How to understand a research field of Daniel

1, ignorant age

When I was a graduate student, the boss was an academician, and pen was well-known. His article at that time in the domestic field can be distinguished, in addition to scientific ideas from the system, a lot of results by his writing will make people feel new and persuasive. At that time, the habit of our group was that the students wrote the first draft and then showed it to the boss. The so-called modification is actually the owner of the whole rewrite again. In retrospect, at that time, I still completely did not touch the way of writing the article, guarding such a capable boss just want to lazy, want to have the boss to rewrite, I just simply put the results of the analysis of the experiment to hand it over. Our group of articles by the boss after writing, cast out the hit rate is very high, including Jacs This magazine, I was in the impression of a few have been rejected a article. Unfortunately, I did not have a quiet heart to study the boss how to write the article, only know to do the results of the experiment, ignoring the exercise. When it's time for a later person.

2, Renzouchaliang

After graduation, after graduating from the university, he stayed in two places, although the research direction with the changes in the laboratory, but finally there are many results. Unfortunately, the timely collation of the article is not enough attention, a lot of results or simply tidy up to hand in the boss, and then often have to wait for themselves to leave the laboratory after the boss to clean up, and occasionally let later students fill some data. A lot of good results, after the boss split reload, all appear in the other students first author of the article, I myself finally landed a few second authors. In this advice to those who are immersed in the test students, must be in time to organize their own experimental results. If you feel enough of an article frame, hurriedly put the fill, as soon as possible to sort out the article.

3. Argue

I used to see a post in the jar and talk about the posting experience of an article that impresses me most. One of my most impressive articles was the one that was cast on an influential factor more. The result was not very good, and there was no great expectation for it. After one months of waiting, I was outraged by the editor's comments: The reviewer questioned many of the details of the article, and even used the words "thrilling (creepy)" in the reviewer's comments. It is not difficult to imagine that the reviewer's final opinion is rejected. Fortunately, the editor who handled my article at the time was R at the Cambridge University's Cavendish Lab. Friend Professor (polymer electroluminescent students should not be unfamiliar with this name). Instead of simply rejecting the draft, he asked me to return a letter to the reviewer. Later, I am in response to the reviewer's doubts and opinions, wrote a full four replies, one after the other with our experimental facts to answer his question, each step of the experimental operation is clearly written out, and in some places reference to his comments on the manuscript has been modified. After sending the reply and revise the manuscript, after one months, the reviewer returned the comments, only a short sentence, unconditional reception.

At that time, in the face of the comments of the reviewer, in the heart only feel aggrieved after anxious to defend the urgency and anger, now think, that the reviewer produced so many doubts, in addition to his own may not be very understanding of my field of study, the main reason is still in my own article expression. The article does not make others feel clear and credible, the appearance of such a peer review opinion is not surprising. To say that the final publication of this article, can only congratulate oneself met a good editor of due diligence. Many students encounter completely unacceptable negative peer review, you can first try to calm down, do not busy with frustration or anger, but to see whether their articles really exist in the reviewer said the problem. If there is, then quickly follow the improvement, the reviewer's opinion is a rare medicine for you, after the change can be another magazine; if not, find a way to organize the evidence, must reply to argue, with sufficient experimental facts tell the editor you are right, the reviewer is wrong. Do not underestimate this, I in a foreign laboratory colleague once strove to come back an article Phys. Rev. lett.!

4. Blind Temptation

In many occasions, through many channels, I have indirectly or directly received such information, said that many Chinese researchers have scientific research results, regardless of whether the quality is really so high, the manuscript to foreign magazines from high to low cast a time, always think of which day luck, in the color, No matter how foreign editors face the overwhelming made in the China manuscript. At the earliest hearing of this statement, they should also be negative and disdain attitude. Can later himself cast a manuscript, think actually also how many embrace such luck psychology. The results of the article oneself feel good, turned over Jacs the last two years about the field of some articles, feel their own is not bad, so write well cast out, did not expect to have a week to directly let the editor back. Finally sank the heart to make a good change, successfully published on the Langmuir. Think about it and find out the following points to learn:

1 Many internationally renowned Daniel, one of their articles can be in a magazine for us does not have much reference value, because there are many hidden things in the work;

2) is your job really innovative enough? More importantly, the higher the magazine, the more innovative it requires that your work can be of value to readers of a sufficiently wide research direction (or, perhaps, to "extensibility"). This is why sometimes the results are beautiful and no one has done it, but the editor will suggest you transfer to other more professional magazines.

3) text expression, this put in the back together said. I am now looking at the first draft of the JACS, which can only be counted as a semi-finished product, in the face of such a top magazine editor is not directly refused to blame.

5, Bao Jianfeng from sharpening out

Before the Spring Festival this year, I was a student of a manuscript cast to Adv. On the Mater, it took only one months to receive it. One reviewer said no modification, the other said minor repairs, and was just a matter of several textual errors and a citation. Students of course are very happy, just break into 1.5 and have a good article out. I am also very happy, because this article also is I very much need. In fact, think about it, this article is not only the advent of good luck.

Before the student's break-in, I first read a lot of relevant literature, I think this direction is interesting and more feasible. And then I did two experiments and tried it and felt that there was a chance. Then mainly the students themselves are doing, but also encountered a lot of problems in the middle, each time to bring together to discuss. In fact, the preliminary results almost a year ago came out, in the middle of constantly let students to systematize the results of the experiment, fill some more clearly beautiful electron microscope diagram, and then from the angle of the article discussion to try to plump it. Write this article, as far as possible to explain clearly, let a person from the preface to think you this work of importance and novelty, the discussion is completely based on the experimental results, the article structure to achieve clear and smooth, and before and after a very obvious shun-bearing relationship, language expression as far as possible accurate norms, so finally only in one swoop.

Speaking of writing, to tell the truth, I personally think that the international language of English is a natural weakness for the Chinese people. There is no way we can express and speak freely as native English speakers do. Many of our standard sentences from textbooks have been assembled to make them feel stiff and withered. What to do? In fact, Kung Fu is not afraid of people, there are a lot of reference books on scientific research paper writing, but also in peacetime reading a high level of literature collection and finishing, some wonderful or fixed expression in mind, the key time can be sent in great use. In the jar I saw Zhenmafudan a book, there is a saying, that is, like telling a story to write your work as an article to others to listen to. One of my students is doing a very good experiment, but every time he writes the first draft of the article as I did, it can only be a simple result analysis, Figure 1 What is what, what is the curve a what, completely did not explain the context clearly. I now also "like to tell a story about the work" to give him, but also hope and the altar friends here to share. And if there are conditions, please special English modification company or know the foreigner to help modify, so out of the manuscript, at least the language of accuracy and expression habits will be in front of the reviewer and the editor to add a lot.

The whole article from the beginning to do experiments to finally come out, my biggest feeling is not urgent, to be in their own side as far as possible to improve it, whether it is from the experimental results or the expression of the article do you can do the best. Believe that the pay will always have a corresponding return. And sometimes no matter what the reason, eager to put some of the results of the non-systematic experiment casually cast out, was refused to reject it is no surprise. A few days ago, the Journal of Physical Chemistry of Peking University Let me examine a manuscript, I can see the article should be students in a hurry to sort out their own, the level is not high, a lot of mistakes. The preface is completely unclear about why I am doing this job, what is the point of this work? The results of the experiment could not fully support his discussion, and the final conclusion had too many uncertain parts, and even some fundamentally could not be established. Although it is a Chinese article, but it is not accurate in the place, even typos are better. Although I understand the urgency of the students to publish articles, but this manuscript I did not hesitate to refuse. Such a poor article out of the oven, which has the students the reason for the coarse precipitant, there is also the possibility of teachers. Hope that everyone in the future regardless of the grade of the magazine to vote articles, can first let it become their own mind the best.

6, trade-offs have degrees

Sometimes and units of the teachers chat, often talk about a problem: Many students do experiments, encountered problems after only a simple try, and then gave up, wasted a lot of time, very pity. In fact, like drilling wells, sometimes the last shovel of water out, so be sure to adhere to. When do you give up? If in theory your idea is simply impossible to achieve, or set a good experimental route under the existing conditions can not be achieved, this time can be a positive attitude to give up.

In fact, I personally feel that this cannot be simply attributed to students. From the beginning of the experiment, it is necessary to take into account its feasibility. Undoubtedly, this is difficult for graduate students, especially those who have just entered the laboratory, it is hard to grasp accurately. There is no doubt that this should be done by the teacher. I know a lab owner who has assigned a topic to one of his students. To tell the truth, the topic is very meaningful, if made out of the words can be in nature, science on the article. The problem is that this topic in foreign countries have several well-known working groups to struggle for many years are still step by step improvement, and they have not much foundation in the laboratory itself, so that a student on the independence of the challenge of such a difficult task, the next is undoubtedly more tragic than Don Quixote.

The problem in the middle of the experiment is also, the student's experience must be insufficient, when the teacher should play his role, adjust the test plan in time, see how to solve the current level or change a road, the same. There is almost no easy way to explore the scientific research, there are difficulties are normal, and sometimes everything is too smooth you have to be careful: so simple to come out of the results of how no one had done before?

For example, I was the one who sent Adv. Mater. The student of the article, the student initiative is very strong, he often has his own ideas, this is very good. During this year's Spring festival holiday, he gave me a first draft of a piece of his own. To tell the truth, at first glance, I am also very pleasantly surprised, this is he in I give him to decorate the topic oneself to look for a direction to do, the result is very beautiful. After the surprise, I began to hesitate, whether from the experimental program or from the experimental operation of this should not be difficult to think of, is it true that has never been touched before, we have been leak detection?

A look at the literature, sure enough, a few years ago, someone has done. But the story doesn't end there. After reading that several documents, combined with my students ' experimental ideas and experimental results, I helped him make some adjustments, and I first gave him the layout of the topic for some integration, equal to the old method to do new things, there have been some good results.

Therefore, from the student's point of view, encourage people to try more brain, do not give up, there are problems to find more documents to ask the teacher. From the boss's point of view to timely follow-up students test, encountered problems in time to solve, so that students as little detours.

How to understand a research field of Daniel