Alejandro Gómez Yepes’ Post

View profile for Alejandro Gómez Yepes, graphic

Ramón y Cajal research fellow, SMIEEE, at APET, CINTECX, Universidade de Vigo

One thing we have been doing in our most recent papers is including a table in the Introduction, summarizing the main features of previous related papers and how the new paper compares with them. In my  view, this can help the reviewers/readers a lot in understanding the novelty and research contribution of the manuscript with respect to the existing literature. What do you think? References of the papers corresponding to the tables in the attached figure, from top to bottom and left to right: https://lnkd.in/d5s8usih https://lnkd.in/dSarJ4Xs https://lnkd.in/dywiP7B6 https://lnkd.in/dVNr5q8e https://lnkd.in/dSw82ee8 https://lnkd.in/dsbrsApz

  • table
Alejandro Gómez Yepes

Ramón y Cajal research fellow, SMIEEE, at APET, CINTECX, Universidade de Vigo

6mo
  • No alternative text description for this image
Bruno P.

Data | Cloud | Airflow | Polars | Seaborn | Ex-Loggi

6mo

What would you recommend to a future self if you could start over in another field?

Like
Reply
Ali Shalbaf

Research Assistant at University of Tehran

7mo

That's a great idea! We usually include this table at the end of our papers, typically just before the conclusion. However, I'm now considering that the introduction might be a better placement for it.

Ahmed Abouzeid

PhD| Energy & Process Control; Specialized in Power Converters and Electric Drives

7mo

Very useful and informative

Sanjay Kakodia (Student MIEEE)

|*Ph.D. | MANIT Bhopal ||Electrical Engineering | Power Electronics & Drives |MATLAB| Simulink| NI Multisim|OPAL-RT| dSPACE R&D|| WAVECT FPGA Controller

7mo

Alejandro Gómez Yepes Dear professor, it is handy and easy to follow. Thanks for sharing

Francisco D. Freijedo

Boosting Dynamics Performances by Self-Contained Controllers (usually in Power Electronics)

6mo

It resembles a good and smart approach that will also help in the peerreview processes, since it (somehow) forces the reviewers to dig into specific points. Nowadays (in power electronics) there are tons of prior art and it is "very easy" for a "lazy" reviewer to disqualify a submission, because of unclear novelty/contribution (without even mentioning the specific prior art presumably overlooked). However, if you show and reinforce upfront this part, the reviewer is also forced to dig into the work (if really intended to do the task properly). I think this approach is specially useful and timesavingl when your intended contribution is really original.

Marcelo S.

Engineering Professor

7mo

great ! I used this technique in some tutorial-review papers, it was more for a comparison over the range, but your idea of highlighting your novel ideas in the paper that you have written compared to those is very nice....

Mditshwa Mkhutazi

PhD candidate | University of Cape Town

6mo

I will adopt this strategy, well presented. Thank you so much for sharing 🙏.

Venkatesh Govindaraj

Ph.D candidate | Efficiency Enhancement | Renewable Energy Enthusiast | Project Handler | RF | Content writer | Thinker

6mo

Excellent representation!

ahmed elsayed

MSc Student, Senior Motor Design Engineer

7mo

Thanks alot 

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics