Sci Thesis Editor teaches you how to prepare SCI papers and writing [turn]

The most incisive argument of the article:

The topic should be small, digging to deep, not the topic is very big, the content is very thin. a person with a big problem actually knows something, but he doesn't know anything about it. Scholarship is inappropriate, especially for young students. The topic is very small, but the people who talk about the problem deeply, belong to the type of true scholarship . Make up a few, only hope to become really capable of genius.

  
  
  turn from: http://www.sciencenet.cn/bbs/showpost.aspx?id=57128
 
First, graduate students must have four copies of the
saying that good memory is better than bad writing, so be sure to develop a good habit of taking notes! As a graduate student, the following books are essential
1, experiment book (including trial preparation), which is of course the first requisite, I will not say much;  
2, idea Notebook , each time to see the literature on their useful things first note, the resulting idea even more can not let go, this is the cost of doing research, good memory is not as bad as the written, after the turn will be more ideas;  
3, Professional concepts and theoretical progress book , it is impossible for everyone to know the concept of their own domain, the beginning is even more so, at this time the role of a small book is big;  
4, Lecture book , this book may be a bit of a zero-clutter, record what you hear, More to record the moment of inspiration, and do not understand the place, not to belittle!
   These four are essential to you, but as a graduate of our non-English majors, there is also a book that should be available as a English good sentence.

Ii. key points in writing papers
1, the topic should be small, digging to deep , do not have a big problem, 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. Three new principles of "New topic, new Method and new information " (the Boss teaches)
4, "New Problem new" and "fuss"
In short, a point of view is written.

Iii. How to write an experimental research paper (CHAOSHU)
Publication consciousness: The expression of basic research results, whether it is urgent to publish (innovation and rigorous relationship), the difference between published papers and dissertations (reflecting scientific facts rather than reflecting the author's level)
Paper format: Original, express, briefing, abstract. Different from textbooks, handouts, and more different from the summary.
Preparation before writing: review and prepare the relevant literature, re-examine the purpose of the experiment (academic thought, IDEA), complete the experimental data and review it again.

1.Introduction:
The present situation and background of the problem, the basis of the previous work, the purpose of the work, the idea (hypothesis), the object, the method, the result. In... Model, observe ... Indicators to explore ... Purpose
2. M & M
The writing and meaning of ⑴ materials; Ethics.
⑵ procedures and indicators. Operating Procedures: sequential, operable; methods: The sequencing of multi-index methods, the introduction of reference literatures, the improvement; what details or Jane?

⑶ Statistical treatment
3. Results
⑴ Index Classification Description, avoid water accounts. No analysis does not explain, but to reflect the idea
⑵ text, diagrams, tables are relatively independent, but avoid duplication
⑶ Avoid statistical errors: control, equalization, randomization, repetition. Metering-counting, absolute value-relative value, specificity indicator-conversion of comprehensive indicators. Blind judgment and non-blind judgment. Technical data Direct probability method and chi-square test, multi-group data and two groups of data, hierarchical correlation and linear correlation, multi-factor and single factor analysis, matching data and independent sample data, non-normal distribution data, improper cases, parallel tube, mixed sample, outstanding difference (absolute value, δ, change%; Union x, ÷ ratio, Sub-group, etc.) the number of significant digits reserved. Statistical conclusions and professional conclusions.
4. Discussion
⑴ background Material: the issue is raised; some basic knowledge about this research (don't digress too far)
⑵ the results of the experiment: the significance of each index (compared with the literature value), the results show what the problem
⑶ further analysis of the result mechanism: a combination of literature
⑷ the meaning, conclusion or summary of the work, and further raises the new question
Other points of note:
① citation of too much knowledge of literature (different from dissertation), which masks the contribution of this work
② analysis illogical, conclusion improper
③ discussion too superficial, literature knowledge unfamiliar
④ written summary, lack of academic height
⑤ to use abbreviations correctly, especially group abbreviations
5. References: Why should citations be cited
⑴: New, authoritative literature, without express or abstract
⑵ self-citation for self-employment: work continuity
Comparison of ⑶ Experimental results with literature: new, available letters, Conference and personal Consultation materials
⑷ Methodology: Classical literature, pay attention to citation accuracy, do not quoted
6. Summary:
Issue (Background), purpose of the work, object, method (indicator, grouping), main results (data, statistics), conclusion and Prospect
7. Re-elaboration of the article title: Not relevant, too big, too small
8. Contributions: According to the magazine contributors (showings); cite the magazine article; avoid a draft two vote
9. Fatal wounds: Unclear purpose, repetitive work without innovation, methodological problems result is not credible. Clinical research: ethics; case and control choice; full analysis of clinical relationship

Iv. How to write a discussion of a thesis: the discussion of a scientific paper needs to be structured
    suggest scientific papers to discuss some of the structures used: to state the main findings, the strengths and weaknesses of this study, Strengths and weaknesses compared with other studies; In particular, the differences in the results, the significance of the study, unanswered questions and the future direction of research are   The
discussion begins with a re-description of the main findings, which is more desirable with a sentence. Then comprehensively explain the advantages and disadvantages of this study, both can be neglected. In fact, editors and readers pay the most attention to the shortcomings of the study, which is unavoidable in all medical research. Once the editors and readers discover the shortcomings of the study, and the authors have not discussed them, their trust in the article will be shaken and suspicious: are there other weaknesses that they and the authors have not found?
Secondly, the study is linked to previous work and does not show off how well it works better than previous work, but rather the pros and cons. In contrast to other studies, avoid covering up your flaws. It is important to discuss why it is different from other people's conclusions, the author can let go of speculation, but if you do not know why the results of their research and other people's differences, it is inconvenient to make this speculation, and should not assert that their own research results are correct, and other people's mistakes. The
should then discuss what your research "shows", how to explain your findings, and what does it mean 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, without exceeding the empirical boundaries. It is up to the reader to judge the significance of the study: they will do it. The authors can even point out that the results of the study prove nothing and prevent readers from drawing excessive and untrue conclusions. Finally, it should be pointed out which questions have not yet been answered, and what work remains to be done. Obviously, editors and readers don't like exaggerated practices. In fact, the author often writes about this part of the paper as a mess. Although it is not possible to prevent the author from writing a speculative article, the evidence must not be ruined by speculation. The
Discussion section may sometimes require other subheadings, but we think that the structure proposed now fits most research papers. Although the uniform structure is difficult and even restricted, we believe that this structure will reduce the overall text length, prevent inappropriate speculation and repetition, reduce the reporting bias and improve the overall quality of the report. This assumption is entirely up to the test. We welcome BMJ's authors and readers to express their views, and we will use structured discussions if they reflect well.

Five, the secret of writing English articles
On average, my boss has 6 or more sci-based PhDs, and he never has a strong education to learn how to do research. The following question, he only told me once, then my action and it does not match will be scolded. Now it's become a habit to think like this, to do things, and to find out.
1. Do you think you can publish the results before you do the research? Where do you go?
2. The Master of writing the article is to write the article big box first, empty out the data, and so on, finish the experiment, fill empty can send. Is that there are ravines in the heart.
3. If you don't know what to write, where to go, what you do and what you do with your peers, do not do things before you do. Read the literature and think about it. If you don't know what to do, don't do it.
If you want to do this, you have to read the literature first. To know how to rack up the article, you need to know how people talk about it, to know whether your own data is not the same as others or others have not done. This process is to look at the literature, the process of thinking, these are clear, write is simple. If you do something first, and you have done it, or can't explain it in theory, is it a sucker?

Vi. Skills in writing essays
Key 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 logic flow; 8. Selected References
The misunderstanding of excellent thesis:

1, the more ideas the better, 2, blindly pursue revolutionary, breakthrough results; 3, mathematics, theory and formula the more complex the better-show their own intelligence;

4, the pursuit of the best, unprecedented, 5, display authority, citation in a large number of their own papers.
Conditions for writing articles:

1, related to the research work, did have a good idea, not to write and write, 2, has achieved valuable results, has contributed to the academic community;

3, the experiment mature, can withstand the test; 4. It has to be recorded and shared with others
Key points in writing a paper:

1, write the outline of the layers of the revised repeatedly. 2, write from introduction, review the existing work.

3, to declare the structure of the article, do not go directly into the details. 4, the statement of the motivation and basic principles of the work, put forward potential problems, their own answers.

5, explain their own work and the differences between the predecessors, explaining their contributions and their practical application prospects. 6, the last write summary and abstract, after repeated deliberation to determine the title.
Reviewer Check List:

1. Whether the paper has raised a new problem or given a new solution to the problem. 2. What is the main result of the thesis?

3. Are the results of the experiment sufficient? 4. What is the technical content of the thesis?

5. Does the thesis evaluate the effectiveness and limitation of the proposed technology/results?

6. Is the paper writing clear, so that most of the researchers in the industry can read? 7. Does the paper refer to and introduce the relevant historical documents properly?

8. Should the thesis be rewarded?
IEEE Transactions on CSVT Review form:

1, to what extent to meet the interest of readers of this journal?

2. How to evaluate the methods used in the thesis? 3. Is the result of novelty? 4. Are the main results correct?

5. Is the exposition clear? 6. Is there consistency (EX/post, exposition/result)?

7. Is the quotation sufficient? 8, reviewer Views: (accept/accept after a minor revision/reject/reject but resubmit after a major revision/submit to an Other journal).

Vii. Essay Writing Skills:
1. Publicize yourself--explain the importance of the paper. Process:

A) question X is important;

b) Previous work A and B have studied the problem;

c) A and b have some deficiencies;

D) We propose a method D;

e) to experiment with D, and to compare A and B;

f) The experiment proves that D is superior to A and B;

g) Explain why D is better, and other ideas (such as e) are not possible;

h) Elaboration of the validity and limitations of D;

i) discussion of the further development of D.

Points:

j) Simplicity is the most important;

k) do not make careless mistakes, carefully verify the results and appropriate choice of words.
2, carefully modified. Steps:

A) 30% of the time to think carefully, 70% of the time to write a first draft;

b) put the written papers for a period of time;

c) Read the paper verbatim;

D) Invite others to help with reading and modification;

e) At the time of revision, from the perspective of others to examine the paper (Reviewer/boss/colleagues/proof-reader);

f) The number of carefully modified > 3; Total number of changes > 5.

Points:

g) It's tedious to read your own paper, and it's hard to find mistakes;

h) In order to improve the small level of the paper, to pay a lot of labor.
3. Optimization of English. Steps:

A) Organize your paper from top to bottom (outline/logic/process);

b) Use other excellent papers (especially the same journal/series of papers, excellent books) as examples;

c) Ask someone to help you read and modify the grammar and words;

d) to record their own words and grammar errors, to accumulate.

Key points: E) It is important to use words and grammar, but structure and logic are more important.

Examples of excellent paper structure:
1, abstract--to his own work and its contribution to the summary:

A) describe the problem; b) explain its solutions and results.
2, introduction--background, and the outline of the article:

A) x is important; b) previous work A and B have studied the problem; c) A and B have some defects; d) We propose the basic characteristics of method D;e) d, and A, b comparison; f) The experiment proves that D is superior to A and b; g) The basic structure and outline of the article.
3, Previous work--explain oneself and predecessor's difference:

A) to divide the work of the predecessors into categories; b) A brief review of each important historical work (one to several sentences), a careful review of the right, the key points, the avoidance of ambiguity, and C) a comparison with the work you have put forward; d) do not neglect the important work of the predecessor, should be impartial evaluation of the work of predecessors, e) Emphasizing the differences between their work and those of predecessors, it is advisable to cite examples of their application.
4, our work--describes their work, can be divided into several parts:

A) clarifying definitions and representations from the reader's perspective; b) providing pseudo-codes, illustrations and corresponding interpretations of the algorithm; c) answering potential questions that the reader may ask in the form of questioning; d) complex and lengthy proofs and details can be placed in the appendix, where the key is to clarify the issue; e) exceptions and exclusions should be given in footnotes.
5, experiments--verification proposed methods and ideas:

A) reasonable design of the experiment (concise experiment and detailed experimental steps); b) necessary comparisons, highlighting scientific; c) discussion, explaining the meaning of the results; d) give a conclusion.
6, conclusion--Summary, Prospect and knot text:

A) Quick short summary; b) Outlook for future work; c) end of the text.
7. references--a comprehensive reference to the relevant important background documents:

A) Select citations (well-known conclusions do not have to be quoted, others work to be quoted); b) be consistent with the previous article.
8, others--Thanks, appendices, footnotes.

Processing denied:

1, understanding by the International authoritative journal rejected the draft is a normal thing (more than 70% rejected), to maintain a good mentality.
2. Thanks to editors and reviewer for their advice and work.

3, ask the deputy editor, how can you deal with this paper the most appropriate (re-investment/change/withdraw).

4, continue to new research or supplement changes after the conversion to other magazines.

Problems:

1. Is it possible to cast more than one draft? Don't do it! However, a conference paper can be re-invested in periodicals after modification.

2. Is it possible to suggest how the associate editor can handle his own thesis? No, but advise him not to ask someone to review it.

3, such as April did not receive the deputy editor reply 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 Editor's opinion seriously not and how to do? You can find the editor-in-chief, but don't do it often.

5, if and the final decision of the editor of the serious not and how to do? There's no way.

(Personal experience Summary, not written well, please don't take offense ...) ... ^_^ ...)

Sci Thesis Editor teaches you how to prepare SCI papers and writing [turn]