This is the most difficult part -- if you master the two points below, you are in good shape.
Readers expect to find things at the right place. System description, review of state of the art, simulation setup, simulation results are all different things. They should appear in well defined sections, and only once. DO NOT define or explain the same thing twice. This gives a non professional look, and is likely to be inconsistent as your paper evolves.
Don't
In Section "Simulation Setup": Nodes periodically broadcast HELLO messages in order for nodes to build their ZRW routing tables. When a HELLO message is sent, the HELLO timer is reset. The value of the HELLO timer is 1 s
In Section "3.2.2 Description of Protocol": Nodes periodically broadcast HELLO messages in order for nodes to build their ZRW routing tables. When a HELLO message is sent, the HELLO timer is reset.
In Section "5.1 Simulation Setup": the HELLO timer (see Section 3.2.2) is equal to 1s
Many readers, among them reviewers, will jump from figure to figure, or from section to section. Many will read the captions before reading the sections they are in. Be aware of that.
Now I hear you say: how can I combine random access without repeating the same thing again and again ? Well, that' s precisely what you shoul target: give enough information for the reader who does random access, but do not repeat the same thing again and again.
A figure caption should give enough accurate information, to make random access possible and pleasant to the reader. Do not be afraid to have long captions. In the caption, point to precise locations in the paper where the reader can find all details, if necessary.
Don't
(caption of Figure 5). Simulation results for a 500 node network with Pause-Time on the x-axis.Your reader may misunderstand which network you are simulating here. She needs a precise definition of the network and the parameter Pause-Time. Otherwise, she may understand something completely different than you think; for example: Figure 5 is about the same network as in Figure 3, but with 500 nodes instead of 100. (In this specific example, the networks in Figures 3 and 5 are not the same; this is clear from the full text -- it should also be clear to a reader who jumps from figure to figure).
(caption of Figure 5). Simulation results for the network of Figure 4 with 500 nodes. Total throughput versus Pause-Time (defined in Section 6.7.3)
Here are a few observations to help you reach these two objectives.
Node A forwards the packet using the fixed address since the destination is reachable by ZGW. ... If the destination is in the ZGW routing table, node A should not use the location information .... When the destination is in the ZGW reachable area, the TTL field is updated differently ...Your reader will wonder: is there a difference between the three terms "reachable by ZGW", "in the ZGW routing table", "in the ZGW reachable area". It may be obvious to you that they are the same, but this is probably not so to the reader.
The node builds its ZGW routing table using the fields heard in the Hello messages. ...Node A forwards the packet using the fixed address since the destination is in the ZGW routing table. ... If the destination is in the ZGW routing table, node A should not use the location information .... When the destination is in the ZGW routing table, the TTL field is updated differently ...Once you introduce a name for an object, stick to it. Accept the repetitions that this may cause.
We study three loss model: fixed loss probability, time varying loss probability and the Gilbert loss model. The first one discards each incoming packet with the same probability. The second loss model provides more variable network conditions where the packet drop probability alternates between high and low while the same average drop probability is maintained. The congestion control protocols frequently have to adjust their sending rate, putting more emphasis on the transient behavior of the protocols. The last one produces highly correlated losses.
The Gilbert loss model is not intended to closely model realistic network conditions found in the Internet. It is merely used to analyze how the mechanisms perform when the assumption of packet loss independence is not met. The model remains in its current state for a fixed amount of time, τ=10 ms, after which a random experiment is performed to see whether a state change should occur.
We study three loss model: fixed loss probability, time varying loss probability and the Gilbert loss model. The first one discards each incoming packet with the same probability. The second loss model provides more variable network conditions where the packet drop probability alternates between high and low while the same average drop probability is maintained. The congestion control protocols frequently have to adjust their sending rate, putting more emphasis on the transient behavior of the protocols. The last one produces highly correlated losses. It is not intended to closely model realistic network conditions found in the Internet. It is merely used to analyze how the mechanisms perform when the assumption of packet loss independence is not met.
The model remains in its current state for a fixed amount of time, τ=10 ms, after which a random experiment is performed to see whether a state change should occur.
The estimation procedure may be ``stuck" if the source does not have a neighbour that has older information than self. This happens in irregular topologies. The solution that we adopt to solve this problem is proposed in [22] and[23]. The source thus computes the weighted sum of increase components and applies the following equation...
The estimation procedure may be ``stuck" if the source does not have a neighbour that has older information than self. This happens in irregular topologies. In our protocol, we adopt the solution in [22] and[23].
As mentioned in Section 2, the source uses at this point the recovery procedure defined in [23]. It computes the weighted sum of increase components and applies the following equation...
do {define hypothesis; design experiments; validate } until (validation is OK)
(In Section "Simulation Results"): The normalized routing load is shown in Figure 4. We see that protocol B has much less overhead than protocol A. Protocol A frequently uses flooding as a means to build or repair broken routes, which causes a large overhead.The flaw is that you interpret Figure 4 when you say that protocol A has more overhead because it uses flooding. The only thing the figure says is that protocol A has more overhead. Your interpretation may be right (it might also be wrong, for example the larger overhead might be due to the setting of a Hello timer). The only thing we can say is that the figure leads you to pose as hypothesis that protocol A has large overhead due to flooding. The next step is to design an experiment that will confirm, or infirm that hypothesis.
(In Section "Simulation Results"): The normalized routing load is shown in Figure 4. We see that protocol B has much less overhead than protocol A. Protocol A frequently uses flooding as a means to build or repair broken routes. We pose as hypothesis that this might be the cause of this large difference. To test this hypothesis, we designed the following experiment. We measured the performance of protocol A after setting the flooding frequency parameter to a high value. We used a low mobility scenario where route breaks are rare. Figure 5 shows that the routing overhead of A and B are now comparable, which confirms our hypothesis.
Your reference list should be up-to-date. Many reviewers will fist look at your list of references to see if you are up to date. If an important reference is missing, your paper is probably already rejected.
The abstract should contain the following parts.
We prove that, in the limit of infinite power, the fairness index tends to 0. We verify numerically, on a large number of random networks, that unfairness does occur with realistic power constraints, which is a generalization of results from [ZGOMO] saying again that this unfairness property is not a problem of UWB but rather of the performance metric.
We prove that, in the limit of infinite power, the fairness index tends to 0. We verify numerically, on a large number of random networks, that unfairness does occur with realistic power constraints. This generalizes the problem reported in [ZGOMO] and shows that is not a problem of UWB but rather of the performance metric.
When the ZMRP mechanism is employed, nodes send only one message per round. We have that the cost per round is XY/2.by
With ZMRP, nodes send only one message per round. The cost per round is XY/2.Avoid contorted expressions. Replace
We can observe that protocol B greatly reduces routing overhead compared to protocol A.by
Protocol B has much less routing overhead than protocol A.
Make sure you master both Latex and Powerpoint or equivalent. Only then you will be able to decide which tool is the best.
In general, you tend to not do enough pictures.
Do not waste your time writing equations in Powerpoint -- instead, cut and paste equations from the pdf or ps of the paper that you have already written (with Latex), or even better, use TexPoint. Use the newer powerpoint equation editor, which uses the Latex syntax.
If your answer is 1, congratulations ! Your findings are so great that readers will very carefully read all of your text. You do not need to bother about writing style. This document is not for you.
If your answer is 2 or 3, take Quiz 1 again.
Back to Quiz 1