Graduate student how to publish a thesis must read __how

How to publish a thesis by a graduate student

This is a year three if more than 7 cattle people when I asked him how he was so strong, he gave me the tips for summarizing his articles online. Look at the heart there is a feeling, special dedication out

One, the graduate student must four

As the saying goes, good memory is not as bad as writing, so be sure to first form a good habit of making notes. As a graduate student the following few books are essential:

1, the experimental notebook (including the trial preparation of this), which of course the first and foremost indispensable, I will not say more;

2,idea notebook, each look at the literature on their own useful things to write down, the idea of the resulting more can not let go, this is the cost of doing research, good memory is not as bad as the pen, after the rollover will be more ideas;
3, professional concepts and theoretical progress notebook, each person can not be the concept of their own field of knowledge, the beginning of the more so, this time the role of a small book is big;

4, the lecture notebook, this book may have some zero miscellaneous, record what you hear, but also to record the moment of inspiration, and do not understand the place, can not be belittled.
These four are essential to you, but as a graduate of our non-English majors, there is also a book that should have a good English sentence notebook.

Second, the main points of thesis writing
1, the topic should be small, digging to deep; do not have a big problem, but the content is very thin.
2, before writing to read good books, reading a lot of information, pay attention to academic accumulation, in this process, but also pay attention to the use of the network, especially some professional database
3, "New topics, new methods, information new" Three new principles (the boss taught)

4, "New topic new" and "fuss

In short, a point of view is written.
Iii. How to write an experimental research paper
Publication awareness: The expression of basic research results; whether to be anxious to publish (the relationship between innovation and rigor); the difference between published papers and dissertations (reflecting scientific facts rather than reflecting the author's level)

Paper format: Original, express, briefing, summary. Different from textbooks, handouts, and more different from the work summary.
Preparation before writing: review and prepare relevant literature; re-examine the purpose of the experiment (academic thought, idea); experimental data
Complete and review again.

1.Introduction:

The present situation and background of the study, the basis of the previous work, the purpose of the work, the thought (the hypothesis);
The object, the method, the result. In... On the model, observe ... Indicators to explore ... Objective

2 M & M

The writing and meaning of ⑴ materials; Ethics.

⑵ procedures and indicators. Operating procedures: can be sequential, operable; methods: The sequencing of multiple index methods, the introduction of reference literature, the improvement of the department, and the details or the simplification.

⑶ Statistics Processing

3. Results

⑴ Index Classification Description, avoid running accounts. Do not analyze not explain, but to reflect the idea

⑵ text, graphs, tables are relatively independent, but avoid duplication

⑶ Avoid statistical errors: control, balance, then, repeat. The conversion of measurement-count, absolute value-relative values, specificity index-synthetic index. Blind and non-blind sentences. Technical data Direct probability method and card square inspection; multi-group data and two groups of data, grade correlation and linear correlation, multifactor and single factor analysis, paired data and independent sample data, non normal distribution data, improper number of cases, parallel tube, mixed sample, outstanding difference (absolute value, δ, change%)
Values, sub groups, etc.) the retention of significant digits. Statistical conclusions and professional conclusions.

4. Discussion

⑴ background Material: initiate the question; some basic knowledge of this study (don't digress too far)

⑵ the results of this experiment: the significance of each index (compared with the literature value), the results indicate what the problem

⑶ further results mechanism analysis: combined with the literature

⑷ the meaning, conclusion or summary of this work, and further put forward the new problems

Other points to note:

① cited too much literature (unlike dissertations) to obscure the contribution of this work

② analysis is illogical and the conclusion is improper

③ discussion too superficial, literature knowledge unfamiliar

④ written work summary, lack of academic height

⑤ should use abbreviations, especially group abbreviations, correctly

5. References: Why should the literature be cited

⑴: New, authoritative literature, without express or abstract

⑵ Self-Introduction to your work: continuity of work

Comparison of ⑶ experimental results and Literature: new, available letters, meetings, and personal consultation materials

⑷ Methodology: Classical literature, pay attention to the accuracy of quotations, do not quoted

6. Summary:

(Background) The purpose of this work; objects; methods (indicators, grouping); main results (data
, statistic, conclusion, and Prospect

7. Further refine the article title: Irrelevant, too big, too small

8. Contribution: According to the magazine contributors (showings). Quote the magazine article. Bogey a draft two cast

9. Fatal injuries: unclear purpose; no innovation in repetitive work; methodological problems result in unreliable results. Clinical research: ethics;
case and control selection; Full analysis of clinical relationship

How to write a good thesis discussion part: The discussion of scientific paper needs to be structured

Suggest the structure used in the discussion of scientific papers: the main findings are the strengths and weaknesses of this study, the strengths and weaknesses compared with other studies, especially the differences in results, the significance of studies, unanswered questions and future research directions.

The discussion begins with a new explanation of the main findings, with a sentence that is more ideal. Then comprehensively explain the strengths and weaknesses of this study, both indispensable. In fact, editors and readers are most aware of the shortcomings of the study, which is unavoidable in all medical studies. Once editors and readers discover the shortcomings of the study, and the authors have not discussed it, their trust in the article will be shaken and suspicious: are there any other weaknesses that they and the authors have not found?

Second, the study is linked to previous work, not to show off how well it is compared to the previous work, but to compare the pros and cons. In contrast to other studies, avoid covering up your own flaws.　It is important to discuss why it is possible to draw a conclusion that is different from others, and that the author can let go of it, but if it is not clear why his findings differ from those of others, it would be inconvenient to speculate and not to assert that the results of the study were correct and others ' mistakes. Then you should discuss what your research "shows", how you explain your research findings, and what it means to clinicians or decision makers. At the moment, the author's position is dangerous, and most editors and readers can understand the author's caution, no more than empirical boundaries. To judge the meaning of research by readers themselves: they will do it. The authors can even point out that the findings prove nothing to prevent readers from drawing excessive, false conclusions. Finally, you should identify the issues that have not been answered and the work to be done. Obviously, editors and readers do not like exaggerated practices. In fact, this part of the paper is often written in a messy form. Although the author cannot be prevented from writing an article full of conjecture, it must not be destroyed by speculation.

The discussion section may sometimes require other small headings, but we think that the present structure is suitable for most research papers. Although the unified structure is difficult, and even limited, we believe that this structure will reduce the total length of the text, prevent improper speculation and repetition, reduce the reporting bias, improve the overall quality of the report. This assumption is fully amenable to inspection. We welcome the views of BMJ authors and readers, and if so, we will use structured discussions.

tips on writing articles in English

My boss, on average, has more than 6 sci for every ph. D., and he has never been strong in studying germinal articles, only teaching how to do research. The following question, he only told me once, and then my action is not consistent with it will be scolded. Now it's become a habit to think, to do things, to find that it is more than half the effort.

1. Before you do the research, think about whether the results can be published or not. Where to send.

2. The Master of the article is to write the article big box, empty out the data, and so finish the experiment, fill in the empty can be sent. There are ravines in the heart.

3. If you are not sure what to write, where to go, what you do and what you do with your peers, before you do things. Look at the literature and think. If you don't want to do it clearly, you have to look at the literature before you do it. To know how to put the article up, to know how others are discussed, to know that your own data is not the same as others or other people did not do. This process is to look at the literature, think of the process, these make clear, write simple. If you do something first, you find someone else has done it, or you can't explain it by theory.

Vi. tips for writing papers

Elements of a good paper: 1, the correct topic; 2, the appropriate entry point; 3, concise and clear; 4, to clarify their contribution; 5, reliable/reproducible results, 6, repeatable process; 7, good article structure and logical flow; 8. Selected References

Mistakes in excellent papers: 1, Idea the more the better; 2, the pursuit of revolutionary, breakthrough results; 3, mathematics, theory and formula the more complex the better-show their own cleverness; 4, the pursuit of the best, unprecedented; 5, display Authority, citation in a large number of citations of their own papers.

The conditions for writing articles: 1, and research work related to, indeed have a good idea, not to write and write; 2, achieved valuable results, to the academic community contribute to 3, the experimental mature, can withstand the test; 4, have to be recorded and shared with others

Write the main points of the paper: 1, write the outline of the 3~4 layer repeatedly modified. 2. Write from introduction and review existing work. 3, to declare the article structure, not directly into the details. 4, the statement of the motives and basic principles of work, put forward potential problems, to answer their own. 5, tell the difference between their work and predecessors, explain their contributions and practical application prospects. 6, the final write summary and abstract, after repeated discretion to determine the title.

Reviewercheck List:1, whether the paper raises a new problem or gives a new solution to the existing problem. 2. What is the main result of the thesis? 3, the experimental results are sufficient. 4. What is the technical content of the paper? 5. Whether the thesis evaluates the effectiveness and limitation of the proposed technology/result. 6, the thesis is clear, so that most researchers in the industry can read. 7, the paper is appropriate to cite and introduce the relevant historical documents. 8, whether the paper should be rewarded.

Ieeetransactions on CSVT Review form:1, to the extent that it satisfies the interest of the readers of this periodical.

2. Evaluation of the methods used in the paper. 3, whether the result is novel. 4, the main results are correct. 5, the elaboration is clear. 6, whether there is consistency (before/after, the discussion/results). 7, whether the citation is sufficient. 8, Reviewer comments: (accept/accept after a minor revision/reject/reject but resubmit after a majorrevision/submit to Anot Her journal).

Paper Writing skills:

1, publicize oneself--explain the importance of the paper. Process: A) problem x is important; B. Previous work A, B has studied the problem; c) A and B have some defects; d, we have proposed a method to D;e D, and A and b are compared; f) The experiment proves that D is superior to A and B, and G explains why D is better. Other ideas, such as E, do not work; h) describes the validity and limitations of D and the discussion of D further development. Main point: J. The most important; k) not careless mistakes, carefully verify the results and appropriate choice of words.

2, careful modification. Step: a) 30% of the time to think carefully, 70% time to seriously write the first draft; B to put a good paper for a period of time; c. Read the paper word for word; d ask others to help with reading and revising; E. Review the paper in the light of other people's perspective at the time of the change (Reviewer/boss/ Colleagues/proof-reader); f) The number of carefully modified > 3; The total number of revisions > 5. Main point: g) It is tedious to read your own paper, and it is not easy to find mistakes; h) To promote the small level of the paper, to pay a lot of labor.

3, optimize English. Step: A to organize the thesis (Outline/logic/process) from top to bottom; (b) Use other excellent papers (especially with journals/series of papers, excellent books) as an example; C. Ask others to help read and modify grammar and use words; d) record your own words and grammatical errors, accumulate. Main point: E) The use of words and grammar is of course important, but structure and logic are more important.

Eight, excellent thesis structure example:

1. abstract--'s summary of his work and contribution: (a) elaboration of the problem; b) Description of its solutions and results.

2, introduction--background, as well as the outline of the article: a) problem x is important; (b) Previous work A, B has studied the issue; c) A and B have some defects; d we propose the basic characteristics of the method d;e D, and compare A and B; f) experiments prove that D is superior to A and B. (g) The basic structure of the article, the outline.

3, Previous work--explain their differences with the predecessors: (a) to divide the work of the previous persons into categories; b) A brief review of each important historical work (one to several sentences), note that the review is correct, grasp the main points, avoid ambiguity; c. Compare the work you have proposed (d) Do not overlook the important work of predecessors, to justly evaluate the work of predecessors, not too harsh; E. Emphasizes the differences between their work and those of previous work, and it is best to cite examples of their respective applications.

4, our work--description of their work, can be divided into several parts: A to clarify the definition and representation from the reader's point of view; B to provide the algorithm's pseudo code, illustrations and corresponding explanations; c. Answer the potential questions that the reader may ask by way of questioning; d. Complex lengthy proofs and details can be placed in the appendix, The key here is to articulate the problem. E exceptions and exceptions should be described in footnotes.

5. The method and train of thought of experiments--verification: A reasonable design experiment (concise Experiment and detailed experiment procedure); b) necessary comparisons, highlighting the scientific nature; c. Discuss, explain the meaning of the result; d. give a conclusion.

6, conclusion--Summary, foreground and text: a quick short summary; b) prospects for future work; c. End the text.

7. references--a comprehensive reference to relevant important background literature: a) Select quotations (the well-known conclusions need not be quoted, others ' work to be quoted); b) consistent with the preceding article.

8, others--Thank you, appendix, footnote.

Processing denied:

1, understanding by the international authoritative journal rejection is a normal thing (more than 70% are rejected), to maintain a good mentality.

2, thank editors and reviewer for their opinions and work.

3, ask the deputy editor, how can I handle this paper is the most suitable (re-cast/change/withdraw).

4, continue to new research or additional changes after the change to other magazines.

Problems:

1, whether can be a draft more than one vote. Never, never. However, a conference paper after the revision can be cast into the journal.

2. Whether the deputy editor can advise how to deal with his thesis. No, but you can advise him not to let someone review it.

3, such as April did not receive the deputy editor reply how to do. Write a friendly letter of inquiry, don't push too hard, don't look for the editor-in-chief.

4, such as and Deputy chief editor comments seriously do not and how to do. You can find an editor, but don't do it often.

5, if and the final decision of the editor-in-chief seriously not and how to do. There's no way.