1、如何撰写科技论文,Elsevier Day 7-May-2008,罗丹， Silvia Luo 出版专员， Editorial Specialist 爱思唯尔(中国) 科技部，Elsevier S&T, China,2,国际期刊编辑对来自中国稿件的看法,“大量 优秀的科技论文 来自中国.” 但是, “存在下述严重问题” 一稿多投 论文已经在中文期刊上发表 剽窃 (尤其是论文中某一部分存在剽窃)” “下列问题更加常见” 研究内容超出期刊范围 格式不符合稿约的要求 推荐不合适的（或不推荐）审稿人 对审稿人的意见没有（恰当的）反馈 英语写作水平不够 退稿后不加修改即再次投稿,3,科技期刊编辑面临的挑
2、战是什么？,极大量的投稿寻找合适的审稿人出版道德问题,4,期刊与论文的关系,期刊是科研人员的交流平台 代表某一领域先进的, 非重复性的 研究成果 高质量的期刊 - 最具价值的成果你的论文是进入这个平台的护照 内容是前提: 明确、有价值、令人感兴趣的科研成果 表达是关键: 有逻辑的表达，一步步引领你的读者理 解研究的结论,5,如何选择合适的期刊?,宗旨与范围 文章的类型 读者群 当前热点问题 (浏览候选期刊的近期摘要),6,反复阅读“Guide for Authors”!,从第一稿开始就按照Guide for Authors 的要求写作 (格式, 文献的引用, 标题, 图表, 等等). 这样做既
3、能节省编辑的时间也能节省你自己的时间。 所有的编辑都不愿意在准备不充分的稿件上浪费时间。这种投稿是对编辑的不尊重。,7,文题 作者 摘要 关键词 正文 (IMRAD) Introduction Methods Results And Discussion (Conclusions) 致谢 参考文献 补充材料（Supporting material）,便于编辑和读者查阅! (informative, attractive, effective),各司其职,论著的常见结构,8,1. 文题,好的文题就是用最简洁的词句尽量充分地说明文章内容,9,主题,具体化,文题忠实地反映了文章的主要内容,10,2.
4、 作者,作者署名 所有撰写论文/对研究工作做出重要贡献者能够捍卫整篇论文/至少负责其中一部分工作署名顺序 第一作者是对数据收集和分析以及论文撰写负有主要责任的人 最后一位作者, 通常是有学术地位的研究人员, 对整个研究负有责任 位列中间者的顺序则视其对研究所做贡献而定,11,3. 摘要,Abstract. We tackle the general linear instantaneous model (possibly underdetermined and noisy) where we model the source prior with a Student t distributio
5、n. The conjugate-exponential characterisation of the t distribution as an infinite mixture of scaled Gaussians enables us to do efficient inference. We study two well-known inference methods, Gibbs sampler and variational Bayes for Bayesian source separation. We derive both techniques as local messa
6、ge passing algorithms to highlight their algorithmic similarities and to contrast their different convergence characteristics and computational requirements. Our simulation results suggest that typical posterior distributions in source separation have multiple local maxima. Therefore we propose a hy
7、brid approach where we explore the state space with a Gibbs sampler and then switch to a deterministic algorithm. This approach seems to be able to combine the speed of the variational approach with the robustness of the Gibbs sampler.,主要发现是什么,作了什么,I,D,M,R,12,4. 关键词,查阅 Guide for Authors! (数量, 分类, 规定
8、, 关键词表, 范围, 及其它特殊要求) 不要选择范围太大的词. “Words selected should reflect the essential topics of the article. Do not select “soil“. ” Guide for Authors, Soil Biology & Biochemistry若使用缩写词，必须是业内公认的，例如： DNA (生命科学), FFT (信号处理), SEM (材料工程), 等,13,5. Introduction,让读者了解你的研究的重要性.What is the problem? Are there any exi
9、sting solutions? Which is the best? What is its main limitation? What do you hope to achieve?,14,二次引用,在正文部分：Jones (2004, p.22) endorses this controversial view, quoting Johnsons conclusion that the earlier records have been forged. 在参考文献部分：Jones, P.R. (2004) Golden legends: Christian hagiographies i
10、n early medieval Europe. London: Farrar.,15,6. Methods,基本原则: 提供足够的信息，以便读者能够重复试验或推导的过程Empirical papers material studied, area descriptions methods, techniques, theories applied Case study papers application of existing methods, theory or tools special settings in this piece of work Methodology papers
11、 materials and detailed procedure of a novel experimentation scheme, flow, and performance analysis of a new algorithm Theory papers principles, concepts, and models major framework and derivation,16,与 Methods部分相关的伦理问题,涉及人或动物的实验研究要遵循相关的伦理准则，例如赫尔辛基宣言（1975, 2000年第五次修订）. 如果研究有疑似不符合赫尔辛基宣言之处, 作者必须解释其研究的合
12、理性，并说明得到其所在研究结构伦理委员会的批准。,17,7. Results,只需列出具有代表性的结果。 应该是对讨论和结论具有意义的结果。其他结果可以放在Supporting Materials里 使用副标题，是结果部分具有条理，便于审稿人和读者阅读。给各个副标题编号，以便在文内前后互相参照。有逻辑地交待各项研究数据，给读者讲一个清楚易懂的“故事”。,18,研究数据绝不能弄虚作假!,Fabrication is making up data or results, and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating r
13、esearch materials, equipment, processes; or changing / omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. G.C.Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799),“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth.”,19,图表：“一图千言”,“Figures and tables are the mo
14、st efficient way to present results.” “Your data are the driving force of the paper. Therefore, your illustrations are critical!”,20,8. Discussion,研究结果与你最初提出的问题、你在引言部分提出的研究目的有何联系？通过讨论部分的分析能得出你的结论么？ 是否对每个结果都作了阐释？你的研究结果和前人的报道是否一致？如果有所不同，是什么原因？你的研究（设计）存在何种缺陷或者局限性？,21,与前人的研究结果相比较，分析异同, we showed that HR
15、212 could inhibit NDV-mediated cell fusion. This was in contrast to the results of others16, which. As a further characterization, we detected the inhibition of HR212 added This result implied that the conformational changes of the F protein occurred very quickly after receptor binding to the HN pro
16、tein This may explain why the inhibition activity was much lower if added after cleavage activation. However, all these results are still consistent with the idea that HR2 peptides could interact ,22,9. Conclusion,清楚的结论有助于编辑和审稿人评判你的论文。,23,In conclusion, our results obtained with mice increase the kn
17、owledge on CPF-induced adverse effects, up to now limited to rats. They seem to suggest that not all the CPF effects measured in rats and the related doses can be directly extrapolated to mice, which seem to be more susceptible at least to acute treatment. Even though many questions still remain ope
18、n, our findings show that the mouse could be considered a suitable experimental model for future studies on the toxic action of organophosphorus pesticides focused on mechanisms, long term and age-related effects.,对某一研究课题的贡献 实用意义与扩展 下一步研究设想,24,10. 致谢,是你表示感谢的机会: 研究和撰写论文过程中帮助过你的人，包括技术上的帮助以及修改文字等。 基金资助
19、者 所从属的研究项目 审稿人和编辑 (再修的文章) 你需要做的是： 若要在致谢中提到某人的名字必须求得其认可。 阐明感谢的原因. 注明基金资助编号,25,参考文献的注录格式要严格参照 Guide for Authors!按照要求注录参考文献是作者的责任而不是编辑的！检查修改参考文献的格式给编辑工作带来了巨大负担。如果你能减轻这份负担，他们将非常感激。检查以下各项: 作者姓名的拼写 出版年份 必要的地方使用 “et al.” 标点符号,11. 参考文献: 正确的格式是非常重要的！,26,为什么修改是必不可少的？,你愿意选择哪个： 投出一篇不完备的论文 4-6个月后被拒稿 几天后再次投稿 再次被拒
20、稿 陷入绝望用3-4个月充分准备你的论文 4个月后收到修改意见 在规定的时间内修改好论文 论文同意刊用请珍惜你自己的劳动成果!,27,审稿后的修改: 绝好的学习机会!,要珍惜这个直接与同行探讨问题的机会。对于审稿意见要给予充分的回应。在每一条审稿意见下面写出你的看法或回应。不要漏掉任何一条。特别注明你已经做出的修改(如果有的话)。标明页码和序号。常见的问题 探讨了许多问题，但是最终也没说清到底做了哪些修改。 对于你接受的意见给以专业的回应。对于你不接受的，要有理有据地说明你不赞同的理由，力图说服对方，同时要保持应有的尊重和礼貌。,28,一个例子,“Reviewers Comments: It
21、would also be good to acknowledge that geographic routing as you describe it is not a complete routing solution for wireless networks, except for applications that address a region rather than a particular node. Routing between nodes requires further machinery, which detracts from the benefits of ge
22、ographic routing, and which I dont believe you have made practical. Authors reply: We agree and will add an appropriate caveat. Note that for data-centric storage (name-based exact-match and range queries for sensed events), the storage and query processing mechanisms “natively“ address packets geog
23、raphically-without a “node-to-location“ database. Reviewers Comments: The footnotes are driving me crazy!Authors reply: Well strive to remove some of them. ” Dr. Ramesh Govindan, professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern Californiahttp:/enl.usc.edu/ramesh/writings/files/NSDI_res
24、ponse.txt,29,一个提出反对意见的例子,Reviewer #4 clearly didnt read my paper carefully enough. Either that or this reviewer doesnt know anything about the field! How should I respond during the rebuttal period? Please dont say: “If reviewer #4 had just taken the time to read my paper carefully, she would have r
25、ealized that our algorithm was rotation invariant.“ Instead say: “Unfortunately, Section #4 must not have been as clear as we had hoped because Reviewer #4 didnt understand that our algorithm was rotation invariant and he was therefore skeptical about the general applicability of our approach. Here
26、is a revised version of the second paragraph in Section 4, which should clear up this confusion.“,30,退稿: 别太沮丧，这不是世界末日！,所有作者都被拒绝过，不只是你！ 尽量去了解退稿的原因。 要知道编辑和审稿人已经在你的论文上花费了不少时间，而你也从中学到了有益的东西。要重视他们的意见。 重新审视你的论文，想一想是否值得投往其他刊物。 如果你认为值得，要像写新论文一样重新准备从反复阅读“新目标”的Guide for Authors开始。,31,切勿不加修改即投往他刊！,你的论文很有可能“落入”
27、同一个审稿人(甚至编辑)手中。 我们的建议： 在 cover letter说明此文曾被退稿，并指明期刊名。 说明退稿意见，并逐一详细回复。体现你对审稿意见的重视。 解释说明为什么选择这个期刊重新投稿。例如，你认为你的论文更适合这本期刊；或者你在读了这本期刊的某篇综述后修改了你的论文；等等。,32,怎样才能得到“ACCEPTANCE”？,Attention to details Check and double check your work Consider the reviews English must be as good as possible Presentation is important Take your time with revision Acknowledge those who have helped you New, original and previously unpublished Critically evaluate your own manuscript Ethical rules must be obeyed Nigel John Cook, Editor-in-Chief, Ore Geology Reviews,33,Questions? Thanks!,
