---

name: infocom-writing-style description: Use when revising an IEEE INFOCOM paper for a networking problem and system model stated up front, theorems or protocol design that pay off, evaluation proportional to the claim, defensive writing that pre-empts objections (because there is no rebuttal), double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the tight IEEEtran two-column page budget.

INFOCOM Writing Style

Use this when revising the main paper. INFOCOM papers are read by a broad networking TPC that spans theory and systems, inside a nine-page IEEEtran budget and (traditionally) with no rebuttal. Two constraints follow: the paper must be legible to both an analyst and a systems reader, and it must pre-empt the reviewer's objection in the text, because you will not get to answer it later.

Revision rules

• State the networking problem and the system model first. By the end of the introduction a reader should know the setting (topology, traffic, constraints), the gap, the contribution (analysis and/or design), and what improves. Do not open with a technology-trend paragraph.
• Make the model do work. If you formulate an optimization or a Markov/queueing model, its assumptions must be stated plainly and its results must yield insight or an algorithm — not a formalism that the evaluation ignores. Reviewers reward a model whose theorem changes what you build or bound.
• Pair every claim with proportional evidence — a proof for an analytical claim, a simulation/testbed number with the setup named, or a measurement with its methodology — not adjectives like "significantly improves."
• Write defensively. Name the assumption a theory reviewer will question and justify it; name the baseline a systems reviewer will call unfair and tune it; state the regime where your result does not hold. Because there is no rebuttal, an unaddressed objection becomes a reject.
• Respect the page budget as a design constraint. Nine pages of text (appendices included) is tight; a proof sketch in the body with the full proof compressed, and a focused evaluation, beat an over-scoped paper that only fits by cutting the model.
• Maintain double-blind wording in self-citations (third person), tool names, testbed/cluster identifiers, acknowledgements, and funding.

Networking-paper skeleton

Section	Job it must do	Common failure
Intro	Problem, setting, gap, contribution, what improves — by the first column or two	Leads with a trend, not a networking problem
System model	Topology, traffic, constraints, assumptions, notation, stated plainly	Assumptions hidden or introduced only in the evaluation
Analysis / design	Theorems + proof sketches, or the protocol/algorithm, reproducibly	A model no result uses; a design too thin to re-implement
Evaluation	Each claim answered with proportional evidence, honest baselines	Toy topology; untuned baseline; metric that proxies the claim
Discussion / limits	The regime where the result holds; deployment caveats	No limits stated (invites the objection you cannot rebut)
Related work	Delta-first positioning against the networking literature	Citation catalog with no contrast

Sentence-level rewrites

Draft pattern	INFOCOM-safe rewrite
"Our scheme significantly improves throughput."	"improves median throughput by X% (95% CI ...) over in <topology/scale>"
"We prove our algorithm is optimal."	"We prove a (1-1/e) approximation under ; §V bounds the gap empirically"
"We evaluate on a large simulation."	"We simulate in <ns-3/custom>, , ; setup in §V-A"
"The model captures the system."	"Under assumptions A1-A3 (stated and justified in §III), the model yields Theorem 1"
"State-of-the-art performance."	Claim scoped to the topology, traffic, and regime actually tested

Defensive-writing discipline (no rebuttal)

[Assumption]  which modeling assumption will a theory reviewer challenge? -> justify it in §III
[Baseline]    which comparison will a systems reviewer call unfair? -> tune it, document the budget
[Scale]       does the evaluation reach a realistic size? -> if not, scope the claim and say so
[Regime]      where does the result break? -> state it before a reviewer finds it
-> each objection answered in the PDF, because there is no turn to answer it in a reply

Vignette: compressing an over-scoped analytical paper

A draft with two models, five theorems, and a sprawling evaluation: keep the one model the design uses, the two theorems that carry the insight (full proofs compressed or sketched), and the two evaluation figures that test the headline claim; move notation-heavy derivations into a tight in-budget appendix (remember it counts toward the nine pages); cut the second model to a remark. The test of a good cut: a reviewer should be able to state your assumptions, your main result, and why your baseline is fair — from the body alone.

Output format

[Writing diagnosis] clear / under-modeled / over-claimed / evidence-mismatched / over-scoped
[First-page fix] <new framing leading with the networking problem + system model>
[Claim audit] <claim -> proof or simulation/measurement -> proportional? yes/no>
[Defensive gaps] <assumption/baseline/scale/regime objection -> where to pre-empt it>
[Anonymity edits] <self-citations / tool / testbed names / acks to rewrite>