Firstly some quick notes from meeting with Will, before I move into the feedback I received about my Complexity Theory report:
- With 3-D coordinates, the Z coordinate is usually the vertical axis
- always run things 10 times to be statistically reliable
- when creating new reports, papers, reviews, etc, feel free to put drafts onto the web, and that he will review it ahead of publishing
- everythingclassified.com did work on deep search
- stochastic diffusion search was a predecessor to PSO
Feedback on Complexity Theory report:
- Only report quotes, not sayings
- be careful of the word “famous” and other flowery terms
- triple check “it’s”: make sure the word is actually ownative
- when dealing with definitions, indent it as a separate entity (think of how definitions are laid out in Rui Mendes’ PhD thesis)
- check the tense of statements
- backup statements like “fail”: explain the logic behind these statements
- state things that could be seen as criticism blandly: get into the mindset of thinking that you refereeing instead of picking sites
- “results did not show understanding”… Of what?
- Always try to be clear and concise
- cutout sayings such as “against the grain”, etc. These sorts of things are fine if you are the expert in the field, but before then get the paper technical and clear first
- consistency with references: for example using the surname of one person throughout, as opposed using the first name and surname of an individual in certain locations. Only change this if you have common names e.g. Smith
- increase the length of the background: why did the field start, when did it start, major milestones in the field, key researchers. Keep this neutral, and keep the introduction neutral also
- in the discussion, compare and discuss: discuss the arguments here
- do not start sentences with conjunctions: “and”, “but”
- do not use words like “seems”, indeed, in fact: something like “considered” is better
- State the hard fact: then state the evidence
- remember to use ibid when quoting from the same source sequentially
- if you are going to use layman’s definitions, check that they are correct and cite them (tried to remember that when you cite a source, you are effectively passing the “blame” onto the source you are quoting: if what they’ve put is wrong, it’s their problem”
- instead of using “one returning thought ” use “one central theme “
- with section 3.3: why is emergence relevant? The why part of this is not understood
- use “take note” or “it is noted” as opposed of pointed
- again ensure the validity of the statements, definitions of needlework
- make sure references are in the correct place throughout the document: ensure consistency when using them
- check for missing out nouns
- feel free to include diagrams, figures, images, etc, as long as you cite some
- use terminology along the lines of “it is considered/estimated” instead of “it is thought/guessed “
- don’t write “we” and “you”
- always question why what you’ve stated important/relevant
- use ” do not ” instead of “don’t”
- remove superfluous words
- remove “in fact”, “of course”, “on the other hand”, “as I was saying”
- footnote: use them where additional information would break the flow of an argument — not to explain the organisation of a paper or report
- do not use the word “apparently”
- in the conclusion clarify the first sentence
- do not use split infinitives: avoid ambiguity
