0

my supervisor recommended me that I add a section that discusses the application of the artefact that I previously evaluated in a research environment in a real-world use case.

I should use runtime (is it fast enough) and costs (how much does the executing cost), so do I discuss whether it is worth using it. And it is, of course.

Is there a typical name for such a section?

To name it "Discussion" seems too general to me. Any suggestions?

1
  • 2
    Ask your supervisor. They should know the conventions in your field. Perhaps wait to ask this question until you have a draft of the section to show. Jul 30 at 18:53

1 Answer 1

1

There ae many possibilities. Assuming that you developed the artifact and that the paper discusses its technical qualities you could, perhaps do one of the following.

  • A section titled "Practical Implications", before the Conclusions

  • An Appendix, following the Conclusions.

If your advisor has different advice it is probably worth taking it.

4
  • what about discussion on practical applicability Jul 30 at 21:50
  • 1
    That would work fine.
    – Buffy
    Jul 30 at 22:09
  • I am not sure about the position of this section. Would it be part of the evaluation section as a subsection after the subsection "results"? or would it be an own section since such a discussion is not part of the evaluation? I am not sure what is the default. However, adding it in the last section "conclusion and future work", it is too much content and I am using specific numbers and calculations in this discussion which is not appropriate in this section. Any thoughts? Any defaults or rules? Jul 31 at 9:34
  • 1
    If it is a bit different from the rest then I'd guess it would be its own section just before Conclusions, or, again, an Appendix. But, not a rule, really, just something that makes sense and is clear.
    – Buffy
    Jul 31 at 10:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .