Do's and don'ts of writing survey papers I am not sure if this is the appropriate forum to ask as it is not directly related to a research level (math) problem, but I figured it was worth a try. I recently attended a conference and felt that my area of research was not well represented, and simultaneously got feedback that there does not exist a single reference that summarizes the state of affairs of my topic area. I have thus decided to write an expository paper and submit it to the conference proceedings. However, I am not sure what the expectations are for expository papers.
Can anyone give me their opinions on the "do's" and "don'ts" of expository writing?
Thank you very much for your input.
 A: There are several journals publishing mostly or only surveys: BAMS, Russian Math surveys, Expositiones math., Asterisque, Sugaku. There are many excellent surveys in these journals.
Take one which you like and follow the pattern. The main thing I expect from a survey is that
it should be readable by a non-specialist. By someone who wants to be introduced to the area. Perhaps a graduate student.
There is a different kind of surveys: surveys for specialists. In this type of surveys, the main feature is completeness. Specialists will use it to check what is known and what is not known in your area. And what are the most important questions/conjectures. You have to decide in advance what type of a survey you want to write.
A: Since you plan to submit it to be part of the conference proceedings, the editor(s) of those proceedings are likely the best people to ask.  I would go to them for critical information such as length, intended audience, level of detail.
Off the cuff, here is what I would expect from a survey paper, disregarding length:
1) Introductory and Motivating Example(s)
2) History of Development, including key players and papers
3) List of major philosophies, subareas, divisions, ways of tackling subject.
4) For each item in 3), a good summary article indicating methods and applications,
perhaps mini histories or variations on the motivating example.
Tie-ins or anticipations to the other sections should be clearly marked.
5) Relations of the general area to outside area of study, and other connections
6) Hopes and Dreams for future development of the subject
7) Apologia for whatever was left out
8) Extensive bibliography, ideally organized with major key being list, minor key
being author-date or date-author.
Of course, length limitations can be accounted for by expanding 7).
These are the do's.  Since whatever you writeup can eventually be used in a handbook
or wikipedia or other places, the only don't I can think of is don't limit your options:
someone can retool your work for other domains if you don't have the time and energy to
retool it yourself.
Gerhard "Ask Me About Systemic Writing" Paseman, 2014.07.09
