you have several related results, find what they have in common, describe it as a question, and explore alternative answers to this questions that you did not consider before, eventually adding new (minor?) results or justification for discarding alternate answer.</p>

<p>When you have a single result, a single answer to one specific problem, describe what are the other possible answers to this problem, in the literature or based on futuristic results.</p>

<p>Do not limit your paper to "I did this, and look, it works!". Explain why it works and why or how other choices would work worse or would not work.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-03T20:26:24.273Z
As for getting someone else to read your paper: _always_ do this. Once they're done, _never_ ask them if the paper was understandable: no one will admit to not grasping your paper. Rather, ask them to recount the major points of the paper in some detail.
funkstar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T14:47:04.013Z
2011-05-30T14:47:04.013Z
J.y B.y
<p>This is sort of an unserious answer in that it's not what I consciously do most of the time, but:</p>

<p>Think about what the next paper after yours might be — not the next paper that takes some small follow-on problem from your paper and solves that too, but the next paper that takes it to another level, finds tight upper and lower bounds, shows that it's an instance of a more general phenomenon, and generally makes your paper obsolete. Then write about the results in that paper instead of the ones you already have.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T15:59:12.573Z
2011-05-29T15:59:12.573Z
David Eppstein
<p>After reading <a href="https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/how-do-you-decide-when-you-have-enough-research-results-to-write-a-paper-and-to-w">this question</a> and David's answer I thought a more general question asking for tips would be useful. So</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>how can authors make (and write) a paper stronger?</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T09:10:42.653Z
And what you like to see in a paper that you are given to review as a PC member? How can an author make your work easier and more enjoyable? ...
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T09:20:53.733Z
stronger is a loaded term. I can make a paper stronger by piling on the results. that won't necessarily make it easier to read, or even a better piece of research.
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T09:33:28.603Z
@Suresh, I guess there are several different attributes and there are sometimes trade-offs between them, but I think any tip that would improve one of these attributes would be a good tip, but general tips about combining them are also welcome. Maybe I should use the "better" in place of "stronger"?
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T13:54:10.533Z
This question seems hopelessly vague to me. I think you should at least specify what is *given* and what are the *variables* here, even if you cannot specify what is the objective function? (For instance, have you got a certain fixed set of results that you want to publish at a certain conference?)
Jukka Suomela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-29T19:13:03.643Z
For general paper quality, it might be useful to have a look at Alan Jay Smith's paper, “The Task of the Referee”: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/reviewing-smith.pdf
Magnus Lie Hetland
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T12:48:22.037Z
I agree to Jukka.  This is a question for the sake of asking a question.
Tsuyoshi Ito
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T22:55:41.080Z
@Jukka, I don't agree, it might be general but I don't think it is vague. It is not a formal question where I can specify the variables. I could say something similar about the conference question, what are the given and variables in that question?
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T22:58:39.207Z
@Tsuyoshi, it is not, it is not difficult to make up question if I was posting for the sake of asking a question if I wanted to. I have explained why I have asked the question and I sincerely think the tips can be useful for me and also for others. (I was first going to ask the OP of the previous question to make the question more general but thought that posting a separate question might be better.) Are you suggesting that I am not honest about the motivation?
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T23:01:23.793Z
Is the reason “I thought a more general question asking for tips would be useful”?  Your question just does not sound like you want an answer.  It sounds like you just want the question and answers to be present on this website.
Tsuyoshi Ito
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-30T23:08:26.963Z
@Tsuyoshi, why would I like to have a question and answers on the site if I don't care about them myself? I read David's answer and found the last part of it useful so I asked for similar tips. But if it was your problem with the question and I was not clear let me state it explicitly: I am interested in the answers.
Kaveh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-31T00:27:01.880Z
“why would I like to have a question and answers on the site if I don't care about them myself?”  I have seen many people ask questions which they do not really care about.  I do not know why they do that.
Tsuyoshi Ito
<soft-question><advice-request><research-practice>
How to make a paper stronger?
Kaveh
# How to make a paper stronger?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-05-29)

After reading [this question](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/6770/how-do-you-decide-when-you-have-enough-research-results-to-write-a-paper-and-to-w) and David's answer I thought a more general question asking for tips would be useful. So

> how can authors make (and write) a paper stronger?

**Tags:** soft-question, advice-request, research-practice

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: And what you like to see in a paper that you are given to review as a PC member? How can an author make your work easier and more enjoyable? ...  
> **username_1**: stronger is a loaded term. I can make a paper stronger by piling on the results. that won't necessarily make it easier to read, or even a better piece of research.  
> **username_0**: @Suresh, I guess there are several different attributes and there are sometimes trade-offs between them, but I think any tip that would improve one of these attributes would be a good tip, but general tips about combining them are also welcome. Maybe I should use the "better" in place of "stronger"?  
> **username_2**: This question seems hopelessly vague to me. I think you should at least specify what is *given* and what are the *variables* here, even if you cannot specify what is the objective function? (For instance, have you got a certain fixed set of results that you want to publish at a certain conference?)  
> **username_3**: For general paper quality, it might be useful to have a look at Alan Jay Smith's paper, “The Task of the Referee”: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/reviewing-smith.pdf  
> **username_4**: I agree to Jukka.  This is a question for the sake of asking a question.  
> **username_0**: @Jukka, I don't agree, it might be general but I don't think it is vague. It is not a formal question where I can specify the variables. I could say something similar about the conference question, what are the given and variables in that question?  
> **username_0**: @Tsuyoshi, it is not, it is not difficult to make up question if I was posting for the sake of asking a question if I wanted to. I have explained why I have asked the question and I sincerely think the tips can be useful for me and also for others. (I was first going to ask the OP of the previous question to make the question more general but thought that posting a separate question might be better.) Are you suggesting that I am not honest about the motivation?  
> **username_4**: Is the reason “I thought a more general question asking for tips would be useful”?  Your question just does not sound like you want an answer.  It sounds like you just want the question and answers to be present on this website.  
> **username_0**: @Tsuyoshi, why would I like to have a question and answers on the site if I don't care about them myself? I read David's answer and found the last part of it useful so I asked for similar tips. But if it was your problem with the question and I was not clear let me state it explicitly: I am interested in the answers.  
> **username_4**: “why would I like to have a question and answers on the site if I don't care about them myself?”  I have seen many people ask questions which they do not really care about.  I do not know why they do that.  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2011-05-29. Score: 18 | Accepted answer

This is sort of an unserious answer in that it's not what I consciously do most of the time, but:

Think about what the next paper after yours might be — not the next paper that takes some small follow-on problem from your paper and solves that too, but the next paper that takes it to another level, finds tight upper and lower bounds, shows that it's an instance of a more general phenomenon, and generally makes your paper obsolete. Then write about the results in that paper instead of the ones you already have.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2011-05-29. Score: 14

Illustrations.

![An illustration](https://i.sstatic.net/p4PE5.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: (Had to add a figure to pad the length of the post. Unfortunately, with conference papers, it is usually the other way around.)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2011-05-29. Score: 10

Have better things to write about. Write about them better.

Stephen King's advice for writers is surprisingly relevant:
<http://lookingforlola.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/stephen-kings-advice-for-writers/>

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: And there's the T-shirt banner !  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2011-05-29. Score: 5

1. Improving the writing always helps.
2. Better, more intuitive examples. Are the ones you first thought of the best ones?
3. Adding/improving empirical
   validation, including an
   implementation with performance
   evaluation or user studies, if
   applicable. On the other hand, if the paper is empirical in nature, strengthening the
   theory will improve the story. (Maybe this isn't so relevant for TCS papers.)
4. Ensure that your notation is consistent, both internally and with the "standards" of the community.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: +1 for examples and  +1 for consistent notations It always is a pain to have the same symbol used for two distinct meanings in the same paper (e.g. permutation $\sigma$ and alphabet size $\sigma$ later), or to have two symbols introduced for the same concept (e.g. one in previous work and one in real work), when one has only a limited, too short, time to spend on a paper.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2011-05-30. Score: 2

*Concerning technical writing*:

Check spell your paper, review your notations (even though an index of notation cannot be included in a conference submission in general, doing it early helps for later, longer versions, and for the clarity of the early versions), have someone else than those involved in the writing to read it and check it is understandable.

*Concerning content*: Justify *all* your choices.

When you have several related results, find what they have in common, describe it as a question, and explore alternative answers to this questions that you did not consider before, eventually adding new (minor?) results or justification for discarding alternate answer.

When you have a single result, a single answer to one specific problem, describe what are the other possible answers to this problem, in the literature or based on futuristic results.

Do not limit your paper to "I did this, and look, it works!". Explain why it works and why or how other choices would work worse or would not work.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: As for getting someone else to read your paper: _always_ do this. Once they're done, _never_ ask them if the paper was understandable: no one will admit to not grasping your paper. Rather, ask them to recount the major points of the paper in some detail.  

---

