Niu Ren irrigation experience

This is a cool man with more than seven articles in a year. When I asked him how he was so strong, he gave me the tips to summarize the article on the Internet. I think there is a kind of feeling in my heart.

 

I. Four required documents for graduate students as the saying goes: Good memory is not as good as bad writing, so you must first develop a good habit of taking notes! As a graduate student, these books are essential:

1. The lab Record Book (including the test preparation book), which of course bears the brunt, I will not say much;

2. Idea Record Book. Every time you read the document, write down what is useful to you. The resulting idea cannot be ignored. This is the cost of research, and it is better to remember it, there will be more ideas in the future;

3. A record of professional concepts and theoretical progress. It is impossible for everyone to understand the concepts in their own fields. This is especially true for beginners. At this time, a small book will play a major role. 4. Lecture Record Book, this book may be a little complex, recording what you hear, and recording moments of inspiration and what you don't understand! These four are essential to you, but for our non-English graduate students, there is also a book that should be available as a good English sentence record.

 

II. Key Points of Thesis Writing

1. The answer should be small, and the question should be deep; the question should not be large, but the content should be thin.

2. Read good books, read a lot of data, and pay attention to academic accumulation before writing. In this process, pay attention to the use of the network, especially some professional databases.

3. Three new principles of "new answers, new methods, and new materials" (taught by the boss)

4. "New question and new question" and "small question and big question" are all written ".

 

Iii. How to Write an experimental research paper (Tang Dynasty pivot)

Paper publication Consciousness: Expression of basic research results; eager to publish (relationship between innovation and rigor); differences between published papers and degree papers (reflecting scientific facts rather than the author's level)

Format: original, express, briefing, and abstract. Unlike textbooks and handouts, it is more different from work summaries.

Preparations before writing: review and prepare relevant documents; Review lab objectives (academic thoughts, IDEA); Complete and review lab materials

1. Introduction: Proposal of the problem; Current Situation and background of the study; Basis of previous work; Purpose of the work; ideas (suggestion hypothesis); objects; methods; and results. In... On the model, observe... Indicators to explore... (Purpose)

2, M & M

(1) Writing and significance of materials; ethics.

(2) procedures and indicators.

Operating procedures: sequential and operable;

Methods: Sorting of multi-index methods; Introduction to references; improvements; details or conciseness?

(3) statistical processing

3. Results (1) Indicator category description, avoid sequential accounts. Without analysis, it is not explained, but it should reflect the idea (2) that the text, graphs, and tables are relatively independent, but avoid repetition (3) Avoid statistical errors: comparison, balancing, and then repetition. Metering-counting, absolute value-relative value, specific indicator-comprehensive indicator conversion. Blind and non-blind judgments. Direct Probability Method and chi-square test of technical data; multiple groups of data and two groups of data; hierarchical correlation and linear correlation; multi-factor and single-factor analysis; paired data and independent sample data; non-normal distribution data; incorrect number of samples; Parallel tube, mixed sample; Prominent differences (absolute value, Delta value, change %; joint ×, odds ratio, sub-group, etc.) Retention of valid digits. Statistical and professional conclusions.

4. Discussion (1) background materials: Proposal of questions; some basic knowledge about this study (do not leave the question too far) (2) Analysis of the experiment results: the significance of each indicator (compared with the literature value), and the results indicate the problems (3) further analysis of the results mechanism: combined with the literature (4) the significance, conclusion or summary of this work, other notes for further questions: ① too much literature knowledge (different from dissertation) cited to discuss the contribution of this work ② the analysis is not logical and the conclusion is inappropriate ③ the discussion is too superficial, unfamiliar with literature 4 writing work summaries, lack of academic heights 5 correct use of acronyms, especially group Acronyms

5. References: Why should the documents be cited? (1) References: New and authoritative documents without express reports or summaries (2) self-guided work: work continuity (3) Comparison of experimental results and Literature: new, available Express, conference and personal consulting materials (4) Methodology: classic literature, note that the citation is accurate, do not refer

6. Abstract: Question proposal (background); work objectives; objects; methods (indicators, groups); main results (data, statistics); Conclusions and prospects

7. Repeat the article question: too large or too small

8. Contribution: The article is revised according to the magazine's manuscript (Reserved). Reference the magazine's article.

9. Fatal injury: unclear objectives; no innovation in repetitive work; untrusted results due to methodological issues; clinical studies: Ethics; Case and control selection; full Clinical Relationship Analysis

 

4. How to write the paper discussion part: the discussion of scientific papers requires structural recommendations the structure used in the discussion part of the scientific paper: statement mainly found, strengths and weaknesses of this study, strengths and weaknesses compared with other studies; in particular, we need to discuss the differences in the results, the significance of the study, unanswered questions, and future research directions. At the beginning, we need to re-explain the main findings and use a sentence to represent the ideal ones. Next, we will give a comprehensive explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of this study. In fact, editors and readers pay the most attention to the shortcomings of research, which is inevitable for all medical research. Once the editors and Readers discover the shortcomings of the research, but the author does not discuss it, their trust in the article will be shaken, and they are confused: are there any other vulnerabilities that they and the author have not found? Second, Associate the study with the previous work and compare the advantages and disadvantages without showing off how the work is better than the previous work. Compared with other studies, do not mask your defects. The important thing is that we should discuss why we come to conclusions different from others, so that the author can let up his speculation. But if we cannot figure out why our research results are different from others' results, it is inconvenient to make such speculation, and it is not necessary to assert that the results of your own research are correct, and that others are wrong. Next we should discuss what our research "shows", how we can explain our findings, and what it means to clinicians or decision makers? At this moment, the author's situation is dangerous. Most editors and readers can understand the author's caution, not exceeding the empirical boundary. Readers determine the significance of research by themselves: they will do it. The author can even point out that the research results do not prove anything, preventing readers from drawing excessive and false conclusions. Finally, it is necessary to clarify which questions have not been answered and the work to be continued. Obviously, editors and readers do not like exaggerated practices. In fact, this part of the paper is often messy. Although the author cannot be prevented from writing a speculative article, the evidence cannot be ruined by speculation. The discussion may sometimes require other subtitles, but we believe that the structure proposed now is suitable for most research papers. Although the unified structure is difficult or even limited, we believe that this structure will reduce the overall length of the text, prevent improper speculation and repetition, reduce the report deviation, and improve the overall quality of the report. This idea is completely tested. We welcome the author and readers of BMJ to express their views. If they are well reflected, we will use a structured discussion.

 

5. Tips for writing English articles my boss has more than 6 Sci articles on average for every graduated doctor. He has never been strong in learning and only teaches how to do research. He told me the following question only once, and my actions will be scolded if they do not match. Now I am used to thinking like this and doing things. I find that doing things is really getting twice the result with half the effort. 1. Before you do the research, have you thought about whether the results can be published? Where to send? 2. The master of writing an article is to write the article in a large box, empty the data, and wait until the experiment is completed. It is said that there is a gap in the heart. 3. Do not do things unless you know what you want to write, where you want to send it, or what you want to do with your peers. Go to the document and think about it. If you want to do this without knowing it, you have to read the document first? You need to know how to put up the article, how others discuss it, and whether your own data shows something different from others or someone else has never done it. This process is the process of reading and thinking about the document. It is easy to write these ideas. If I do something first and find someone else has done it, or I cannot explain it in theory, isn't it a big deal? 6. Skills of writing excellent papers: 1. Correct selection; 2. suitable entry point; 3. concise and clear; 4. Clear your contribution; 5. Reliable/reproducible results; 6. Repeatable processes; 7. Good article structure and logical processes; 8. misunderstandings of the selected excellent references: 1. The more idea, the better; 2. blindly pursuing revolutionary and breakthrough achievements; 3. The more complicated mathematics, theories, and formulas, the better-displaying your own cleverness; 4. Pursuing the best, 5. display authority. A large number of papers are cited in the citation. Conditions for writing articles: 1. It is related to the research work and indeed has good ideas, not for writing; 2. It has achieved valuable results and contributed to the academic community; 3. The experiment is mature and can withstand tests. 4. You must record the experiment and share the key points of writing the paper with others: 1. Write 3 ~ The four-layer outline is modified multiple times. 2. Write from introduction and review the existing work. 3. Declare the document structure. Do not enter the details directly. 4. Declare the motivation and basic principles of the work, raise potential questions, and answer them by yourself. 5. Explain how your work is different from that of your predecessors, and describe your contribution and its practical application prospects. 6. Write summary and abstract, and determine the title after repeated consideration. Reviewer check list: 1. Whether the paper raises a new problem or provides a new solution to the existing problem. 2. What are the main results of the paper? 3. Are the experiment results sufficient? 4. What is the technical content of the paper? 5. Have you evaluated the effectiveness and limitations of the proposed technology/results? 6. Is the paper writing clear so that most researchers in the industry can read it? 7. Have the papers properly referenced and introduced relevant historical documents? 8. Should I award my thesis? IEEE Transactions on csvt Review Form: 1. To what extent does it satisfy the reader interest of this journal? 2. Evaluation of the methods used in the thesis? 3. Is the result novel? 4. Are the main results correct? 5. Is the discussion clear? 6. Is there consistency (prefix/suffix, discussion/result )? 7. Is there sufficient citation? 8. reviewer's opinion: (accept/accept after a minor revision/reject but resubmit a fter a major revision/submit to another journal ). VII. Thesis Writing Skills: 1. publicize yourself-explaining the importance of the thesis. Process: A) problem X is important; B) Previous Work A and B have studied this problem; c) A and B have some defects; d) we proposed the method D; e) to conduct experiments on D and compare it with a and B. f) The experiment proves that D is superior to A and B. G) explains why d is better, other ideas, such as E, cannot be used. h) describes the effectiveness and limitations of D. I) further discusses the development of D. Key points: J) conciseness is the most important; k) do not make careless mistakes, carefully verify the results and select appropriate words. 2. Carefully modify the settings. Steps: a) 30% of the time for careful consideration, 70% of the time for careful Writing of the first draft; B) Put the written paper for a while; c) read the paper word by word; d) ask others to read and modify the paper. e) reviewer/boss/colleagues/proof-reader; f) the number of careful modifications> 3; the total number of modifications> 5. Key points: G) reading your own papers is boring and difficult to find errors. h) A lot of effort is required to improve the level of the paper. 3. Optimize English. Step: a) organize papers (outline/logic/process) from top to bottom; B) use other excellent papers (especially those in the same journal/series) as an example; c) ask others to fully read and modify the syntax and words; d) record errors in their own words and syntax for accumulation. Key points: E) The word and syntax are important, but the structure and logic are more important. 8. Example of excellent thesis structure: 1. Abstract: summary of your work and contributions: a) explaining the problem; B) explaining your own solutions and results. 2. Introduction-Background and outline of the article: a) Question X is important; B) Previous Work A and B have studied this problem; c) A and B have some defects. d) we propose the method D; e) the basic features of D, which are compared with a and B. f) experiments prove that D is superior to a and B; g) basic structure and outline of the article. 3. Previous work-differences between yourself and your predecessors: A. Divide previous work into different categories; B) make a brief review of each important historical task (one to several sentences). Pay attention to the correct review and grasp the key points to avoid ambiguity. c) compare it with your own work; d) do not ignore the important work of the predecessors, evaluate the work of the predecessors fairly, and do not be too harsh; e) emphasize the difference between your work and the work of the predecessors. It is best to give examples of their respective applications. 4. Our work-describe your work, which can be divided into multiple parts: a) clarifying the definition and representation from the reader's perspective; B) providing the pseudo code, illustration, and corresponding explanation of the algorithm; c) answer potential questions that may be raised by the reader by asking questions; d) the complex and lengthy proofs and details can be found in the appendix. The key here is to clarify the problem; e) special cases and exceptions should be described in the footer. 5. Experiments-verification methods and ideas: a) reasonably design the experiment (concise experiment and detailed experiment steps); B) make necessary comparisons to highlight the scientific nature; c) discuss and explain the meaning of the results; d) give a conclusion. 6. Conclusion: Summary, prospects, and conclusions: a) quick and brief summary; B) Future work prospects; c) End of the full text. 7. References-comprehensive reference of relevant important background documents: a) Select a citation (the conclusion is well known and does not need to be referenced. Other people's work should be referenced); B) it is consistent with the previous article. 8. Others-thank you, appendix, and footer. Rejected handling: 1. Understand that rejection by international authoritative journals is a normal task (more than 70% are rejected) and maintain a good attitude. 2. Thanks to the editors and reviewer for their comments and work. 3. Ask the deputy editor about how to deal with this paper (re-casting, re-casting, and recall ). 4. Continue the new research or supplement the changes and change the changes to other magazines. FAQs: 1. Can I make multiple comments in one draft? Never! However, after a conference paper is modified, it can be submitted to a journal. 2. Can I suggest the deputy editor handle my thesis? No, but he is advised not to review it. 3. What should I do if I did not receive a reply from the Deputy Editor on April 9? Write a friendly inquiry letter. Don't rush too quickly, don't look for the editor-in-chief. 4. What should I do if I have serious disagreements with the deputy editor? You can find the editor, but do not do this frequently. 5. What should I do if the final decision with the editor-in-chief is seriously different? No way.