<p>Simon Peyton Jones has an excellent <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/write-great-research-paper/" rel="noreferrer">web page devoted not only to advice on writing introductions, but whole papers</a>, and there is a <a href="http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1464870" rel="noreferrer">cool video</a> as well. On page 18 of his <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/How-to-write-a-great-research-paper.pdf" rel="noreferrer">slides</a> he says that the purpose of an introduction is to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Describe the problem.</li>
<li>State your contributions.</li>
</ol>
<p>He then goes on for a while to explain what precisely that means in pracrtice. But there is much more to his talk, I highly recommend it.</p>
<p>My personal piece of advice: never ever start your paper by saying <em>&quot;In the recent years the foo technology has become important [1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 21] for saving the world peace, taking photos of kittens, and obtaining academic promotions. But all the people who did foo before us missed a minute point, which we are going to talk about at length in this paper. But first, let us bore you with a review of all the foos out there.&quot;</em> Just get to the point, please.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T06:38:28.187Z
I like everything he has to say. But the typical theory (A) paper puts the related work early rather than late. While I see no problem in putting it late, it does go against the prevailing norms.
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T07:33:45.577Z
But remember that, if you include photos of kittens that were taken using foo technology, nobody will care about how boring your review is and the paper is guaranteed to be accepted. At least, no conference has ever rejected a paper of mine that contained photos of kittens.
David Richerby
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T09:55:28.737Z
Now that you mention it, all papers of mine that included photos of kittens were accepted, too.
Andrej Bauer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T21:14:28.297Z
The WizWoz-style used to explain how (not) to write contributions is a gem.
Marzio De Biasi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T23:49:06.110Z
When I see a new paper, I usually scan it for three things: the problem, the contribution, and the context (which usually includes related work). Without context, the contribution feels like a piece of trivia, making me less likely to proceed to reading the paper.
Jouni Sirén
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-26T06:09:08.660Z
One thing I'd like to emphasize: Put a formal statement of your main theorem(s) in the introduction (or abstract if possible). It's the first thing I look for, so please don't hide it on page 26.
Thomas Steinke
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-26T22:14:58.213Z
@Thomas: that assumes the formal statement can be made intelligible without first introducing any concepts or explaining things. There are many areas in which there is just no way you can do that. A better, more general advice is: in the intro state your contribution clearly, with forward reference to the exact place where that contribution has materialized. So, rather than demanding a formal statement in the introduction, you can have a reference to it instead.
Andrej Bauer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-27T03:10:06.353Z
@AndrejBauer: How about, as a rule of thumb, an expert reader should be able to find and understand your main theorem within 1 minute.

I find many papers are written assuming the reader knows nothing, which is good for such readers. But the author does not cater to expert readers.
Thomas Steinke
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-27T08:18:58.677Z
@Thomas: yes, that's a good point. I often find PhD students want to write for PhD students and so they descend down the path of infinite explanation. I like your rule of thumb. It forces the write to put the contribution, either directly or as a forward reference to a theorem, somewhere close to the beginning of the paper.
Andrej Bauer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2014-04-14T06:18:47.983Z
2020-07-03T20:19:50.783Z
2020-07-03T20:19:50.783Z
Andrej Bauer
<p>Apologies if this is too broad a question for this forum, but I'm interested in specific tactics and tips that researchers (in TCS) use to write the introduction of a research paper.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-13T23:38:52.267Z
Conference or journal ? Boaz Barak's advice for FOCS authors (and Impagliazzo's rule) apply well even to the intro. More generally, you might find my answer on [academia.se] useful: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15276/how-to-write-a-strong-introduction-into-a-research-paper/15278#15278
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-13T23:54:32.827Z
I was looking for answers relating to conference submission. I've read Boaz Barak's advice and it's really helpful. Same goes for the link you posted. I was wondering if there's more tactical advice available on this. Things like write bullet points first and expand later. I know this is can be very personal but I'm just curious :)
Madhav Jha
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T01:10:24.413Z
An alternate possibility might be to ask for examples of introductions that people really like, together with an explanation of why. This avoids the problem of too much subjectivity.
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-14T08:48:18.057Z
Welcome, Madhav!
arnab
<soft-question><advice-request><research-practice><writing>
How to write the introduction of a research paper?
Madhav Jha
# How to write the introduction of a research paper?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-04-13)

Apologies if this is too broad a question for this forum, but I'm interested in specific tactics and tips that researchers (in TCS) use to write the introduction of a research paper.

**Tags:** soft-question, advice-request, research-practice, writing
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Conference or journal ? Boaz Barak's advice for FOCS authors (and Impagliazzo's rule) apply well even to the intro. More generally, you might find my answer on [academia.se] useful: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15276/how-to-write-a-strong-introduction-into-a-research-paper/15278#15278  
> **username_0**: I was looking for answers relating to conference submission. I've read Boaz Barak's advice and it's really helpful. Same goes for the link you posted. I was wondering if there's more tactical advice available on this. Things like write bullet points first and expand later. I know this is can be very personal but I'm just curious :)  
> **username_1**: An alternate possibility might be to ask for examples of introductions that people really like, together with an explanation of why. This avoids the problem of too much subjectivity.  
> **username_2**: Welcome, Madhav!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-04-14. Score: 19

Simon Peyton Jones has an excellent [web page devoted not only to advice on writing introductions, but whole papers](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/write-great-research-paper/), and there is a [cool video](http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1464870) as well. On page 18 of his [slides](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/How-to-write-a-great-research-paper.pdf) he says that the purpose of an introduction is to:

1. Describe the problem.
2. State your contributions.

He then goes on for a while to explain what precisely that means in pracrtice. But there is much more to his talk, I highly recommend it.

My personal piece of advice: never ever start your paper by saying *"In the recent years the foo technology has become important [1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 21] for saving the world peace, taking photos of kittens, and obtaining academic promotions. But all the people who did foo before us missed a minute point, which we are going to talk about at length in this paper. But first, let us bore you with a review of all the foos out there."* Just get to the point, please.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I like everything he has to say. But the typical theory (A) paper puts the related work early rather than late. While I see no problem in putting it late, it does go against the prevailing norms.  
> **username_4**: But remember that, if you include photos of kittens that were taken using foo technology, nobody will care about how boring your review is and the paper is guaranteed to be accepted. At least, no conference has ever rejected a paper of mine that contained photos of kittens.  
> **username_3**: Now that you mention it, all papers of mine that included photos of kittens were accepted, too.  
> **username_5**: The WizWoz-style used to explain how (not) to write contributions is a gem.  
> **username_6**: When I see a new paper, I usually scan it for three things: the problem, the contribution, and the context (which usually includes related work). Without context, the contribution feels like a piece of trivia, making me less likely to proceed to reading the paper.  
> **username_7**: One thing I'd like to emphasize: Put a formal statement of your main theorem(s) in the introduction (or abstract if possible). It's the first thing I look for, so please don't hide it on page 26.  
> **username_3**: @Thomas: that assumes the formal statement can be made intelligible without first introducing any concepts or explaining things. There are many areas in which there is just no way you can do that. A better, more general advice is: in the intro state your contribution clearly, with forward reference to the exact place where that contribution has materialized. So, rather than demanding a formal statement in the introduction, you can have a reference to it instead.  
> **username_7**: @AndrejBauer: How about, as a rule of thumb, an expert reader should be able to find and understand your main theorem within 1 minute.  I find many papers are written assuming the reader knows nothing, which is good for such readers. But the author does not cater to expert readers.  
> **username_3**: @Thomas: yes, that's a good point. I often find PhD students want to write for PhD students and so they descend down the path of infinite explanation. I like your rule of thumb. It forces the write to put the contribution, either directly or as a forward reference to a theorem, somewhere close to the beginning of the paper.  

---

