@mymy
2020-02-14T04:03:42.000000Z
字数 18008
阅读 481
liuxu 2020-02-08
你可以点击 这里 跳转中文版本
{1} Good writing communicates an idea clearly and effectively
{2} Good writer:
1. have something to say
2. logical thinking
3. simple, learnable rules of style
{3} step to become a good writer:
1. read, pay attention, imitate
2. write a journal
3. let go academic writing habit
4. talk about it before writing
5. engage your reader, not to bored
6. stop waiting for ‘inspiration’
7. writing is hard for anyone
8. nobody gets it perfect on first try
9. learn how to cut own words
10. find a good editor
11. take risks
{1} ask yourself:
1. is the sentence easy to understand?
2. is it interesting?
3. is it readable?
4. is it written to inform or to obscure?
{2} classic hallmark:
1. spunky verbs become clunky nouns
2. complex ideas don't require complex language
3. scientific writing should be easy and enjoyable to read
{1} passive voice is hard to read
{2} the distance between the subject and the main verbs
1. cut unnecessary word and phrase
2. use active voice
3. use strong verb, don't turn it into noun
{1} cut unnecessary words
1. dead weight words and phrases, like: as it is well known
2. empty words and phrase, like: basic tenets of
3. long words that could be short
4. unnecessary jargon and acronyms
5. repetitive words or phrases
6. abverbs
{1} eliminate negatives
{2} eliminate superfluous uses of ‘there is’
{3} omit needless preposition
{1} active voice: ‘subject verb object’ or just ‘subject verb’, like: ‘I eat lunch’
{2} passive voice: ‘object verb subject’ or ‘object verb’, like: ‘Apples are eaten by me
{3} to turn passive to active, ask: who does what to whom
{1} is it OK to use ‘we’ or ‘I’? Yes, it is OK
1. livelier and easier to read
2. to claim responsibility as author
{2} when is it OK to use passive voice? methods section
1. what is done is import than who does it
2. readers skim it for key words
3. avoid ‘we, I’ in every sentence, needs more effort
{1} use strong verbs
{2} don’ t turn verbs into nouns
{3} don’ t bury the main verb
{1} ‘Data are’, not ‘Data is’, word ‘data’ is plural
{2} ‘affect’ is the verb ‘to influence’, ‘effect’ is noun form of this influence
{3} ‘compare’
1. ‘compare to’: point out similarities between different things
2. ‘compare with’: point out difference between similar things
{4} ‘that’ vs ‘which’
1. that: define things, restrictive pronoun
2. which: non-restrictive pronoun
Ask: is your clause essential or not?
{5} singular antecedents
1. don’ t use ‘they’ or ‘their’
{1} use them to vary sentence structure
{2} increasing power to separate to amplify or extend
Comma[,]
colon[:]
dash[-]
parentheses[()]
semicolon[;]
period
{3} increase formality
Dash[-]
parentheses[()]
others
{4} the rules of three’ s: lists, examples
{1} and, or, but should be written in parallelism form
{1} one paragraph == one idea
{2} give away the punch line early
{3} logical flow of ideas
1. parallel sentence structure
2. transition words (and, or, but)
3. sequential in time
4. generalspecific
5. logical argument (if a then b)
6. no necessary to use ‘first, then, last’
{4} make the last sentence memorable
{1} verb-tally
{2} wordiness-tally
{3} watch repetition
{4} avoid meta-comment
{1} is the second instance of the word even necessary?
{2} if it’ s needed, is a synonym really better than just repeating the word?
{3} repetition is also OK
{4} tips: needless synonyms
{5} Acronyms/Initialisms are better than repetition, like: CNNs instead
1. use standard form, don’ t make it up
{1} prewriting
1. collect, synthesize, and organize information
2. brainstorm take-home messages
3. work out ideas away from the computer
4. develop a road map/outline
{2} writing the first draft
1. putting your facts and ideas together in organized prase
{3} revision
1. read your work out loud
2. get rid of clutter
3. do a verb check
4. get feedback from others
{4} how much time to spend?
1. prewriting: 70%
2. writing: 10%, the first draft
3. revision: 20%
{1} get organized first
1. don’ t try to write and gather information simultaneously
2. gather and organize information ‘before’ writing the first draft
{2} organize my thoughts
1. create a organizational system
{3} develop a road-map
1. arrange key facts and citations from the literature into a crude road map/outline BEFORE writing the first draft
2. thinks in paragraph and sections
{4} brainstorm away from computer
1. when exercising, driving, waiting
2. work out take-home message
3. organize your paper
4. write memorable lines
{1} don’ t be a perfectionist
{2} the goal of the first draft is to get the ideas down in complete sentences in order
{3} focus on logical organization more than sentence-level detail
{4} writing the first draft is the hardest, write it quick and effective
{1} read it out loud
{2} check the verb
{3} cut
{4} review organizationally
{5} get feedback outside
{6} get editing help
{1} consistency
{2} numerical consistency
{3}
| 相互呼应 | |
|---|---|
| abstract | table/figure/text |
| text | table/figure |
| table/figure | other tables/figure |
{4} reference
1. reference to nowhere
2. reference don’ t provide the indicated information
2.1 authors misinterpret or exaggerated the finding from the original paper
2.2 reference cites a secondary source rather than a primary
2.3 authors mis-numbered the references
{5} take-home message
1. always go back to primary source
{1} summarize a ‘hot paper’
{2} write a book review
{3} write a profile
{1} tables and figures
{2} results
{3} methods
{4} introduction
{5} discussion
{6} abstract
Tables:
1. give precise value
2. display many values
table title:
1. identify the specific topic
2. use the same key terms in the title, the column headings, and the text of the paper
3. keep it brief
table footnotes:
1. use superscript symbol to identify footnotes. Some standard series: , *, #, etc
2. use footnotes to explain difference
3. explain experimental details or abbreviations
table format:
1. model tables from published ones, DON’T re-invent the wheel
2. Use three-horizontal lines:
2.1 one above the column heading
2.2 one below it
2.3 one below the data
3. Roman or Arabic number
4. Centered or flush left table number, title, column, heading, and data
5. Capital letters and italics
6. The placement of footnotes
7. The types of footnote symbol
8. Remove grid lines
9. Everything lines up and look profession
10. Use a reasonable number of significant figures
11. Omit unnecessary column
Figures:
1. visual impact
2. show trends and patterns
3. tell a quick, whole story
4. highlight particular result
Figure type:
1. primary evidence
1.1 electron micrograph, gels, etc
1.2 indicate data quality
1.3 seeing is believing
2. graphs
2.1 line graph, bar graph, etc
3. drawing and diagrams
3.1 illustrate an experimental set-up
3.2 indicate flow of participants
3.3 illustrate cause and effect cycles
3.4 give a hypothetical model
figure legends:
1. allow the figures to stand-alone
2. may contain:
2.1 brief title
2.2 essential experiment detail
2.3 symbol, line pattern
2.4 panels understanding
2.5 data information
graphs:
1. line graph: show rend
2. scatter plot: show relationship
3. bar graph: compare groups
4. individual-value bar graph
5. histograms
6. box plots
7. survival curves
tips for graph:
1. Tell a quick, visual story
2. Keep it simple
3. Make it easy to distinguish groups
4. If too complex, should be tables
tips
1. break into section, with heading
2. complement the information that is in table and figure
3. give precise value not in table
4. report the precentage change
5. repeat/highlight only the most important numbers
6. don’ t forget talk about negative and control results
7. reserve the term ‘significant’
8. reserve information about what you did for the methods section
8.1 don’ t discuss the rationale
9. reserve comments on the meaning of your results for the discussion section
what verb tense?
1. Use past tense for completed section
2. Use present tense for assertion that continue to be true, such as what the tables show, what you believe and what the data suggest
3. Use active voise
materials and methods
1. materials
2. participants/subjects
3. experimental protocol/ study design
4. measurements
4.1 how were the dependent and independent variables measured
5. analyse
6. report methods in past tense but present tense to describe how data are presented in paper
3 paragraphs:
1. What’ s known
2. What’ s unknown
3.1 your burning question
3.2 experimental approach
3.3 why your approach is new and different and important
tip:
1. keep each paragraph short
2. write for general audience: clear, concise, non-technical
3. take the reader step by step from what’ s known to what’ s unknown, end with specific question
4. emphasize how your study fill the gap
5. explicitly state your research question aim/hypothesis
6. do not answer the research question
7. summarize at a high level, leave detailed description, speculations, and criticisms of particular studies for the discussion
Invert the cone!!!
tip:
1. showcase good writing
1.1 use active voice
1.2 tell it like a story
2. start and end with main finding: ‘We found that …’
3. do not travel too far from your data
3.1 focus on what your data do prove, not what you hope to find
4. focus on the limitations that matters, not generic ones
5. make sure you’ re clear and consistent about your take-home message
verb tense
1. past: when referring to study details, results, analysis, and background research
2. present: when about what the data suggest
content:
1. background
2. question/aim/hypothesis: ‘We asked whether…’
3. experiments: quick summary of key material and methods
4. result
4.1 key results found
4.2 minimal raw data
5. conclusion: the answer to the question asked/take-home message
6. implication, speculation or recommendation
{1} review articles goals
1. synthesize and evaluate the recent primary literature on a topic
2. summarize the current state of knowledge on a topic
3. address controversies
4. provide a comprehensive list of citation
{2} type
1. non-systematic: called a ‘narrative’ review, may not be comprehensive, may evaluate the studies qualitatively rather quantitatively
2. systematic-review
2.1 attempt to find and summarize all relevant studies, even included unpublished work
2.2 follow a rigorous search strategy using pre-defined exclusion and inclusion criteria
2.3 evaluate the quality of each study using rigorous, pre-defined criteria
3. meta-analysis: a systematic review that additionally uses statistical techniques to pool data from independent studies
Review article structure:
1. abstract
2. introduction
2.1 what’ s known
2.2 What’ s unknown
2.3 Clear statement of the aim
3. Main analysis
3.1 explain the search strategy
3.2 summarize the literature, organized based on methodology
3.3 analyze, interpret, critique and synthesize studies
4. conclusion and future directions
4.1 what recommendation to make
4.2 what gaps remain, what future studies would help
5. literature cited
tips:
1. contact a journal editor early in the process to find out if that journal in interested in your review
2. define a clear, narrow purpose for the review
3. develop a strategy for searching the literature
4. carefully read and organize the relevant paper
5. write for a wide audience
letters to the editor
1. critique/respond to a specific article that the journal has recently published
2. must be timely, concise
2.1 generally 200-400 words, 1 table or figure, maximum of 5-10 reference
structure:
1. overview (1 paragraph)
1.1 cite the recent article
1.2 praise the authors for their contribution
1.3 succinctly state the main issue
2. explanation of the issue
3. brief conclusion/parting thought
tips：
1. follow the journal’ s instruction for letters to editor
2. keep the tone as positive and polite as possible
3. be specific and focused, remove all unnecessary clutter
4. clearly articulate how the problem you’ve identified may impact the main conclusion of the original paper
case reports: structure
1. abstract
2. introduction: what is the significance of the case
3. case description
4. discussion
4.1 interpretations
4.2 what does the case suggest
4.3 question for future research
5. reference
6. tables/figures
{1} authorship
1. who gets it
2. any author listed on the paper’s title page should take public responsibility for its content
3. in what order
4. order implies author’s relative contributions
5. the head of the team/senior author often appears as the last-listed author
6. papers may have dual first authors
7. for fairness, use alpha-order when same contribution
8. large working groups may be cited as a group
{2} acknowledgement
1. funding source
2. contribution who did not get authorship (e.g., offered material, advice, or consultation that was not significant enough to merit authorship)
{3} reference
1. use a computerized bibliographic program
2. follow journal guidelines ( may require alpha-order or show-order in paper)
3. some journal limit number of reference allowed (30), figure it out ahead of time
4. follow journal formatting rules
{1} identify a journal for submission (ideally before writing)
{2} follow the online ‘instruction to authors’ for writing and formatting the manuscript
{3} submit your manuscript online, all authors (include corresponding author) must fill out and sign copyright transfer and conflict of interest forms
{4} possible outcomes:
1. accepted
2. accepted pending minor revision
3. rejected but re-submission possible
4. no resubmission possible
{5} revision and re-submission: re-submit with cover letter that addresses reviewers critiques point by point
{6} once accepted, carefully review final proofs
Resubmission cover: letter/response to reviewers
Dear Dr.Editor:
We appreciate your helpful comments and those of the reviewers. We feel that the manuscripts is now greatly improved.
We have made revisions based on the comments/suggestions of Reviewer 1 and 2. The comments of each reviewer are numbered below, with our response following.
Review 1:
1. There is little discussion of xxx.
We agree with reviewers 1 and 2 that the section on xxx was too abbreviated. Therefore, we have added a paragraph that highlights xxx. (paragraph 33)
2. Could you comment on xx?
We have added a sentence to paragraph 9 in Methods/Materials that comments on xx…
Also include a copy of the paper with changes tracked.
{1} easy to read
{2} tell review early what this paper is about
{3} surprise is surprise!
Number one mistake?
1. Failing to carefully match the paper to the most appropriate journal
2. Including heavy citation
3. Being vague about the goals and methods of the paper
Tips:
1. Use good graphics
2. A appropriate and attractive format
3. Space out equations, graphics, …
4. Organize information with bullet points
5. Use introduction to build momentum and engage reader
6. Avoid ‘clunky’ language that distracts or slows down reader
7. Dumb it down
Advice for first-time author?
1. Note in your submission that you are new
self-plagiarism and duplication:
1. recycling own writing or data
1.1 copy from own previously published paper
2. add new data to published one and say it’s new
3. identically overlap data to multiple journal
In a ‘reproducible’ paper:
1. data are available
2. code that was used to analyze the data is available
3. an independent investigator can run the code on the data and generate figures and table that match those published in the original paper
Reproducibility Editors: run code and see results
R for Reproducible, C for code available, D for data available
The TONE (评议时的语调)
1. 批评应对作品不对作者
2. Avoid generalization; point out specific errors
3. Use positive language
4. Avoid ‘lecturing’ to the author, 不要说教
Type of peer-review
1. Single blind
2. Double blind
3. Open
4. Post-publication peer review
Process: (one system)
1. Scan the abstract
2. Jump to the data, review table and figure first
2.1 draw own conclusion
2.2 do those stand on their own?
2.3 Are there any data mistake?
2.4 Is information duplicated?
3. Read paper once through
3.1 Does conclusion match data?
3.2 Is it struggle for me to read?
3.3 Is paper length justified after giving new comment
4. Read the introduction carefully
4.1 is it sufficiently succinct?
4.2 Is the order: unknown known research?
4.3 Is aim clear?
4.4 细节信息，做了什么
4.5 结果中发现了什么
4.6 有没有干扰信息（来自之前的研究）
4.7 Does it specify what gaps this paper wants to fill in?
5. Methods
5.1 scan to find answers to your question about data
5.2 are there flaws in study design
6. results
7. look at every table and figure
8. discussion
8.1 第一段写发现了什么新东西
8.2 结论对不对，有没有过誉
8.3 写的清晰，直指point，有无废话
8.4 能不能再缩短
8.5 有没有定位limitation
8.6 Reference对不对
8.7 有没有忽略key reference
Comment to authors:
1. Start with 1 paragraph overview
1.1 说一下你认为的主要发现
1.2 写2，3句积极鼓励的话
1.3 1，2个主要limitations
1.4 不要说你的overall advice
2. In a numbered list, give 5-15 advice
2.1 指出specific mistake
2.2 List the issue you found
2.3 Give specific advice for revision
Take-home message
1. Effective scientific writing conveys an idea clearly and concisely
2. Scientific writing should be easy and even enjoyable to read
3. Clear writing improves transparency and speeds up scientific progress