“ 讨论”部分非常重要。在这部分，你要把“结果”中展示的证据线索和“引言”中的背景资料关联起来。遗憾的是，许多作者(特别是来自非英语国家的作者)常常不够重视“讨论”部分，认为只需把结果罗列出来，然后让读者自行去得出结论即可。但是，给出结果而不说明其意义只会造成随意解读，从而影响研究获得应有的影响力。而期刊编辑往往希望论文能推进该研究领域，并形成影响；所以有必要善用“讨论”部分来尽可能增强论文的影响力。 好的“讨论”可以在开头先重申一下“引言”中提出的研究问题和假设，接着总结一下你的主要研究结果。这样一来，读者对于你是否推进了该领域的研究就一目了然了。从最重要或最相关的结果写起，然后再转向相对次要的内容。此刻暂不要讨论有争议或者难以解释的结果。这个阶段，你只须描述那些能直接回答“引言”中提出的问题或与假设直接相关的主要结果。不要用那些数据不支持的“大而空”的语言，也不要夸大结果的重要性。用“suggests” 比用“shows”更好，切忌使用 “proves”。此外，要尽量不要重复结果”部分的内容，而只需简要说明主要结果然后再谈其含意。这部分需要变换时态，叙述你的结果以及文献结果时用过去时，论述其意义时用现在时。 “讨论”的第二部分常被忽视，并往往造成拒稿。重申问题和结果之后，还需要陈述其相关性和重要性。你需要把你的结果放在文献研究背景中加以比较，并讨论其意义。这部分构成了“讨论”主体；他告诉读者(当然还有编辑)：从已有文献的基础上来评价，你的结果到底有什么意义？它们与其他研究者的工作之间存在什么关联。你的研究可能存在备择解释，对此应予提及并尽可能排除(或者至少论证它们的可能性很低)。如果仍有备择解释无法排除，你的研究就属于“尚未完成”，或者至少是“尚在进行中”；在这种情况下，你需要在“讨论”的结尾部分，提出将开展哪些实验来进一步排除备择解释或确认哪种解释才是正确的。 主要结果和背景的关系理清之后，就可以提及有争议或难以解释的发现，并提出可能的解释。没问题，这里你可以猜测，只要不要太过分。关键的问题是，你讨论和阐述了这些问题，而不是置之不理。“讨论”部分不能出现新术语或新结果；所有结果都该在“结果”部分叙述完整；所有术语也应在“引言”中就提出。最后，“讨论”部分要解释一下此研究的局限性。与其等审稿人指出，不如自己提出；这样也许反而会增加正面审稿意见从而缩短发表周期。一个研究存在局限性本身并不是问题，大多数研究都有这样那样的局限性。所以重要的是要承认它并提出在进一步研究中如何克服。在阐述完局限性之后往往紧接着就是描述未来的研究。 有些期刊有单独的“结论”部分；就算没有，也要在“讨论”的最后一段点明研究的结论。最后一段 (或最后一部分)应简要复述一下主要研究结果及其重要性，陈述该研究如何推进了本领域的研究，但不要用完全相同的语言。要提及结果的新颖性和重要性，但再说一次，不要夸大其词。如有必要可以提出进一步研究，如果本工作是初步研究则进一步研究可放在最后一句。若不是初步研究，就可以用明确的措施来总结本研究的影响，但仍要注意不要夸大其词。。 示例 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》上一论文的讨论部分(doi:10.1172/JCI37622； 经同意转载)。其中显示了讨论部分的一些要素，其末尾是一个结论段落。 核对清单 1. 开始先复述研究问题，然后陈述主要结果。 2. 过去时叙述结果，现在时谈意义。 3. 将研究结果同现有文献作比较，陈述其意义。 4. 陈述所有结果的意义，不要忽略那些“不便提及”的内容。 5. 不要在“结果”部分简单重复其他部分已有的内容，不得引入新术语/报告新结果，或夸大其词。 6. 给出本研究的局限性和将来研究方向。 7. 结尾用明确的措辞陈述本研究的相关性和重要性。 英文原文 Discussion: what does it all mean? The discussion section of your manuscript is critically important. It is where you pull together all the ‘threads’ of evidence you have presented in the results in the context of the background you presented in the introduction. Unfortunately, many authors, particularly those from non-English-speaking countries, overlook the importance of this section considering it sufficient to merely present their results and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, presenting your results without describing their implications leaves them open to interpretation and reduces the impact they could have. Journal editors want papers that will advance the field and generate an impact; therefore, use the discussion wisely to maximize the impact of your findings. A good discussion will begin by restating the study question and any hypotheses presented in the introduction. This should be followed by a summary of the major findings of your study so that it is immediately clear how you have advanced the field. Start with the most important or relevant finding and then move to progressively less important ones. However, do not yet discuss results that are perhaps controversial or difficult to explain. At this stage you only want to describe the major findings that directly answer the research question you set out in the introduction and/or those that directly relate to your hypotheses. Avoid making grand statements that are not supported by your data and/or overstating the importance of your findings. The word “suggests” is preferable to “shows”, and the word “proves” should never be used. Also, there should be minimal repetition with the results section, with only brief descriptions of the main findings required before launching into their implications. A mixture of tenses is required, with the past tense used to describe individual results and the results of previous studies, and the present tense used to describe their implications. The next part is the component of a discussion that is often overlooked and a frequent cause of rejection from journals. Having reiterated your initial question and major findings, you need to describe their relevance and significance. This is where you put your findings into the context of previously published literature and discuss their implications. This part forms the bulk of the discussion section, showing the reader (and importantly, the journal editor) what your findings actually mean in the light of the existing literature and how they relate to the efforts of others. All possible alternative interpretations of your study should be described and excluded (or at least shown to be unlikely) wherever possible. If alternative interpretations remain viable, the study is considered ‘incomplete’, or at least ongoing, and experiments to rule out the alternatives or determine which of the alternatives is correct should be described at the end of the discussion section as future research. Once the major findings have been put into context, any controversial or difficult to explain findings should be mentioned along with plausible explanations for them. It is perfectly OK to speculate here (but not too wildly), but it is absolutely essential that these findings, and any inconsistencies, are discussed and addressed rather than ignored. No new results or terms should be introduced in the discussion section; all findings should be described in the results section and relevant terms will all have been introduced in the introduction section. Finally, any limitations of the current study should be explained. Peer reviewers are likely to comment on such limitations anyway, so it is best to be ‘up front’ about them and state what they were; doing so might even improve your chances of a positive peer review and thereby shorten the time to publication. The fact that your study has certain limitations is not a problem in itself, and most studies have limitations of some sort. It is therefore important to acknowledge these and describe how they can be addressed in future research. For this reason, the description of limitations is usually followed by a description of future research. Some journals have a separate conclusions section, but even in those that don’t, the same content should be merged with the discussion and contained in the last paragraph. This final section/paragraph should briefly restate the key findings and their significance, describing how your study represents an advance in the field, but avoiding direct repetition. The novelty and significance of these findings should be mentioned, but again, it is important not to over-emphasize either of these. Future studies should be mentioned where relevant, and can be the subject of the final sentence if the current study is preliminary. If your study is not preliminary, end with a strong statement that summarizes the impact of the study without over-stating its importance. Example The figure below, showing excerpts from the discussion section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission), shows some of the important components of a discussion section and the concluding paragraph at the end. Checklist 1. Start by restating the problem/research question and then state the main findings of your study 2. Describe results in the past tense, but implications in the present tense 3. Put findings in the context of the existing literature to describe their implications 4. Describe the implications of all results obtained; do not ignore ‘inconvenient’ ones 5. Avoid repetition, introducing new terms or results, and making grand statements about the importance of your findings 6. Describe the limitations of your study and future directions for research in the field 7. End with a strong statement describing the relevance and significance of your study Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监 “ 讨论”的重点在于对研究结果的解释和推断 , 并说明作者的结果是否支持或反对某种观点是、否提出了新的问题或观点等；撰写讨论时要避免含蓄 , 尽量做到直接、明确 , 以便审稿人和读者了解论文为什么值得引起重视。 讨论：注意事项 对结果的解释要重点突出 , 简洁、清楚：着重讨论本研究的重要发现，以及由此得出的结论，不要过细地重复引言或结果中的数据或资料； 推论要符合逻辑 , 避免实验数据不足以支持的观点和结论； 对结果的科学意义和实际应用的表达要实事求是 , 适当留有余地； 讨论的最后最好是论文的最重要的结论 (take home-message) 现在时：具有普遍的意义推论或结论 ; 过去时：推论的有效性只是针对本次特定的研究 Conclusion - 结论 单独列为一节或包括在“讨论” ( 或“结果与讨论”中 ) ；“结论” 结论中不应涉及新的事实 , 也不能简单地重复摘要、引言、结果或讨论等章节中的句子。
中国打到帝制之后的第一个总统袁世凯想复辟当皇帝，引起了全国一片反对声浪。他的大儿子袁克定一心想做传承帝位的皇太子，决议不让他的父亲听到任何反对声音，为此假冒《顺天时报》名义，为他的父亲一个人编印了一份专登拥戴帝制文章的假《顺天时报》，让他的父亲陶醉在颂扬声中。这份只有一个读者的《顺天时报》最终愚弄的还是袁大总统本人。 Extracted from China Sealed by Fog , authored by Qianglian He, page435-436
文 章的标题是“钓饵”，应该用来吸引读者 --- “推销”你的文章，给读者浏览目录或研究结果的机会。标题写得差可能使原本感兴趣的读者忽略了你的工作，也可能引起文不对题的情况。相比之下，好的标题可 吸引相关的研究人员，提高文章的引用率，这也是期刊编辑所青睐的，因为引用率与期刊影响因子直接挂钩。因此，写好正确的标题是很重要的。 好 的标题应尽量简短，同时又能传递文章的主要发现。避免叙述过于繁琐并使用不必要的专业行话和缩略语。标题必须能被科学界的广大读者读懂，因为他们中的一些 人可能并不具备你研究的专业领域的具体知识。标题宽泛到什么程度取决于目标期刊 --- 考虑目标期刊的读者情况，这通常会在期刊的网站上有所介绍；撰写的标题应便于被所有读者看懂，而不仅仅局限于你的研究领域。另外，应该查阅目标杂志的《稿 约》，确保遵守字数限制的要求以及是否需要提供短标题。 实例：较差的标题 “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” 这 个标题太长，含有非标准的缩略语，内容重复，部分内容太具体。修改如下：“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”。此外，也可使用“MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”，但要考虑目标杂志的要求，因为缩略语MAP使用广泛，读者可懂。 练习： 丁香园网友应邀对以下标题进行修改： “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” 以下是网友“Qikaka”的修改建议： “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” 改后的标题大大缩短：少了6个单词，合计61个字符。“survival”一词的使用涵盖了改善效果的两个方面(死亡率和住院率)，重复的“dose-related”也被删除了。最后，在新的标题中对缩略语LV做了精确的解释。 一 些网友也贴出了自己文章的标题和摘要，询问是否合适。其中有不少标题写得十分不错，也有一些与其他相比需要更多修改。网友“Yelry”的这个标题就很 好，清晰地体现了研究领域：“Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” 尽管表述清楚，但“Yelry”并未传达出重要的一点 ---文章的主要发现：该方法应该对于诊断十分重要，而且很有可能会区分开两组病例。因为这一重要性并未在标题中体现，作者“Yelry”可能会失去一些 感兴趣的读者。虽然标题可以涵盖的信息量取决于字数的限制，然而只需在“ascending venography”后面添加“is valuable”，就可以比原标题传达更多的文章内容。 First impressions: the importance of writing a good title The title of your paper is a “hook” that should be used to attract readers—it is your opportunity to “sell” your paper to readers browsing a table of contents or search results. A poor title will cause potentially interested researchers to overlook your work and may attract the wrong audience. By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant researchers and increase the number of citations you receive. Journal editors like this because number of citations relates to the impact factor a journal gets. Therefore, it is important to get it right. A good title should be as brief as possible while still communicating the main finding(s) of the paper. Avoid excessive detail and unnecessary use of field-specific jargon and abbreviations. Your title must be understandable by a broad scientific audience, some of whom may not have a detailed knowledge of your particular field. How broad depends on the particular target journal—consider the readership of your target journal, which is usually explained on the journal’s website, and write a title that can be easily understood by all, not only those in your immediate field. The target journal’s instructions for authors should also be consulted to ensure that character limits are complied with and to identify whether a running (short) title is also required. Example of a poor title: “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” This title is too long, contains non-standard abbreviations and a redundancy, and is too specific in parts. A better alternative would be: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. “MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration” would probably also be acceptable, depending on the target journal, because the abbreviation MAP is widely used and understood. Exercise: Scientists visiting an online life sciences network were asked to suggest a good alternative title for the following: “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” Among the responses was the following suggestion: “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” This title is six words and 61 characters shorter, which represents a significant reduction. The word “survival” is used to combine the two aspects of the improvement (mortality and hospitalization) and the repetition of “dose-related” has been removed. Finally, the abbreviation LV has been defined in the new title. Other researchers posted the titles and abstracts for their own papers, asking whether the titles were suitable. There were many excellent titles, some of which needed more changes than others. The following title, from Yelry, is well written and clearly defines the area of research: “Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” Although this is very clear, the author Yelry doesn’t convey the main findings of the paper, which were actually quite significant: the method was shown to be valuable for diagnosis and possibly able to separate two groups of patients. Because this significance is not conveyed in the title, Yelry could potentially lose some of the target audience. Character limits for titles dictate how much information can be included; however, the simple addition of “is valuable” after “ascending venography” says much more about the paper than the original title does. In this way, the key finding can be communicated. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
标签: 读者
