“引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 示例 上面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation(doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 英文原文 Introduction: setting the scene Theintroduction must provide the reader with sufficient backgroundinformation for them to put your work into context. It needn’t andshouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that iswhat review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”,basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining therationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explainhow you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way,it should be clear from the introduction what related work has beendone before, why the current study was performed, what you did, andwhat you found. A comprehensive literature search should havebeen performed before launching into your study; if not, you run therisk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However,it is also possible that similar or related studies are publishedduring the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore,the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure thatyou are up to date with all developments in your field of research. Aswith all references to the literature, the literature cited in theintroduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What thismeans is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertainto the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevantpapers, not only your own research and papers that support yourhypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or proposealternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing aparticular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paperto explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development ofa particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader tounderstand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If areader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject;indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additionalinformation, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. Itis usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what wasfound at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to gointo too much detail or you will end up repeating what is alreadydescribed in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two foreach is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations,technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readersshould be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paperdescribing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (orappreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion tomention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skindisease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findingsrelating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown toinduce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should bementioned in the introduction rather than being left until thediscussion. Example Inthe example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation(doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearlystate what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs ofbackground (not shown) explaining the results of previous work andtheir implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study,which is logically followed by a description of what was done in thepresent study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention theirfindings in the introduction, possibly because the description of whatwas done was quite detailed, but most likely because the resultssection immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with theMethods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“ 引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问 题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相 关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不 过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中 引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研 究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思 维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采 用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否 则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。 例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似 地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 示例 上 面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后 顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不 过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 英文原文 Introduction: setting the scene The introduction must provide the reader with sufficient background information for them to put your work into context. It needn’t and shouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that is what review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”, basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining the rationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explain how you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way, it should be clear from the introduction what related work has been done before, why the current study was performed, what you did, and what you found. A comprehensive literature search should have been performed before launching into your study; if not, you run the risk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However, it is also possible that similar or related studies are published during the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore, the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure that you are up to date with all developments in your field of research. As with all references to the literature, the literature cited in the introduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What this means is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertain to the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevant papers, not only your own research and papers that support your hypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or propose alternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing a particular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paper to explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development of a particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader to understand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If a reader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject; indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additional information, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. It is usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what was found at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to go into too much detail or you will end up repeating what is already described in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two for each is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations, technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readers should be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paper describing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (or appreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion to mention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skin disease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findings relating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown to induce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should be mentioned in the introduction rather than being left until the discussion. Example In the example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearly state what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs of background (not shown) explaining the results of previous work and their implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study, which is logically followed by a description of what was done in the present study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention their findings in the introduction, possibly because the description of what was done was quite detailed, but most likely because the results section immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with the Methods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“ 引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问 题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相 关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不 过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中 引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研 究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思 维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采 用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否 则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。 例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似 地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 示例 上 面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后 顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不 过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 英文原文 Introduction: setting the scene The introduction must provide the reader with sufficient background information for them to put your work into context. It needn’t and shouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that is what review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”, basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining the rationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explain how you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way, it should be clear from the introduction what related work has been done before, why the current study was performed, what you did, and what you found. A comprehensive literature search should have been performed before launching into your study; if not, you run the risk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However, it is also possible that similar or related studies are published during the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore, the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure that you are up to date with all developments in your field of research. As with all references to the literature, the literature cited in the introduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What this means is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertain to the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevant papers, not only your own research and papers that support your hypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or propose alternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing a particular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paper to explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development of a particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader to understand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If a reader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject; indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additional information, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. It is usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what was found at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to go into too much detail or you will end up repeating what is already described in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two for each is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations, technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readers should be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paper describing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (or appreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion to mention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skin disease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findings relating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown to induce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should be mentioned in the introduction rather than being left until the discussion. Example In the example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearly state what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs of background (not shown) explaining the results of previous work and their implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study, which is logically followed by a description of what was done in the present study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention their findings in the introduction, possibly because the description of what was done was quite detailed, but most likely because the results section immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with the Methods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“ 引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问 题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相 关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不 过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中 引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研 究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思 维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采 用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否 则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。 例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似 地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 示例 上 面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后 顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不 过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 英文原文 Introduction: setting the scene The introduction must provide the reader with sufficient background information for them to put your work into context. It needn’t and shouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that is what review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”, basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining the rationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explain how you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way, it should be clear from the introduction what related work has been done before, why the current study was performed, what you did, and what you found. A comprehensive literature search should have been performed before launching into your study; if not, you run the risk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However, it is also possible that similar or related studies are published during the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore, the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure that you are up to date with all developments in your field of research. As with all references to the literature, the literature cited in the introduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What this means is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertain to the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevant papers, not only your own research and papers that support your hypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or propose alternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing a particular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paper to explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development of a particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader to understand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If a reader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject; indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additional information, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. It is usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what was found at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to go into too much detail or you will end up repeating what is already described in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two for each is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations, technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readers should be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paper describing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (or appreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion to mention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skin disease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findings relating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown to induce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should be mentioned in the introduction rather than being left until the discussion. Example In the example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearly state what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs of background (not shown) explaining the results of previous work and their implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study, which is logically followed by a description of what was done in the present study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention their findings in the introduction, possibly because the description of what was done was quite detailed, but most likely because the results section immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with the Methods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 实例 上面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 Introduction: setting the scene The introduction must provide the reader with sufficient background information for them to put your work into context. It needn’t and shouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that is what review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”, basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining the rationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explain how you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way, it should be clear from the introduction what related work has been done before, why the current study was performed, what you did, and what you found. A comprehensive literature search should have been performed before launching into your study; if not, you run the risk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However, it is also possible that similar or related studies are published during the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore, the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure that you are up to date with all developments in your field of research. As with all references to the literature, the literature cited in the introduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What this means is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertain to the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevant papers, not only your own research and papers that support your hypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or propose alternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing a particular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paper to explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development of a particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader to understand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If a reader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject; indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additional information, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. It is usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what was found at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to go into too much detail or you will end up repeating what is already described in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two for each is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations, technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readers should be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paper describing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (or appreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion to mention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skin disease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findings relating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown to induce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should be mentioned in the introduction rather than being left until the discussion. Example In the example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearly state what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs of background (not shown) explaining the results of previous work and their implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study, which is logically followed by a description of what was done in the present study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention their findings in the introduction, possibly because the description of what was done was quite detailed, but most likely because the results section immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with the Methods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
“引言”必须向读者提供足够的背景信息，让他们明白你工作的来龙去脉。它不必也不应是该领域的全面文献综述—那是综述性论文的事情。相反，它应指出“现有问题”，也就是你的研究问题，从而确立该研究的根据。“引言”还应简要说明你如何着手这个问题，以及你取得的进展。换言之，“引言”应交待清楚：已有哪些相关的工作、为何需要此研究、你做了哪些工作以及你发现了什么。 在你开展研究之前，应该开展全面的文献检索；否则，就存在炒冷饭的风险。不过，在你正进行研究的几个月时间里，也有可能有类似或相关的研究发表。因此，应当随时、持续地检索文献，以确保你能立即获悉该领域的最新动态。“引言”中引用的文献应该新颖、平衡、且与你工作息息相关。也就是说，①与你报道的工作不直接相关的不要引；②要引用正反两方面的相关论文。除了引用你自己发表的研究以及赞同你的研究结论的其他论文外，也要引用与你的结果矛盾或持不同观点的论文；3)就某一方面的结果，只引最新论文，除非是用早前的文献来说明某种思维或方法的发展演变。只需引用最少量的背景信息，使读者能明白你研究的依据就够了。若读者想了解更多细节，他们自己会去读相关综述。所以，许多作者常常采用引用综述来缩短他们的“引言”。 在“引言”结尾可以简述一下你做了什么以及得到了什么结果，这一般是个不错的写法，但不要过于详细，否则就会变成重复“方法”和“结果”中的内容；每个部分写一两句即可。最后，任何非标准缩写、技术术语以及读者可能不熟悉的术语都要在“引言”中定义清楚。例如，一篇关于利什曼原虫的研究论文如果直到“讨论”才提及利什曼原虫是一种皮肤病（利什曼病）的致病寄生虫，将很不利于读者理解(或令读者头痛)。类似地，一篇关于蛋白Bcl - 10的研究论文也应该在“引言”中就说明这种蛋白可导致细胞凋亡和激活信号分子NF-κB，而不要留到“讨论”才讲。 示例 上面这个的例子发表于The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289经授权转载)。作者先清楚地点出问题，接着用5段话的背景材料(此处略)来解释既有研究的结果及其意义；然后顺理成章引出本研究的根据，最后再水到渠成简介本研究的内容。本文作者不在“引言”中提及他们的研究结果，可能由于这里对本研究工作已叙述得比较详细，不过更有可能是由于JCI上的文章“引言”之后紧接着就是“结果”，而“方法”部分在“讨论”之后才出现。 核查清单 1. 用最少量的背景信息传达“现有问题”或者假说 2. 表述清楚“现有问题”或假说的背景。 3. 引用平衡的且较新的文献。 4. 明确定义技术术语和不常见的术语。 5. 最后一段简述做了哪些工作和取得了什么结果。 英文原文 Introduction: setting the scene The introduction must provide the reader with sufficient background information for them to put your work into context. It needn’t and shouldn’t be a comprehensive literature review of the field: that is what review articles are for. Instead, it should present “the problem”, basically whatever the research question is, thereby defining the rationale for the study. The introduction should also briefly explain how you addressed this problem and what was achieved. Put another way, it should be clear from the introduction what related work has been done before, why the current study was performed, what you did, and what you found. A comprehensive literature search should have been performed before launching into your study; if not, you run the risk that someone has previously done what you intend to do. However, it is also possible that similar or related studies are published during the several months it takes to perform the research. Therefore, the literature should be reviewed on an on-going basis to ensure that you are up to date with all developments in your field of research. As with all references to the literature, the literature cited in the introduction needs to be current, balanced and relevant. What this means is that 1) you should not cite papers that don’t directly pertain to the research you plan to describe; 2) you must cite all relevant papers, not only your own research and papers that support your hypothesis, but also papers that contradict your findings or propose alternative ideas; and 3) only the most recent papers showing a particular finding should be cited, unless referring to an older paper to explain the evolution of thought in the field or the development of a particular method. The minimum amount of background for a reader to understand the rationale for your study is all that is required. If a reader wants to know more they will find a review on the subject; indeed, many authors refer readers to review articles for additional information, thereby reducing the length of their introduction. It is usually a good idea to briefly describe what was done and what was found at the end of the introduction, but it is important not to go into too much detail or you will end up repeating what is already described in the methods and results sections. A sentence or two for each is usually sufficient. Finally, any non-standard abbreviations, technical terms and terms that might be unfamiliar to some readers should be clearly defined in the introduction. For example, in a paper describing research on Leishmania major, it would not be helpful (or appreciated by the reader) if it was left until the discussion to mention that this is a protozoan parasite responsible for the skin disease leishmaniasis. Similarly, in a paper describing findings relating to the protein BCL-10, the fact that it has been shown to induce apoptosis and activate the signaling molecule NF-κB should be mentioned in the introduction rather than being left until the discussion. Example In the example above, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCT38289; reproduced with permission), the authors clearly state what the problem is and follow this with five paragraphs of background (not shown) explaining the results of previous work and their implications. This leads nicely to the rationale for the study, which is logically followed by a description of what was done in the present study. The authors of this paper chose not to mention their findings in the introduction, possibly because the description of what was done was quite detailed, but most likely because the results section immediately follows the introduction in JCI papers, with the Methods coming after the Discussion section. Checklist 1. Minimum amount of background required to understand “the problem”/hypotheses 2. Clearly framed “problem”/hypotheses 3. Balanced and current literature cited 4. Technical and non-familiar terms clearly defined 5. Brief description of what was done and what was achieved in the final paragraph Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
本讲专门谈谈科技论文引言的写作，这也是青年人写论文的一个薄弱环节。我认为，先要认识引言对全文的重要作用，进而了解引言的内容和写法，改掉常见的缺点。 • 引言的重要性 • 在科技论文中，引言极其重要，是引领全文的“先锋”，人们可以从中了解作者的意图（ motivation ）、思路（ idea ）和成果（ results ），与问题、摘要一起，形成勾起读者“探究欲”的三要素，更是让读者理解所报告的工作的“引子”。因此，不可等闲视之。 • 引言的内容 • 简述工作的缘起、背景和意义；综述相关的研究动态和前人成果；指明亟待解决的关键问题；陈述本人的工作和主要成果，讲清对以往工作的发展；列出本文的架构（对于长文不可或缺）。 • 引言的篇幅 • 引言要有足够的长度，约占全文篇幅的 1/6 ～ 1/5 ，也就是说，一篇五六页的论文，引言至少为一页；一篇一百页的学位论文，引言（概论、绪论）应有二十页左右的篇幅。 • 引言写作的常见问题 • 下面列举初学科技论文写作者的常见问题： —— 过于简略 。这是国内青年作者的论文中最常见的问题，由于思想上不重视引言的重要性，写得浮皮潦草，篇幅甚短，语焉不详，平淡乏味。 —— 侈谈意义 。对于论文工作的意义需要有简短陈述，但不必长篇大论，因为读者是同行，对一项工作的重要性自有共识。 —— 忽略回顾 。有些论文对前人工作很少提及或不屑一顾，没有把论文与相关的近期进展联系起来，使论文成为无源之水，无本之木，似乎此工作是作者天马行空第一份。 —— 平铺直叙 。简单罗列前人工作，未做详尽分析，特别是不曾指出前人工作中的不足之处和亟待解决的关键问题。 —— 轻描淡写 。只用一两句话点明本人工作，使读者难以了解取得成果的思路、方法，以及作者工作的继承性和创造性。 —— 重述摘要 。不少作者写作论文时动用剪贴工具，简单地重复摘要的内容，这是万万使不得的。 • 引言写作的五招 • ——充分认识引言的“开宗明义，引领全文”的关键作用。化大力气写引言，通常，写作的最后阶段才写引言（绪论）； ——言简意赅地写明论文的背景。话不在多，点到即可； ——重点写好前人工作综述。在充分调研的基础上，全面、扼要地简述以往的相关工作（包括自己的），特别应指出急需解决的又是本文关注的关键问题； ——恰如其分地概述本文工作。尤其要点明创新点； ——简述本文的结构。通常放在引言的最后一段：“本文是这样组织的 …… ”。 • 引言写作的案例 • 这里引用两位普通作者的论文引言，此文发表在 Journal of Hydrodynamics 的 2006 年第 6 期上。 【案例点评】 这一引言基本上达到了上文所述的要求，亦即，简明扼要地描述了论文的背景；恰当充分地综述了相关的成果（共引参考文献 17 篇，包括自己的工作）；点明了现有工作的不足；简述了本文工作要点。缺点是对本文的工作进展描述得不够充分，尤其是没有说清所得的数值解与解析解、实验数据比较的结果。 Numerical modeling of wave evolution and runup in shallow water 1 Introduction In shallow waters of coastal zones, shoreward wave propagation generally leads to complex phenomena, such as wave breaking and runup, which are of fundamental importance in coastal and ocean engineering. For instance, wave breaking often induces energy dissipation, sediments transportation and momentum exchange between waves and nearshore currents, while wave runup has direct relevance to tsunami hazard mitigation. Solitary waves and cnoidal waves are two typical forms of nonlinear shallow water waves, which have received much attention . Lin et al and Guignard et al investigated solitary wave breaking and runup on sloping beaches. Jensen et al presented experiments on runup of strongly nonlinear waves on a beach of 10.54 ° inclination, and obtained free surface profiles and velocity fields. Liu Tao simulated the process of solitary wave runup and rundown on the seaward wall of different breakwaters. Chang et al studied vortex generation and evolution due to flow separation around a submerged rectangular obstacle under incoming cnoidal waves. Guyenne Grilli performed simulations in a three-dimensional numerical wave tank to investigate the shoaling and breaking of solitary waves over a sloping ridge. Early studies on shallow waves were mostly based on potential flow theory and shallow water equations . With the potential flow equations, Grilli et al simulated shoaling and breaking of solitary waves on different slopes systematically. Liu et al reported simulations of propagation and endwall reflection of a fully nonlinear solitary wave with the boundary integral equation method. Li Raichlen presented a nonlinear solution to the classical shallow water equation for solitary wave runup on plane slope. Lynett et al developed a moving boundary technique to investigate wave runup and rundown with Boussinesq equations. With the development of computer technique and numerical method in recent years, more and more attention have been attracted to models based on the Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations . Lin Liu and Qi Hou developed a numerical model based on the RANS equations and model for studying the evolution of periodic wave train, respectively. Chen et al investigated plunging breakers of Stokes waves with the classical two-dimensional N-S equations and VOF method. Christensen Deigaard and Lubin et al presented and discussed the results obtained from simulating 3D plunging breaking waves by solving the N-S equations coupled with a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model. The commercial CFD software which is developing rapidly provides a powerful tool to investigate water wave problems. It releases investigators from the heavy work of programming and allow them to focus on the analysis of physical phenomena or the development of new mathematical models , e.g., Lu et al and Dong Zhan . In the present work, utilizing the commercial platform FLUENT, a dynamic mesh model is developed to save computational resources for the simulation of solitary wave propagating on constant depth. Cnoidal waves are generated with the technique that linking FORTRAN IMSL library to C programming language. Cnoidal wave theories to different orders are then compared. Wave evolution and runup are simulated and analyzed systematically. The influence of grid size on accuracy is discussed in the 3D simulation of cnoidal wave runup around circular cylinder. All the results are compared with experimental data or analytical solutions. 【链接】已发的相关博文 在 “ 临门一脚 ” 上狠下功夫 —— 谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=387210 写论文 “ 四戒 ” ：戒杂、戒浅、戒乱、戒错 —— 再谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=387533 缜密构思 精心铺陈 —— 三谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=388496 大师手笔 非同凡响 —— 四谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=389331 文题：画龙点睛 概括主题 —— 五谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=389884 摘要：言简意赅 提纲挈领 —— 六谈科技论文写作 http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=330732do=blogid=392585 写于 2011 年 2 月 14 日
标签: 引言
![[转载]如何利用引言设计版面？ （美编设计）](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201201/07/184555y3dbqqqyqttwxyth.jpg.thumb.jpg)
