科学论文写作 Tips

感觉还是课程中给的英文描述会比较好，所以笔记大多数还是以老师的原英文 PPT 为主

1 Steps in the Writing Process

如何开展论文写作以及各个步骤的时间分配

1-1 Prewriting (70%)

• Collect, synthesize, and organize information
• Brainstorm take-home messages
• Work out ideas away from the computer
• Develop a roadmap/outline

1-2 Writing the first draft (10%)

• Putting your facts and ideas together in organized prose

这部分被普遍认为是最难的一个部分。然而，老师却建议使用最少的时间进行第一版的写作。我个人觉得，这和吴恩达老师建议机器学习模型很一致，先在能表达清楚的基础上，构建一个基本的框架模型。不管它多 low，毕竟第一次就想要达到最完美的效果是不可能的。

1-3 Revision (20%)

• Read your work out loud
  我的导师也给过我这个建议，有时候确实朗读会比默读发现更多的问题
• Get rid of clutter
• Do a verb check
  • Underline the main verb in each sentence. Watch for: 1) lackluster verbs; 2) passive verbs; 3) buried verbs
  • Cut verbs. Watch for: 1) Dead weight words and phrases (e.g. It should be emphasized that); 2) Empty words and phrases (e.g. basic tenets of, important); 3) Long words or phrases that could be short (e.g. muscular and cardiorespiratory performance); 4) Unnecessary jargon and acronyms; 5) Repetitive words or phrases; 6) Adverbs (e.g. very, really, quite, bascially)
• Get feedback from others

2 Checklist for final draft

• Check for consistency
• Check for numerical consistency
  • Do the numbers in your abstract match the numbers in your tables/figures/text?
  • Do the numbers in the text match those in the tables/figures?
  • Do the numbers in each table/figure match those in other tables/figures?
• Check your references
  • Reference does not provide the indicated information/fact
    • Authors misinterpreted or exaggerated the findings from the original source
    • Reference cites a secondary source rather than a primary source
  • Reference format ((author, year) or author (year))

3 Recommended order for writing an original manuscript

3-1 Tables and Figures

• Figures and tables should stand alone and tell a complete story. The reader should not need to refer back to the main text
• Figures vs. Tables
  • Figures (Visual impact, Show trends and patterns, Tell a quick story, Tell the whole story, Highlight a particular result)
  • Tables (Give precise values, Display many values/variables)
• Table Title
  • Identify the specific topic or point of the table
  • Use the same key terms in the table title, the column headings, and the text of the paper
  • Keep it brief!
  • Example: "Descriptive characteristics of the two treatment groups, means\(\pm\)SD or N(%)"
• Table Footnotes
  • Use superscript symbols to identify footnotes, according to journal guidelines
  • Use footnotes to explain statistically significant differences
  • Use footnotes to explain experimental details or abbreviations
• Types of Figures
  • Line Graphs
    • Used to show trends over time, age, or dose
  • Bar Graphs
    • Used to compare groups at one time point
  • Scatter Plots
    • Used to show relationships between two variables (particularly linear correlation)
    • Allows readers to see individual data points = more information!

3-2 Results

• Results \(\ne\) Raw Data
• The result section should:
  • Summarize what the data show
    • Point out simple relationships
    • Describe big-picture trends
    • Cite figures or tables that present supporting data
  • Avoid simply repeating the numbers that are already available in tables and figures
• Tips for writing Results
  • Break into subsections, with headings (if needed)
  • Complement the information that is already in tables and figures
    • Give precise values that are not available in the figure
    • Report the percent change or percent difference if absolute values are given in the table
  • Repeat/highlight only the most important numbers
  • Don't forget to talk about negative and control results
  • Reserve the term "significant" for statistically significant
  • Reserve information about what you did for the methods section
    • In particular, do not discuss the rationale for statistical analyses within the Results section
  • Reserve comments on the meaning of your results for the discussion section
• What verb tense do I use?
  • Use past tense for completed actions
    • We found that …
    • The average reaction time was …
  • Use the present tense for assertions that continue to be true, such as what the tables show, what you believe, and what the data suggest
    • Figure 1 shows …
    • The findings confirm …
    • The data suggest …
    • We believe that this shows …

3-3 Methods

• Give a clear overview of what was done
• Give enough information to replicate the study (like a recipe!)
• Be complete, but make life easy for your reader!
• Break into smaller sections with subheading
• Cite a reference for commonly used methods
  • Display in a flow diagram or table where possible
• Verb tense
  • Report methods in past tense ("we measured")
  • But use present tense to describe how data are presented in the paper ("data are summarized as means\(\pm\)SD")

3-4 Introduction

• Follows a fairly standard format
• Typically 3 paragraphs long (Recommended range: 2 to 5)
• It is not an exhaustive review of your general topic
  • Should focus on the specific hypothesis/aim of your study
  • 
  • What's known (Paragraph 1)
  • What's unknown (Paragraph 2)
    • Limitations and gaps in previous studies
  • Your burning question/hypothesis/aim (Paragraph 3)
  • Your experimental approach (Paragraph 3)
  • Why your experimental approach is new and different and important (fills in the gaps) (Paragraph 3)
• Tips for writing an introduction
  • Keep paragraphs short
  • Write for a general audience (clear, concise, non-technical)
  • Take the reader step by step from what is known to what is unknown. End with your specific question (Known→Unknown→Question/hypothesis)
  • Emphasize how your study fills in the gaps (the unknown)
  • Summarize at a high level! Leave detailed descriptions, speculations, and criticisms of particular studies for the discussion

3-5 Discussion

What do my results mean and why should anyone care?

A example framework

• Tips for discussion section
  • Showcase good writing!
    • Use the active voice
    • Tell it like a story
  • Start and end with the main finding
    • "We found that …"
  • Don't travel too far from your data
    • Focus on what your data do prove, not what you had hoped your data would prove
  • Focus on the limitations that matter, not generic limitations
  • Make sure your take-home message is clear and consistent
• Verb tense
  • Past, when referring to study details, results, analyses, and background research
    • We found that
    • Subjects may have experienced
    • Miller et al. found
  • Present, when talking about what the data suggest:
    • The greater weight loss suggests
    • The explanation for this difference is not clear
    • Potential explanations include

3-6 Abstract

• Overview of the main story
• Gives highlights from each section of the paper
• Limited length (100-300 words, typically)
• Framework
  • Background (one sentence)
    • Give the reader some context, maybe motivate the importance of the work
  • Question/aim/hypothesis
    • "We asked whether" "We hypothesized that" … etc
  • Experiment(s)
    • Quick summary of key materials and methods
  • Results
    • Key results found
    • Minimal raw data (prefer summaries)
  • Conclusion
    • The answer to the question asked/take-home message
  • Implication, speculation, or recommendation

4 Peer Revie

4-1 Process

• Scan the abstract
• Jump to the data: review the tables and figures first
  • Draw your own conclusions
  • Do the tables and figures stand on their own?
  • Are there any obvious statistical errors?
  • Is there repetitive information?
• Read the paper once through
  • Do the authors conclusions match their data?
  • Is the paper clearly written, or did you struggle to get through it? You should not have to struggle!
  • Is the length of the paper justified given the amount of new information that the data provide?
• Read the introduction carefully
  • Is it sufficiently succinct?
  • Does it roughly follow: known --> unknown --> research question/hypothesis?
  • Is there a clear statement of the hypotheses or aim of the study?
  • Is there detailed information about what was done that belongs in the methods?
  • Is there information about what was found that belongs in results?
  • Is there distracting information about previous studies or mechanisms that are not directly relevant to the hypothesis being tested. If so, it should be moved to the discussion.
  • Do the authors tell you what gaps in the literature they are trying to fill in?
• Read the methods carefully
  • Scan this section to find answers to your questions about the data.
  • Were things measured objectively or subjectively? What instruments were used?
  • Are there flaws in the study design, such as no control group?
  • Read the statistics section carefully.
• Read the results carefully
  • Read this section with the tables and figures in front of you.
  • Does each section roughly correspond to one table or figure?
  • Do the authors summarize the main trends and themes from the table, or do they just repeat what is in the tables?
  • If there are graphs, do the authors give precise numerical values in the text if it is not given in the graph?
  • Are the authors honest or do they try to draw your eye to what they want you to see?
  • Do the authors over-interpret statistical significance, by ignoring the fact that the magnitude is small or by ignoring the fact that they have done multiple subgroup analyses?
  • Is this section unnecessarily long?
• Look at each table and figure
  • Did the authors choose the correct statistics?
  • Are there multiple tables or figures that tell the same story?
  • Is there evidence of cherry-picking or purposefully omitting data?
  • Are any graphs misleading, e.g. through manipulation of area or axes?
  • Is the "treatment" group always compared with a proper control/placebo group?
  • Are there inconsistencies in the data they present from one table to the next?
  • Did the authors make transcribing errors when going from the data in tables/results to the abstract?
• Read the discussion carefully
  • Does the first paragraph succinctly and clearly tell you what was found and what is new?
  • Are the authors' conclusions justified or are they overreaching?
  • Do they clearly distinguish hypothesis-driven conclusions and exploratory conclusions?
  • Is the writing clear and to the point (active voice!)? Is there some sense of order and structure or are they just rambling on aimlessly?
  • Could the discussion be shortened?
  • Did they address the limitations you care about? (as opposed to any old irrelevant limitations that they threw in just to have some)
  • Are the references that they cite current?
  • Have they omitted key references?

4-2 Content (comments to authors)

• Start with a one-paragraph "general overview"
  • State what you think is the major finding and importance of the work
  • Give 2-3 positive, encouraging statements about the work. If the methods are problematic, is the writing nice, for example? Is the research question particularly interesting or novel? (E.g., "This is an interesting manuscript, with several strengths." "The authors should be commended for .." "The finding that XX is important.)
  • State 1-2 major limitations (if there are any) to the study design, writing/presentation, or conclusions. (E.g., "The study is limited because there is no control group." "The overall writing or presentation need improvement." "The authors may have over-stated their findings." "The paper provides only weak evidence for its conclusions." "The study is exploratory, not hypothesis-driven.")
  • Do not tell the authors your overall recommendation (rejection, acceptance)
• In a numbered list, give 5-15 specific criticisms/suggestions for revision. The number will often correspond to your recommendation (give the most if you are recommending "opportunity for revision.")
  • Point out specific mistakes
  • List the issues that you found in your review
  • Give specific recommendations for revision

4-3 Reviewer is not Copy Editor!

• Do not be spend your time nit-picking
• Focus on big-picture issues
• If the manuscript has a lot of copy-editing errors, point this out in a general way and give one or two examples, e.g. "The manuscript contains typos, such as …"

4-4 Content (comments to editors)

• Fill out journal "grading sheet" (if applicable)
• Choose your recommendation
  • Reject
  • Reject with opportunity to revise
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept
• Give a succinct overall statement to the editors that justifies your ranking. Be frank with the editors about your opinion and concerns.

5 Review articles: structure

• Abstract
• Introduction
  • Clearly state the aim of the review
• The body of the paper
  • Divide into sections
  • Summarize the literature, organized based on methodology or theme
  • Analyze, interpret, critique, and synthesize studies
• Conclusion and future directions
  • What recommendations can you make?
  • What gaps remain in the literature? What future studies would help fill in these gaps?
• Literature cited

6 A few grammar tips

6-1 " Data are" not " Data is" …

The word "data" is plural.

ex: These data show an unusual trend.
ex: The data support the conclusion.
ex: The data are critical.

(v. datum, singular form)

6-2 Affect vs. effect

• Affect is the verb "to influence"
  • The class affected her.
  • As a noun, affect denotes feeling or emotion shown by facial expression or body language, as in "The soldiers seen on television had been carefully chosen for blandness of affect" (Norman Mailer).
• Effect is the noun form of this fluence
  • The class had an effect on her.
  • As a verb, effect means to bring about or to cause.

6-3 Compared to vs. compared with

Compare to = to point out similarities between different things

Compare with ** (used more often in science) = to point out differences between similar things

ex: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
ex: Brain tumors are relatively rare compared with more common cancers, such as those of the lung, breast.

6-4 That vs. which

"That" is the restrictive (defining) pronoun

"Which" is the nonrestrictive (non-defining) pronoun

ex: The vial that contained her RNA was lost.
ex: The vial, which contained her RNA, was lost.

• Key question: Is your clause essential or non-essential?
  • THAT: The essential clause cannot be eliminated without changing the meaning of the sentence.
  • WHICH: The non-essential clause can be eliminated without altering the basic meaning of the sentence (and muse be set off by commas).

ex: The bike that is broken is in the garage. (Identifies which bike of many)
ex: The bike, which is broken, is in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only bike in question)

6-5 Singular antecedents

Do not use "they" or "their" when the subject is singular. To avoid gender choice, turn to a plural!

ex: Each student worries about their grade. (wrong!)
ex: Each student worries about her grade. (wrong!)

Better: All students worry about their grades.