A-Z SOP Complete Guide for Academic Paper Writing
Table of Contents
Why Do We Need A-Z SOP
Writing a paper is like building a house; without a solid foundation, the subsequent structure will be difficult to stabilize.
A-Z SOP breaks down the entire paper into 26 checkable modules, bringing the following benefits:
- Modularization: Focus on one small section at a time, reducing the probability of getting stuck
- Logic: Motivation → Challenge → Solution → Verification → Conclusion, progressing layer by layer
- Easy Collaboration: Team members can write separately and then align format and depth using SOP
- Submission-Friendly: Journals and top conferences prefer articles with clear structure and outstanding contributions
A-Z Architecture Overview
| Section | Parts | Purpose | Recommended Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract | A–F | Condense the essence of the entire paper | 150–250 words |
| Introduction | G–L | Lead from broad background to research focus | 1.5–2.5 pages |
| Related Work | M–O | Classify and compare existing methods | 1–2 pages |
| Proposed Scheme | PA–PM | Detail architecture and theory | 3–6 pages |
| Simulation / Experiment | Q–V | Validate effectiveness | 3–5 pages |
| Conclusion | W–Z | Review and outlook | 0.5–1 page |
I. Abstract (A–F)
| Letter | Phrase | Description | Writing Points | Example Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Attention Getter / Motivation | Attract reader interest and highlight research background | 1. Key data or trends 2. Avoid jargon | With the explosive growth of 5G networks, seamless mobility has become a critical requirement. |
| B | But (However) | Describe core challenges or gaps | 1. Single sentence to the point 2. Not too long | However, frequent handovers drastically degrade user experience. |
| C | Cure | Propose conceptual solution | 1. Use we propose … 2. Keep to one sentence | We propose a lightweight handover-prediction scheme to address this issue. |
| D | Development | Explain technical foundation or design philosophy | 1. Point out key components 2. Don’t write details | Our model integrates graph attention with reinforcement learning. |
| E | Experiments | Describe validation scenarios | 1. Name datasets or platforms 2. Don’t elaborate on process | Experiments on two public mobility datasets validate the approach. |
| F | Findings | Summarize most critical results | 1. Quantify 2. Don’t exaggerate | Results show a 25% reduction in handover failures compared with state-of-the-art methods. |
Writing Tips
- Each sentence focuses on one point, avoid citations and special symbols.
- Quantified results can quickly attract reviewers.
- Usually 6–7 sentences can completely cover A–F.
II. Introduction (G–L)
| Letter | Phrase | Description | Writing Points | Example Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G | General | Current technology status and trends | From large to small, shallow to deep | With the widespread adoption of edge computing, on-device inference is increasingly feasible. |
| H | However | Further amplify challenges | Emphasize severity of pain points | However, limited memory restricts model complexity on low-power devices. |
| I | In Literature | Literature classification | From old→new, simple→complex | Prior studies can be grouped into rule-based, traditional ML, and deep-learning approaches. |
| J | Judgement | SWOT analysis | Summarize pros and cons, find gaps | While CNN-based methods achieve high accuracy, they require large labelled datasets. |
| K | Keypoint | Innovation spirit of this paper | 1 sentence reveals novelty | Our work reduces data demand by leveraging self-supervised pre-training. |
| L | List the Organization | Article structure navigation | Order aligns with subsequent text | Section II reviews related work; Section III details the proposed scheme; … |
The ending should naturally connect to Related Work, allowing readers to have sufficient understanding of research positioning.
III. Related Work (M–O)
| Letter | Phrase | Description | Writing Points | Example Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | Methods | Existing method classification | Use tables or subsections to group | Table 1 summarises methods from rule-based to transformer-based models. |
| N | New Proposed | Latest trends | Emphasize research directions | Recent trends shift towards lightweight Transformer variants for edge scenarios. |
| O | Organize | Check/cross comparison table | 4×5 or equivalent table | Use ✓ (excellent)/△ (average)/✗ (insufficient)/★ (our innovation) to mark |
Comparison Table Example
| Method | Latency | Data Size | Accuracy | Explainable | Memory Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method A | ✓ | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Method B | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | △ |
| Method C | △ | ✗ | △ | △ | ✓ |
| Ours | ✓ | ✓ | ★ | △ | ★ |
Symbol Legend: ✓ good performance, △ average performance, ✗ poor performance, ★ our innovative advantage
Tables allow reviewers to quickly grasp differences. It’s recommended to place the most important comparison items in the first few columns.
IV. Proposed Scheme (PA–PM)
| Item | Phrase (Abbreviation) | Description | Writing Points | Example Elements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA | Aim / Statement | Research objective | Precise definition, include symbols | Define problem, input/output |
| PB | Based on / Background | Technical foundation | Cite predecessors, explain assumptions | Use GAT, RL |
| PC | Cure / Cause | Solution rationale | Why it’s effective | Data-driven, local attention |
| PD | Design | System architecture | Block diagram, flow arrows | Fig. 1 |
| PE | Paper Element | Component responsibilities | Sub-module functions | Encoder/Decoder |
| PF | Formulation | Mathematical definition | Formula numbering, symbol table | Loss function (1) |
| PG | Graph | Architecture diagram | Clear labels | Visualize process |
| PH | How | Achievement method | Algorithm flow | Algorithm 1 |
| PI | Implementation | Implementation details | Framework, hardware | PyTorch 2.0, RTX 4090 |
| PJ | Jump to Example | Working example | Step breakdown | Fig. 2 Data Flow |
| PK | Key Contribution | Contribution summary | 1–3 bullets | • High accuracy even without labeled data |
| PL | Later Simulation | Experiment connection | Preview experimental design and evaluation metrics | Clear metrics and scenarios |
| PM | Math Proof | Theoretical proof | Convergence or optimality proof | Theorem 1, proof in appendix |
Writing Suggestions
It’s recommended to complete PG architecture diagram first, then supplement text description to ensure consistent narrative throughout.
V. Simulation / Experiment (Q–V)
| Letter | Phrase | Description | Writing Points | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q | Quality & Quantity | Metric collection | Qualitative + quantitative metrics | Accuracy, FPS, Energy |
| R | Related Method | Comparison targets | Latest State-of-the-Art (SOTA) | MobileNetV3, Tiny-ViT |
| S | Simulation Setup | Experimental setup | Datasets, hardware, parameters | CIFAR-10, Jetson Nano |
| T | Tuning | Parameter tuning | Fair search range | Grid search 0.001–0.01 |
| U | Useful Results | Core results | Annotate conclusions in charts | Fig. 3 shows 7% improvement |
| V | Verify | Effectiveness validation | Ablation study, statistical significance test | p < 0.05 (t-test), Table 3 |
Experimental Design Tips
- Chart titles should directly carry conclusions, e.g., “Our method achieves 7% accuracy improvement on CIFAR-10”
- Statistical test explanation: p < 0.05 indicates results are statistically significant at 95% confidence level
- Ablation study should remove key components one by one to verify each part’s contribution
VI. Conclusion (W–Z)
| Letter | Phrase | Description | Writing Points | Example Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | What Proposed | Review research motivation and challenges | 2–3 sentences focus on core problem | This work tackles mobility degradation in dense 5G networks. |
| X | eXcel | Explain advantages and applicable scenarios | Specific application conditions | The scheme excels on low-power edge devices. |
| Y | Yields | Result summary | Quantified results, comparison with SOTA | It outperforms SOTA by 7% accuracy and reduces latency by 50%. |
| Z | Zen / Future Work | Conclusion and outlook | Objective summary, don’t over-hype | Future work will extend robustness to adversarial attack scenarios. |
Conclusion Writing Principles
Conclusions should avoid repeating introduction content, maintain objective and modest tone, and provide specific future research directions.
Complete Checklist
Abstract Checklist
- Includes complete A–F elements
- Word count controlled within 150–250 words
- Avoids using citations and special symbols
- Includes quantified result data
Introduction Checklist
- G–L elements completely covered
- Naturally leads from general background to specific problems
- Literature review is concise but complete
- Innovation points are prominent and clear
- Naturally connects to Related Work
Related Work Checklist
- Method classification is clear and logical
- Includes latest relevant research
- Comparison table is complete and readable
- Highlights differences between our work and existing methods
Proposed Scheme Checklist
- PA–PM elements are complete
- Includes clear system architecture diagram
- Algorithm steps are detailed and reproducible
- Mathematical formulas are numbered correctly
- Implementation details are sufficient
Experiment Checklist
- Q–V elements are complete
- Compares with latest SOTA methods
- Includes ablation study
- Statistical test results are clear
- Chart titles directly reflect conclusions
Conclusion Checklist
- W–Z elements are complete
- Avoids repeating previous content
- Quantified result summary
- Clear future work directions
- Objective tone without exaggeration
Common Error Reminders
Format Errors
- Inconsistent figure numbering (Fig. vs Figure)
- Inconsistent spacing around percentages
- Non-standard citation formats
- Technical terms not defined in full form on first appearance
Content Errors
- Abstract too technical or too simplified
- Related Work lacks latest literature
- Experimental setup unfair or incomplete
- Conclusion exaggerates results
Logic Errors
- Lack of organic connection between sections
- Innovation points don’t correspond to experimental validation
- Problem definition doesn’t match solution approach
Conclusion and Extended Resources
Practical Tools
- Notion Template: Use A-Z as task list, check off each completed section
- LaTeX Macros: Define
\azsection{letter}{title}to improve structural identification - Grammarly: English writing grammar checker
- Overleaf: Online LaTeX collaboration platform
Recommended Reading
- Recent CVPR Best Papers: Learn architecture diagram and ablation study presentation methods
- IEEE Survey Papers: Reference check/cross comparison table organization methods
- Nature/Science Short Articles: Learn concise and powerful writing style
- ACL Anthology: Observe paper structures from different fields
Advanced Techniques
- Use A-Z framework for peer review
- Adjust SOP to specific journal or conference format requirements
- Build personalized sentence template library
- Regularly update comparison method lists
This guide applies to academic papers in most technical fields. It’s recommended to make fine adjustments according to specific research domains.
Disclaimer: All reference materials on this website are sourced from the internet and are intended for learning purposes only. If you believe any content infringes upon your rights, please contact me at csnote.cc@gmail.com, and I will remove the relevant content promptly.
Feedback Welcome: If you notice any errors or areas for improvement in the articles, I warmly welcome your feedback and corrections. Your input will help this blog provide better learning resources. This is an ongoing process of learning and improvement, and your suggestions are valuable to me. You can reach me at csnote.cc@gmail.com.