Timeline for Journal articles — Is it okay to break down the introduction in subsections?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 20, 2021 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1406582630011834369 | ||
Jun 15, 2021 at 2:42 | history | edited | Buzz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body; edited title
|
Jun 15, 2021 at 0:38 | answer | added | Ben | timeline score: 2 | |
Jun 14, 2021 at 13:33 | review | Close votes | |||
Jun 15, 2021 at 2:42 | |||||
Jun 14, 2021 at 13:17 | comment | added | Richard Erickson | Isn't the answer specific to the journal's style requirements and editor? Even within the same journal, different associate editors might have different view points. | |
Jun 14, 2021 at 13:13 | answer | added | Daniel K | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 17:41 | comment | added | Terry Loring | Without knowing the length of the paper this is hard to answer. A sixty-page paper certainly can use subsections in the introduction. Not so with a three page paper. | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 12:26 | answer | added | Buffy | timeline score: 2 | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 11:53 | comment | added | lighthouse keeper | I'm not from EE, but from a somewhat neighboring area within CS (software engineering). We would use that classic template rather as an inspiration rather than a strict guideline, to avoid having a bloated introduction. It's fairly standard to have additional sections like "Background", "Related Work", "Overview", "Problem statement". | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 11:15 | comment | added | Pseg | @lighthousekeeper I'm following the classic <Introduction - Methodology - Results - Discussion - Conclusion> template, and I don't want to make my Methodology section less straightforward by adding discussions about the literature/state of the art. I see three possible solutions: (1) add a literature review section, even though I don't find it common on my subfield; (2) write a really long introduction; (3) break down the intro in subsections. I find the last one more logical, but I haven't really seen articles doing that. | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 11:11 | comment | added | lighthouse keeper | Why do you assume that all of this information should go into the introduction, rather than having a short and crisp introduction and some detailed sections after that? | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 10:56 | history | edited | Pseg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
Jun 11, 2021 at 10:05 | answer | added | henning no longer feeds AI | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 10:01 | comment | added | sleepy | "Do you guys think it is an acceptable solution?" - Absolutely (unless journal rules specifically prohibit it). | |
Jun 11, 2021 at 9:50 | history | asked | Pseg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |