科学家出重要成果年龄变大 Benjamin F. Jonesa 和 Bruce A. Weinbergb 发表在PNAS(The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America)的原文《Age dynamics in scientific creativity》在 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/03/1102895108 。可惜俺没有钱购买。 该文的Data Supplement: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/03/1102895108/suppl/DCSupplemental 第25、26页的图片,如下: 物理学家,无论是理论的还是实验的,做出重大成果(Great Achievement)的年龄都在40岁以后了。 看来像俺一样的老科学家应该受到重视了。嘻嘻! 有关介绍请看: 牛登科 老师《科学家的创造力与年龄》, http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=61772do=blogid=506120 请您提供更多信息!谢谢! 本博文“热门博文”上升中 上面昨天,今天9:00的情况如下:
退耕还林是中国最大的生态恢复项目,烧钱无数,对其价值和功能评估其价值和意义不言而喻。西安交大和斯坦福大学合作发表了一篇Pnas文章(见附文2)。 2008年4月,通过对西安周至县南部四个山区乡镇20个村庄,近1000人调查,收集到2007年的村民经济相关数据。数据发现,参与退耕还林的村民收入略高于未参与的村民(统计上没区别),参与退耕还林项目的村民在农田种植、主要作物收入、小生意收入、打工收入、畜牧补助收入均略低于未参与者(统计上没区别), 退耕还林参与者得到的唯一好处便是政府补贴 (统计上有差别)。 虽然研究只有2007年的数据,并不能很好的体现当地经济的动态。毕竟老百姓要在那里生活一辈子,而不是一年。但这样的研究本身很有价值,可以给我们提供参考,理解退耕还林到底给老百姓带来了什么,工程是否能可持续地进行下去。 故事可笑的地方在于各方的解读。 Science 首先评论了这篇文。编辑说道:“参与退耕还林项目的村民经济收入增加,特别是中低收入家庭。项目参与者与为参与者之间收入差别虽然减少了(评注:这啥意思呐?),但是退耕还林项目所期待的雇佣关系依旧没有改变。只有林业补助是不行的,也行应该将林业相关的其它活动或畜牧补助也纳入进去” (Participation in the program increased household income, especially for low- and medium-income households. Income inequality was less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that did not; however, it did not change the traditional employment of the participants in the way that had been anticipated—many were still involved in forestry-related activities or animal husbandry. ) Science编辑的评论实在而中肯,还给出了一些建议。然而看看中国的Science(科学网和科学时报)的报到你就会难过了。科学网以“ 报告认为中国退耕还林项目收效显著 ”为题,说“美国斯坦福大学研究人员日前在美国《国家科学院学报》上发表研究报告认为,中国在农村地区实施的退耕还林项目收效显著——在为农民带来经济收益的同时,也在很大程度上恢复了此前受到侵蚀的林地。”,其它报纸,媒体如 财经网 、 中国经济网 、 搜狐网 均是照搬抄袭,瞎写一通,而其它网站则是对“发文”大肆歌颂一番,对问题实质退耕还林则一笔带过,如,西安交大公共政策与管理学院: 我院人口所教师论文在美国科学院院报上在线发表 、西安交大: 人口所教师论文在美国科学院院报上在线发表 、生物通: Science点评西安交大最新PNAS文章 、中国教育和科研计算机网: 西安交大一论文在PNAS发表并被Science文摘报道 、陕西省教育厅: 西安交大一论文在PNAS发表并被Science文摘报道 。相比之下,外国媒体则关注问题本身,如Science Daily: Reforesting Rural Lands in China Pays Big Dividends, Researchers Say 和 Stanford Universitiy News: Reforesting rural lands in western China pays big dividends, Stanford researchers say 。 不比不知道,一比吓一跳。这样的科学新闻还不如 行政消息 可靠呢。 海里的信息之中,就Pnas和Science中的故事是真的,而能读懂Science和pnas文章的人少得可怜,可叹的是能读懂外文文献的人又没权限阅读Science和pnas。 中国人是不是疯了。。。 附件: 1.Science的报道评论: Science 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 p. 1129 DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6034.1129-b Editors' Choice Policy Measuring Subsidy Success Barbara R. Jasny After devastating mudslides and floods in 1998 killed thousands of people and displaced millions, the Chinese government undertook a massive effort to fight erosion, called the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP). Under the SLCP, farmers on steep slopes in the Yangtze and Yellow River basins have been given cash subsidies and rice in exchange for allowing their farmland to be restored to forest or grassland and finding jobs other than farming. Part of the goal was to promote a change in the work activities of the people living in these areas to something that would be more sustainable for the ecosystem. Li et al. surveyed 20 villages containing participants and nonparticipants in 2008 to determine the effects of this program on the economics of people in a rural area of western China. Participation in the program increased household income, especially for low- and medium-income households. Income inequality was less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that did not; however, it did not change the traditional employment of the participants in the way that had been anticipated—many were still involved in forestry-related activities or animal husbandry. Ref.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 7721 (2011). http://www.sciencemag.org/conten ... 2-9bbc-c9e6f6100b14 2. Pnas文章: Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China Jie Lia,1, Marcus W. Feldmanb,c, Shuzhuo Lia, and Gretchen C. Dailyc,d,1 a Institute of Population and Development Studies, School of Public Policy and Administration, Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, China; bMorrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies and cDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020; and dThe Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020 Contributed by Gretchen C. Daily, February 17, 2011 (sent for review July 11, 2010) Abstract As payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs proliferate globally, assessing their impact upon households’ income and livelihood patterns is critical. The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) is an exceptional PES program, in terms of its ambitious biophysical and socioeconomic objectives, large geographic scale, numbers of people directly affected, and duration of operation. The SLCP has now operated in the poor mountainous areas in China for 10 y and offers a unique opportunity for policy evaluation. Using survey data on rural households’ livelihoods in the southern mountain area in Zhouzhi County, Shaanxi Province, we carry out a statistical analysis of the effects of PES and other factors on rural household income. We analyze the extent of income inequality and compare the socio-demographic features and household income of households participating in the SLCP with those that did not. Our statistical analysis shows that participation in SLCP has significant positive impacts upon household income, especially for low- and medium-income households; however, participation also has some negative impacts on the low- and medium-income households. Overall, income inequality is less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that do not after 7 y of the PES program. Different income sources have different effects on Gini statistics; in particular, wage income has opposite effects on income inequality for the participating and nonparticipating households. We find, however, that the SLCP has not increased the transfer of labor toward nonfarming activities in the survey site, as the government expected. J. Li, M. W. Feldman, S. Li, G. C. Daily. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1101018108
PNAS建议稿件投稿前最好不要online贴出 网上贴出的稿件,是否还能再投纸张期刊? 真傻一直弄不很清楚。尽管英语很蹩脚,还是向PNAS(The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America)去email打听。 感谢PNAS好心的回复!现贴在下面。 发件人: PNAS PNAS@nas.edu 主 题: RE: Inquire, ZL Yang 日 期: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:21:50 -0400 Dr. Yang, Thank you for your email to PNAS. All published manuscripts are made available online at no charge after 6 months following publication. The surcharge of 1,275 is for those authors who want to make their manuscript available online immediately at the time of publication. Regarding your other question, although PNAS cannot prevent authors from making their papers available online prior to submission, it is strongly advised to not do so. Although PNAS policy only explicitly states that papers may not be submitted to other journals at the same time as PNAS, it is suggested that you do not make the information public prior to official publication. If you do choose to make a manuscript publicly available prior to submission to PNAS, this should be disclosed with the submission. Kind Regards, Mitch Sipus PNAS Editorial Office Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:41 PM To: PNAS Subject: Inquire, ZL Yang Dear Editor, If a paper (draft) has been published in a Website, such as the arXiv ( www.arxiv.org/ ) or the Sciencepaper Online ( http://www.paper.edu.cn/en ), can this paper be submitted to PNAS again? I found some authors first published their papers in the arXiv, then submitted papers to some JOURNALS, such as Physical Review Letters. I wonder if they were no trouble. Besides, "Authors of research articles may pay a surcharge of $1,275 to make their paper freely available through PNAS open access option." If the $1,275 can not be paid, can the paper be published in the traditional papery PNAS only? Thank you! Best regards, Zheng-Ling YANG PhD, associate professor, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Authors:Rong-Zhen Liao a ,b , Jian-Guo Yu b , and Fahmi Himo a,1 a Department of Organic Chemistry, Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University , SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden; and b College of Chemistry Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, People’s Republic of China Proc. Natl. Acda. Sci. U.S.A. 2010 , 107, 22523-22527 . Abstract: Acetylene hydratase is a tungsten-dependent enzyme that catalyzes the nonredox hydration of acetylene to acetaldehyde. Density functional theory calculations are used to elucidate the reaction mechanism of this enzyme with a large model of the active site devised on the basis of the native X-ray crystal structure. Based on the calculations, we propose a new mechanism in which the acetylene substrate first displaces the W-coordinated water molecule, and then undergoes a nucleophilic attack by the water molecule assisted by an ionized Asp13 residue at the active site. This is followed by proton transfer from Asp13 to the newly formed vinyl anion intermediate. In the subsequent isomerization, Asp13 shuttles a proton from the hydroxyl group of the vinyl alcohol to the α-carbon. Asp13 is thus a key player in the mechanism, but also W is directly involved in the reaction by binding and activating acetylene and providing electrostatic stabilization to the transition states and intermediates. Several other mechanisms are also considered but the energetic barriers are found to be very high, ruling out these possibilities. Link: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014060108 PS:乙炔的水合涉及到CC三键的活化,某些细菌生物体采用钨参与催化过程。目前发现只有三类酶采用钨离子催化反应,也就是乙炔水合酶、醛氧化酶、羧酸氧化酶。自从07年该酶的晶体结构发表后,我就开始寻找可行的反应机理,一直到09年下半年才有突破,期间尝试了至少10多中可能性。最终我们发现不能相信前人关于反应机理基本上所有的假说。简单来说如果有A和B两种情况,前人说A是不可能的,那么你千万不要相信,一定要自己尝试去证明它对还是不对,即使有人证明了,也得仔细看别人做的对不对,里面有哪些近似,这些近似可不可靠。新的发现往往就是你预想不到的,但是如果你真正明白了看起来就非常简单。
今天由刚从德国回来的吴晔师兄(留校北邮了,应该改叫吴老师)讲一篇他的论文,刚在PNAS上发 的文章:《Evidence for a bimodal distribution in human communication》 吴晔师兄在德国待了三年,三年磨一剑,不容易啊。 人很nice,很好相处,据说kurths那里有20多了博士+博后,关键也是要靠自己做东西,看来国外制度跟国内也差不多嘛,可是为什么老外出牛文章多呢? PNAS: 美国科学院院报。Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,是与Nature、Science齐名,被引用次数最多的综合学科文献之一,周刊。 文章非常的 original,很creativity,主要是揭示人日常行为中的一些很regular的方面。文章是从人和人互发短信的数据入手,虽然现在来看,模型不复杂,但是非常的重要,因为这 modify了前人的一些结论,为后面的人提供了一种新的研究方向。这篇文章还有非常多的后续工作可以做,可惜我不做这个方向。 强烈建议做非线性动力学的人去看一下,这个方向近些年出来了不少在顶级期刊发表的文章,Nature,Science,PNAS。也有几个大牛人,如 Albert-Lszl Barabsi , University of Notre Dame 最后,我按照文中总结的人的日常行为的一些规律,验证了一下自己的行为,貌似我的日常行为也是很有规律的,有些还跟文章中的结论吻合,神奇!
详细信息见 http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21121tip=sidclean=0 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Country : United States Subject Area : Multidisciplinary Subject Category : Multidisciplinary Publisher : National Academy of Sciences . Publication type : Journals. ISSN : 00278424, 10916490 Coverage: 1965-2009 H Index : 383 Scope: PNAS is one of the worlds most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials. Since its establishment in 1914, it continues to publish cutting-edge PNAS is one of the worlds most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials. Since its establishment in 1914, it continues to publish cutting-edge research reports, commentaries, reviews, perspectives, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy. Coverage in PNAS spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. PNAS is published weekly in print, and daily online in PNAS Early Edition. The PNAS impact factor is 9.38 and the Eigenfactor is 1.7 for 2008. PNAS is available by subscription. ( source ) Show full scope Charts Data SJR indicator vs. Cites per Doc (2y) // The SJR indicator measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is. Cites per Doc. (2y) measures the scientific impact of an average article published in the journal, it is computed using the same formula that journal impact factor (Thomson Reuters). Citation vs. Self-Citation // Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Cites per Document vs. External Cites per Document // Evolution of the number of total cites per document and external cites per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Cites per Document in 2, 3 and 4 years windows // Evolution of Citations per Document to a journal's published documents during the two, three and four previous years. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor (Thomson Reuters) metric. International Collaboration // International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country. Journal's Citable vs. Non Citable Documents // Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore citable, this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers, reviews and short reviews) in three years windows. Journal's Cited vs. Uncited Documents // Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year. Indicators 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SJR 5,156 5,192 4,758 4,435 3,976 3,678 3,301 2,955 2,733 2,434 Total Documents 2.830 2.702 2.815 3.118 2.922 3.334 3.456 3.634 3.776 3.917 Total Docs. (3years) 8.473 8.437 8.416 8.347 8.635 8.855 9.374 9.712 10.424 10.866 Total References 102.016 97.474 103.052 112.507 107.512 121.186 127.161 132.552 142.937 138.900 Total Cites (3years) 82.462 85.893 88.061 86.865 86.230 91.898 96.030 96.013 97.837 99.294 Self Cites (3years) 3.081 3.111 3.297 3.272 3.175 3.302 3.421 3.250 3.451 3.446 Citable Docs. (3years) 8.127 7.981 7.900 7.750 8.024 8.235 8.754 9.065 9.668 10.072 Cites / Doc. (4years) 10,15 10,60 10,95 11,21 10,81 11,27 11,19 10,78 10,50 10,03 Cites / Doc. (3years) 10,15 10,76 11,15 11,21 10,75 11,16 10,97 10,59 10,12 9,86 Cites / Doc. (2years) 9,91 10,65 10,82 10,86 10,35 10,69 10,61 9,98 9,70 9,40 References / Doc. 36,05 36,07 36,61 36,08 36,79 36,35 36,79 36,48 37,85 35,46 Cited Docs. 7.873 7.833 7.871 7.801 8.071 8.331 8.790 9.037 9.625 10.064 Uncited Docs. 600 604 545 546 564 524 584 675 799 802 % International Collaboration 26,40 29,50 28,60 27,29 31,28 31,16 32,90 33,82 35,65 37,04
Fujia 发表于 2010-01-23 8:00 奇特论文惊现顶级期刊 如果飞鸟与鱼相爱,他们是否能够突破基因的壁垒,结百年之好,并多子多福呢? 有些许生物学常识的人,也许已开始直斥此爱情故事无视科学事实,逻辑荒谬。但类似的故事,却在学术界举足轻重、享有盛誉的《美国国家科学院院刊》(Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences),以严肃的科学论文形式刊出。此文一出,哗然一片。 2009年7月,已是87岁高龄,只能靠轮椅行走的威廉姆森(Donald I. Williamson),在院刊中发表了他的论文。这位曾工作于英国利物浦大学的海洋生物学家的惊人理论是:飞蛾(文中特指鳞翅目Lepidoptera)的进化源头,来自某只爬行的天鹅绒虫(velvet worm),与某种只有飞行模式的虫子,在偶然情况中结合所得。 与其他变态生物相似,蛾子拥有幼年毛毛虫与成年飞蛾的两种发育阶段,幼年毛毛虫专职进食以积蓄能量,而成年变态后所成的飞蛾则担当交配的重任。与主流科学界意见相左的是,威廉姆森认为在飞蛾由虫化蝶的成长过程中,其毛毛虫的阶段展示了其祖先天鹅绒虫的形态,其成虫形态则表示另一半祖先飞虫的形态。 在生物学家所绘的生物基因树中,天鹅绒虫与飞蛾所属昆虫纲亲缘并不相近。这种古老的生物,外观与毛毛虫很是相似。它拥有一种奇特的交配方式。雄虫将精液包置于配偶的皮肤组织上,精子穿透雌虫的组织,游入子宫。 天鹅绒虫精子的这种旅行方式,在威廉姆森看来,造就了它与某种古老飞虫的啼笑姻缘,而从此诞下的混血飞蛾的生命便拥有了两种形态如同天鹅绒虫般爬行的毛毛虫,与长翅善舞的美丽飞蛾。 这个惊世骇俗的理论自然震惊四座。华盛顿史密森尼自然历史博物馆的昆虫学家兰博泰拉(Conrad Labandeira)在接受记者访问时,脱口而出:开玩笑么? 主流科学家的一致否决 在达尔文的笔记本里,淡淡的笔痕勾画出生命之树的轮廓。此后百多年间,几乎所有生物学家都相信,基因不断由祖先垂直遗传给后代。现代分子生物学发展,基因测序的成真,也提供了许多证据予以证明。 然而,随着被测序基因的增多,生物学家们逐渐发现,原核生物即细菌与古菌,可以无视遥远的种系关系,而将基因信息水平传递(horizontal gene transfer)。遗传物质可以在细菌与古菌的各个种群里,跨越巨大的亲缘障碍地畅通无阻,给原核生物们带来各种变异。 但这种现象是否存在于动物王国中?兰博泰拉博士说:亲缘相近的动物有时可以产生混血后代,但天鹅绒虫与类属昆虫的飞蛾实在过于遥远,基本没有可能性可以诞下存活的新生命。 在威廉姆森发表论文的三个月后,西蒙菲沙大学的哈特(Michael W. Hart)与加州大学戴维斯分校的格劳斯伯(Richard K. Grosberg)《美国国家科学院院刊》上发表文章,言辞激烈地批判威廉姆森的论文。 这两位生物学家从分子生物学的角度,引用20年来生物学界里的论文,逐条驳斥威廉姆森的论点。与威廉姆森在文中所做的预测不符,鳞翅目(飞蛾等所属)的基因组较之无幼虫阶段的其他昆虫更小,反而作为祖先的、天鹅绒虫所属的有爪动物基因组更为庞大。基因测序信息也清晰证明了,鳞翅目与有爪动物毫无相近的亲缘关系。 美国杜克大学昆虫发育生物学家Fred Nijhout在接受《自然》杂志采访时说:如果你了解昆虫变形与发育的话,你就会立刻知道这完全是扯淡。 更多的生物学家站出来,指责威廉姆森的论文毫无学术价值。他们更把矛头指向论文所在的刊物《美国国家科学院院刊》,与该论文的推荐人。 论文的推荐人不当? 据《科学美国人》报道,威廉姆森的论文是以通讯投稿的方式来到《美国国家科学院院刊》的。与传统的同行评审(即由刊物编辑选择同一领域的其他学者来评审作者的学术论文)方式不同,通讯投稿可由美国科学院院士推荐,并为该论文亲自选择审稿人员。由此,推荐人可以避开有不同意见的专家,显然这种机制有所漏洞。 威廉姆森的论文推荐人,是工作于马萨诸塞大学阿姆赫斯特分校的玛古莉斯教授(LynnMargulis)。这位赫赫有名的生物学家,以其在真核生物细胞器起源与细胞器内共生理论等工作上的贡献而闻名于科学界。她同样强烈支持基因信息在不同种属生物间的传递,其理论已被许多重要实验所证明。她于1983年被评为美国科学院院士。 与其他达尔文的继承者格格不入的是,玛古莉斯否认进化源于竞争,认为生物间的基因信息传递才是生物进化的动力。她称自己为在宗教式崇拜的蔓延四方的盎格鲁-撒克松生物学界的一小撮20世纪教派。对于传统达尔文主义的追随者,她称他们沉溺于对达尔文思想的动物学、资本主义、竞争、节能的解释,是对达尔文的误解。坚持基因层面的自然选择是来自缓慢的逐步变异的新达尔文主义者们,完全是懦夫。 在接受《科学美国人》采访时,玛古莉斯告诉记者,按照《美国国家科学院院刊》的投稿规定,她需要找到六到七个审稿人,得到其中两到三个对论文的正面意见,才可以将威廉姆森的论文送往发表。而根据《自然》的新闻报道,玛古莉斯承认,她找到的审稿人中,有三个拒绝评审,而另两位业余生物学家,由于缺乏科学评审能力,而被院刊去除名单。 《美国国家科学院院刊》由此质疑另三篇与玛古莉斯有关的正准备发表的论文,但玛古莉斯表示她不会撤回任何一篇。据《自然》报道,玛古莉斯说:我们无论如何都将赢得胜利,因为这是科学。我遵循了所有的规定,并提交了比所需更多的评审。如果他们最后拒绝了这些论文,我将清清楚楚地告诉公众,这些人与平常一样就是不喜欢我的观点。 威廉姆森则在接受《泰晤士报》采访时表示,他在昆虫研究上所花的时间比任何反对者都要长,他也不会放弃对所有反对者的挑战。玛古莉斯是他的好朋友,多年来热情支持他的理论。他也告诉记者,在发表于《美国国家科学院院刊》前,此论文曾被其他几家学术刊物退稿。 《美国国家科学院院刊》已决定,自2010年7月起,停止这种利用院士特权的通讯投稿方式。 在主流科学界的理论中,飞鸟与鱼只可相忘于碧海蓝天,绝无繁衍成家的可能性。但这个爱情故事在科学界中的真假纷争,还要不休地继续。 Reference Williamson, D. I. 2009. Caterpillars evolved from onycophorans by hybridogenesis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Hart, M. W. and R. K. Grosberg. 2009. Caterpillars did not evolve fromonychophorans by hybridogenesis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 更多的威廉姆森(Donald I. Williamson)的观点,请参考小红猪译文《拔掉达尔文的树》。 http://songshuhui.net/archives/12112.html
在经历了几天的紧张之后,终于得到了结果。 我的第一次PNAS失败了,失败的有点不甘心,理由竟然是it does not have the broad appeal needed,而我研究的课题在去年的PNAS有篇类似的,最近的science上也有一篇类似的,这个课题来源于nature的后续,一句没有广泛性,不符合PNAS就拒了。 September 29, 2009 I regret to inform you that the PNAS Editorial Board has declined your manuscript . We receive many more good papers than we can publish and the Board must carefully weigh which papers merit external review. The expert who served as editor concluded that although this work is interesting, it does not have the broad appeal needed for PNAS and is better suited for a more specialized journal. Review Complete; E-Mail Notification Sent 2009-09-29 Pending Final Recommendation 2009-09-28 Under Editorial Board Review 2009-09-23 Quality Control Review Completed 2009-09-23 Quality Control Review Started 2009-09-22 Author Approved Submission 2009-09-22 不过不得不佩服越好的期刊,审稿的越快。经验总结,审稿的随机性很强,好马还需要有伯乐。好马也需要打扮,PNAS的文章和普通的文章不一样,缺少把文章写成PNAS风格的能力。
前段时间在香港的工作终于完成了,虽说主体部分的计算什么的,其实2个月前就已经完成了,可写文章,缝缝补补,又耗到了现在,算起来也半年时间过去了。由于有数据,有模型,所以香港的合作导师建议试投下PNAS,既然他说能投,呵呵,我当然不反对,德国导师听了我的报告后,也说这个文章很有趣,不反对投PNAS,其间和两个prof聊过这个文章,反应都不错。总结这篇文章的经验如下。 1,实际数据是王道,没有实际数据,光在那讲模型的文章现在不吃香了,有了实际数据,总能分析出里面的规律,从而建立一个模型,能很好的表现数据,这是现在文章的套路了。 2,Idea的重要性远超过了仿真,香港导师的一句话记得很清楚,你只有想好了要解决什么问题,问题很清楚了才能开始入手,目标确定了,用什么样的方法去解决目的是简单的,就像去罗马,知道了方向,找条路去罗马是不难的,就算找到的路不是最近的,也能到。这篇文章的背景构思从2年前就开始了,仿真只花了2个月的时间。很多人喜欢把时间花在调试程序,而不是在思考问题上,那是不对的。 3,充分利用网络资源,这次修改图形遇到了很多问题,把很多时间耗费在把图形画的效果更好些上面了。Matlab软件有个很不好的地方,就是所见非所得,在屏幕上看到的,保存下来就变形了,花了很多时间才在网络上找到解决办法。Latex的编译效果与编译软件和编译环境精密相关,图在我的电脑上编译的效果很好,但在老师那效果就很差。 4,学生和老师的差别,或者说普通人和牛人的一个差别是,老师能准确判断一份工作的重要性,适合投什么样的杂志,一个人如果能做到准确判断一份工作值不值得做,做完能得到什么样的结果,这份工作有多重要,最后能投什么样的杂志,那她完全可以去指导学生。 5,效率与耐心同样重要,要想有一篇好文章,效率是第一,要有效率,才能让仿真跟上自己的思路,不停修正到罗马的路线,从而走最近的路。耐心同样重要,在路线不直的时候,或者在重复绕圈的时候就是需要耐心的时候。 在这祝福这次审稿顺利, 借用德国导师的回复 Now let us hope for wise editors and reviewers.
鲍林(L.Pauling,1901.02.28-1994.08.19)是诺贝尔奖100多年历史上惟一一个两次独享诺贝尔奖的人:1954年独享诺贝尔化学奖,1962年独享诺贝尔和平奖,可谓是ldquo;含金量rdquo;最高、ldquo;运气rdquo;最好的诺贝尔奖得主。现在正是他逝世15周年,获诺贝尔奖55周年纪念时期。 咱搞科学史,很关心科学家是什么时候死的,什么时候生的,甚至关注科学家什么时候死的,比关注什么时候生的,程度更高。人家逝世XX周年纪念的时候,正是科学史工作者出成果的时候。比如,龚育之先生去世后不久,我就出了一个成果。我这篇成果mdash;mdash;博文,也算是对鲍林的纪念,一种ldquo;特别rdquo;的纪念。 20世纪90年代末,我翻译过鲍林的一个传记,即:特德middot;戈策尔,本middot;戈策尔 著,《科学与政治的一生:莱纳斯middot;鲍林传》,东方出版中心,1999年出版,2002年再版。 鲍林最有影响的著作是《化学键的本质》,由卢嘉锡先生翻译。卢嘉锡是鲍林的学生,中国著名的化学家,也曾是国家领导人之一。 鲍林后来的研究兴趣从无机化学转移到生命化学,研究蛋白质、DNA。1953年2月鲍林在《美国科学院院刊》(PNAS)上发表了DNA三螺旋结构的论文。 稍后,即1953年4月,英国的华生和克里克在Nature上提出了DNA的双螺旋结构,同期也有鲍林撰写的他们提出DNA三螺旋结构的ldquo;报道rdquo;。 历史就是这样大浪淘沙:华生和克里克的DNA双螺旋模型,从科学ldquo;前沿rdquo;进入了科学ldquo;核心rdquo;mdash;mdash;教科书,鲍林的DNA三螺旋模型从科学ldquo;前沿rdquo;被扔进了ldquo;科学垃圾堆rdquo;。 然而,第二年,即1954年,鲍林获得了诺贝尔化学奖,可以说是ldquo;冲喜rdquo;吧。1962年,华生和克里克(以及Wilkins)因发现DNA双螺旋结构,也获得了诺贝尔奖。 我翻译的那本书,生动地讲述了鲍林的那个历史故事。 对鲍林发表错误论文的行为,并考虑到当前的ldquo;现实背景rdquo;,我仅发表一个非常简短的评论: 人非圣贤,孰能无过? 科学是可错的,科学通过trial-and-error而前行。 诚实的错误,不是科研不端行为。 mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash; 附: 1)Linus Pauling, Robert Corey:A proposed structure for the nucleic acids. February 1953. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 39 (February 1953): 84-97 http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/dna/papers/1953p.9.html Linus Pauling, R.B.Corey, Nature , Feb.21, 1953, p.346 We have formulated a structure for the nucleic acidshellip;hellip;The structure involves three intertwinded helical polynucleotide chains. A detailed description of the structure is appearing in the February 1953 issue of the PNAS.( 感谢xiao兄提供这个文献) mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash; 2)华生和克里克1953年4月提出DNA双螺旋结构(原始文献,见附件) mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash;mdash; 3 )鲍林发表DNA三螺旋结构的故事的另一个版本,见: http://www.med8th.com/readingroom/20sjdkxgj/17-3.htm ; 华生和克里克发现DNA双螺旋结构的故事,见《双螺旋》(简介,见李宁博士 http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=237910 )。 Watson和Crick发表DNA双螺旋结构的原始论文1953 ( http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.html )
Abstract: Many natural fruits and vegetables adopt an approximately spheroidal shape and are characterized by their distinct undulating topologies. We demonstrate that various global pattern features can be reproduced by anisotropic stress-driven buckles on spheroidal core/shell systems, which implies that the relevant mechanical forces might provide a template underpinning the topological conformation in some fruits and plants. Three dimensionless parameters, the ratio of effective size/thickness, the ratio of equatorial/polar radii, and the ratio of core/shell moduli, primarily govern the initiation and formation of the patterns. A distinct morphological feature occurs only when these parameters fall within certain ranges: In a prolate spheroid, reticular buckles take over longitudinal ridged patterns when one or more parameters become large. Our results demonstrate that some universal features of fruit/vegetable patterns (e.g., those observed in Korean melons, silk gourds, ribbed pumpkins, striped cavern tomatoes, and cantaloupes, etc.) may be related to the spontaneous buckling from mechanical perspectives, although the more complex biological or biochemical processes are involved at deep levels. 应力是影响有机与无机世界里各种生长过程的重要因素,因此是生长与形态研究所必须考虑的关键因素。近年来,国际上关于应力驱动结构失稳在薄膜上引起的各种花样的研究取得了许多重要的进展。这些研究对于理解各种花样包括皱纹、材料断裂、薄膜表面形貌提供了深入的认识。但是,在这些工作了所涉及的都是有开放边界的曲面或平面,它们在拓扑学上都是亏格数为1的表面。对于亏格数为0的闭合曲面上的应力屈曲形态及其在理解自然方面的意义则鲜有涉及。 该系列的最新研究工作以 Stress-driven buckling patterns in spheroidal core/shell structures 为题发表在美国《国家科学院院刊》 (PNAS 105,1932,2008)上 。