科研论文英文写作指南 Guide to Science Writing

Writing Scientific Manuscripts a guide for undergraduates from the Journal of Young Investigators Peer-reviewed, undergraduate science journal. Copyright 2005 Journal of Young Investigators. www.jyi.org This guide was written and produced by the Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. It is distributed free as an education resource for undergraduates, but may not be modified or reproduced without the express written consent of the Journal of Young Investigators. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 2 of 44 Table of Contents Introduction ______________________________________ 4 Part I: Publication & Peer Review______________________ 6 Deciding to Publish _____________________________________ 6 Submitting Your Paper___________________________________ 6 After Submission _______________________________________ 6 Overview of Peer Review _________________________________ 7 Purpose of Peer Review __________________________________ 8 How It Works__________________________________________ 8 The Role of Editor ______________________________________ 9 Limitations and Issues___________________________________ 9 Part II: Writing a Scientific Manuscript ________________ 11 The Scientific Manuscript________________________________ 11 Structure of an Article_____________________________________________ 11 Writing Style ____________________________________________________ 13 Audience _______________________________________________________ 13 A Note on Scientific Misconduct _____________________________________ 14 Word Choice__________________________________________ 15 The Abstract__________________________________________ 17 What is an Abstract_______________________________________________ 17 Abstract Standards for Review ______________________________________ 19 Common Mistakes in an Abstract ____________________________________ 19 The Introduction ______________________________________ 20 What is an Introduction ___________________________________________ 20 Introduction Standards for Review ___________________________________ 22 Common Mistakes in an Introduction _________________________________ 23 Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 3 of 44 The Methods & Materials Section__________________________ 24 What is a Methods & Materials Section________________________________ 24 Methods & Materials Section Review Standards _________________________ 26 Common Mistakes in a Methods & Materials Section _____________________ 26 The Results Section ____________________________________ 28 What is a Results Section? _________________________________________ 28 Results Section Review Standards ___________________________________ 28 Common Mistakes in a Results Section _______________________________ 29 The Discussion Section _________________________________ 30 What is a Discussion Section?_______________________________________ 30 Discussion Section Review Standards_________________________________ 31 Common Mistakes in a Discussion Section _____________________________ 32 Figures, Tables, Equations, and References__________________ 33 Figures & Tables _________________________________________________ 33 Captions _______________________________________________________ 34 Equations ______________________________________________________ 34 References _____________________________________________________ 35 Review Standards for These Elements ________________________________ 36 Common Mistakes in Figures & Tables ________________________________ 37 Common Mistakes in Captions ______________________________________ 37 Common Mistakes in Equations _____________________________________ 37 Common Mistakes in References ____________________________________ 37 Part III: Writing a Literature Review___________________ 39 What is a Literature Review? _____________________________ 39 Literature Review vs. Research Article ________________________________ 39 Writing a Literature Review: Preliminary Research ____________ 39 Writing a Literature Review: Analyzing the Literature__________ 41 Writing a Literature Review: Structure & Writing _____________ 42 Questions to Ask Yourself About Your Review __________________________ 43 Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 4 of 44 Introduction Welcome to JYI’s Guide to Reporting Scientific Research! This is a free guidebook, written and distributed by the Journal of Young Investigators, an international science research journal run entirely by undergraduates, for undergraduates. This guide is designed as a resource for undergraduate science researchers who are getting ready to write up their research for a journal. As an undergraduate, you probably haven’t had the chance to write many professional papers. That will change – quickly. Grad students and practicing scientists spend much of their time writing scientific manuscripts, abstracts, and grant proposals. This guide is laid out to give you an introduction to the publication process, peer review, and writing scientific manuscripts. Peer review and publication are hot topics in the scientific community. So much of the community lives under the constant pressure of “Publish or Perish” that it must be a hot topic. Tenures are granted, funding awarded, and professional reputations made based on how often – and how well – a scientist publishes. As far as the scientific community is concerned, even the most brilliant piece of research is useless unless reported – and reported well. This guide is written for undergraduates, by undergraduates. Somewhere out there, in that sea of opinions on publishing, are people who disagree with us on the process, style, and content of research reports. We know that. This is not the be-all and end-all bible on writing scientific manuscripts. It’s a guide for undergrads. Listen to your advisor, read other manuscripts, and, above all, practice writing your own. Come grad school, you’ll be glad you did. What is JYI? A quick digression, for those of you who were wondering . . . The Journal of Young Investigators (JYI) is an international scientific research journal run entirely by undergraduates, and publishing only undergraduate science research. JYI is committed to filling a major gap in undergraduate science education: peer review and publication. Today, students have abundant opportunities to conduct scientific research; however, they have precious few opportunities to communicate that research to their peers in the scientific community. JYI and other undergraduate journals grant students the chance to communicate their research, improve their technical and scientific writing, and learn about this final and critical piece of the scientific process. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 5 of 44 However, JYI goes one step further than other undergraduate journals. At JYI, undergraduates direct, manage, and participate in every step of the publication process. Undergraduates write the research papers, staff the editorial positions, review the manuscripts, produce the general-audience articles, direct the publications, formulate the business plans, write the grants, issue the press releases, and direct every other part of the entire corporation, working with fellow students as close as their home university and as far as the other side of the world. As a result, JYI staff members learn—not only how to write and review scientific manuscripts—but how a scientific journal works . . . and how to make one work! Since undergraduates do not have all the scientific knowledge necessary to review manuscripts, JYI employs professional scientists who work with JYI Associate Editors to review Research manuscripts. These advisors play a crucial role in JYI, both by improving the quality of reviews and in guiding JYI’s Associate Editors. JYI is always hiring. Any undergraduate, from any university or country, may apply. For information on what positions are currently available, please visit www.jyi.org. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 6 of 44 Part I: Publication & Peer Review When you are embroiled in publishing a paper, it can seem like the process is complicated, difficult, and drawn-out. But the basics of any publication process are the same: decide to publish, write, submit, wait, revise, publish. Deciding to Publish No scientist publishes the results of every single study she does. Some studies just aren’t worth it. As an undergraduate, you will rely on your mentor to help you decide when is the right time to publish. Usually, you’ll only publish when you have something important to say: an interesting new result or conclusion to report to the community. Once you’ve decided to publish, you need to choose your forum. Some studies really only warrant an abstract at a conference or a brief note to a journal. Some studies warrant full-out reports. Again, as an undergraduate, you’ll work with your advisor to decide what forum is best for your particular study. If you decide to publish in a journal, the next question is: which journal? Undergraduates rarely participate in writing reports for top-tier journals like Science, or even field-specific top-tier journals like the Journal of Geophysical Review. Most undergraduates publish in small, highly specialized journals. Again, you’ll work with your advisor to decide which journal is the right one for your work. (Shameless plug: all undergraduates, from any university or country, are welcome to submit their research to the Journal of Young Investigators. At JYI, the undergraduate is the lead author and works with the editors and reviewers through every stage of the publication process. When publishing in most journals, the undergraduate rarely gets a chance to participate in every level of publication. End of plug.) Submitting Your Paper Once you’ve decided upon the journal, visit its website and thumb through old issues to get a sense for its style and formatting. Usually, journals have special pages for authors describing exactly what their submission policies are. Follow those guidelines. After Submission Every journal deals with submission slightly differently, but they all follow the same general format: 1. Author submits manuscript and figures to journal Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 7 of 44 2. Journal assigns the manuscript to an editor 3. Editor modifies to manuscript to remove any identifying information, then sends it to several reviewers. Usually, the editor will send it to two or more reviewers; however, some journals send their manuscripts to an entire review board that reviews the papers together. 4. Some journals allow reviewers to accept or decline a review. Reviewers can take months to decide if they will take on a review. 5. Reviewers review the paper. Usually, reviewers work alone, and they don’t know who the other reviewers are. They can take a long time reviewing the manuscripts, since they must be very thorough – and are usually very busy themselves. 6. Reviewers return reviews, comments, and a recommendation to the editor. Usually, the recommendation is something like: Accept, Accept With Revisions, or Reject. The editor reads the reviews, considers the recommendations (and the reasons behind those recommendations), and decides whether or not to accept the paper. 7. If the paper is accepted, the editor will send the reviews and comments to the author, usually asking for a revised edition of the paper. 8. The author revises the paper, and sends it back to the editor. 9. If the editor thinks the paper needs a second review, he/she may send it out for another round. Otherwise, he/she sends it off to be published. 10. Publication. The whole process might have taken 6 months to a year! Overview of Peer Review Every year, hundreds of thousands of scientists conduct experiments, obtain results, and draw conclusions. Most – if not all – of these conclusions contradict conclusions drawn by other scientists. Which of these experiments are “good” science and which are poor? How do we even begin to evaluate them all? The scientific community relies on a process called peer review, or “refereeing”, to decide which work is worthy of the community’s attention. Peer review is exactly what it sounds like – researchers submit their work to a group of their peers, usually well-respected and accomplished scientists who can be trusted to judge what is “good” science and what is not. The group delivers a verdict, usually along with substantial comments and recommendations. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 8 of 44 The scientific community uses peer review in just about every facet of its work. Committees of scientists peer review grant proposals before allocating funding. Groups of faculty and doctors review their colleague’s work when considering them for tenure. And, most famously, scientists review each other’s research reports before publication. This guide will focus on peer review and publication. Purpose of Peer Review In the scientific community, peer review serves two major purposes: • To filter what is published as “science”. The most obvious purpose of peer review is to determine which papers report “good” science that a journal can be proud to publish. No journal wants to publish unimportant, poorly executed, flawed studies – and no scientist wants to read them. • To provide researchers with perspective. Even the most gifted researchers can’t catch all the flaws in a study. One function of peer review is to allow a researcher’s colleagues to comment on the quality of her work before it is published. How It Works An author writes a manuscript reporting his/her study (see Part II), and submits it to a scientific journal. The manuscript is assigned to an editor to see it through the peer review process, and the editor sends the manuscript (with names removed) to several referees who will do the review. At most journals (including JYI), these referees are called associate editors. The referees review the manuscript, critiquing it and making comments, then return their reviews to the editor. They also return recommendations for publication: should our journal publish this paper? Usually, the recommendations are along the lines of: 1) Accept unconditionally, 2) Accept after the author has made some revisions, 3) Reject but ask the author to resubmit a revised version for additional review, or 4) Reject outright. The editor compiles the referees’ comments and sends them to the author, anonymously. One of the key features of this system is that it is anonymous. The referees do not know who the author is and the author does not know who the referees are. The referees do not act as a group, and no referee knows who the other referees will be or what they will say. This design is to encourage candid feedback that is not influenced by anything but the work itself. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 9 of 44 Some journals are changing this system slightly, and informing the author of the referee’s identities. This is to establish some degree of accountability for the referees. JYI does not reveal the identities of our reviewers. The Role of Editor The editor is the intermediary in the peer review process, but also the ultimate judge. Referees make recommendations to the editor; however, the editor is under no obligation to take their advice. When referees disagree on whether a manuscript should be published, the editor can send the manuscript out for additional review, or can decide then and there. The editor alone decides which manuscripts are published and which are not. The referee’s job, then, is not only to offer constructive criticism for the author, but also to guide the editor to making the right decision about a manuscript. A referee must substantiate his/her recommendations and provide enough reasoning and evidence for the editor. Limitations and Issues “Editors and scientists portray peer review as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” -- Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, a prominent British peer-reviewed science journal The peer review system is far from perfect. Within the scientific community, it is denounced more often than praised – but, as with democracy, it beat the alternative. Some of the most common complaints about the peer review process are: • It’s slow. Getting a paper peer reviewed can take months – sometimes even years. It takes a long time to write the paper, to submit it, for the referees to review it, for the editor to decide, for the author to make the revisions, for it to be re-reviewed and re-revised . . . • Conflicting views. Say an author sends out a paper that opposes a certain theory, and the paper is reviewed by an advocate of that theory. It might be very good science, and the referee might have very good objections, but it is outside of the scope of the journal to decide which is right. The editor is then in a difficult situation, trying to decide whether this is “good” science or not. Writing Scientific Manuscripts ! Journal of Young Investigators Copyright 2005, Journal of Young Investigators, Inc. Page 10 of 44 This happens quite often, especially when editors bring their personal views of science to bear on publication decisions. • Personal views. Some people argue, perhaps legitimately, that the peer review process is far too open to personal issues – jealousy, vendettas, grudges, pet theories. Referees can be particularly critical of conclusions or assumptions that contradict their own views of a subject. An editor must be very careful in judging which opinions are based on objective evaluation and which may be based on personal views unrelated to science. • Fraud. Editors and referees assume that a paper is honestly written – that is, that none of the results have been faked or evidence manipulated. When scientific fraud has occurred, peer review often does not catch it. One of the most famous cases of scientific fraud that went undetected by peer review was the Schon scandel of 2001-2002. Jan Hendrik Schon was a German physicist working at Bell Labs, who published 15 papers in Science and Nature – both top-tier journals with rigorous peer review. The 15 papers reported work he had done producing a transistor on the molecular scale – truly revolutionary science - however, he had falsified results for all 15. The papers were subsequently withdrawn after independent groups discovered the fraud. It’s important to remember that a paper accepted in peer review can still be poorly written, poorly researched, and just plain wrong. Some of the most influential manuscripts of the 20th century were never peer reviewed, including Watson and Crick’s famous 1951 paper that announced the discovery