虞博士的博文： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-1147508.html 引文 对于初学者，不妨多用句号。每一句话，可以先用句号结束。以后慢慢改。（你改是revising。我改你的文章是editing。） 如果是两句相关的句子，第一个句号可以改为分号（；）或逗号（，）。 两个句号：Team A measured ocean temperature at Site A. Team B measured ocean temperature at Site B. 改为一个句号： Team A measured ocean temperature at Site A; Team B measured ocean temperature at Site B.（；后面应该是小写字母，但是这里的Team B是“名字”） Team A measured ocean temperature at Site A, while Team B measured ocean temperature at Site B.（这句和上面用；的句子，“含义”有一点点不同。你可以“想象”一下。） 评论 双手赞成初学者多用句号。对我们的来说，英语是外语。初学者先学会写完整的句子最重要，因为一个完整句表述的是一个完整的观点。先以后难：（1）简单句、并列句、主从复合句；（2）松散句（loose sentence)、圆周句（periodic sentence）。 如果两个句子相关，第一个句号可以改为分号（；）或逗号（，）。双手赞成。 Team A measured ocean temperature at Site A, while Team B measured ocean temperature at Site B. 浙江话里的“, while我建议改为“, and”。 这个例子用分号是最合适的。用“, and”次些，用“, while”最次。 总结 《简洁的原理》（英文版）第一章有八条基本语法法则，其中法则3、4、5、6主要讲逗号用法（法则5讲到分号）。另外，法则2讲的是牛津逗号（Oxford comma）（详见上篇博文： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=3422258do=blogid=1207695 ）。八条法则里，有5条跟逗号有关，逗号之重要不必多言。 举法则5的3个例子：Do not join independent clauses by a comma. It is nearly half past five; we cannot reach town before dark. （分号） It is nearly half past five. We cannot reach town before dark. （句号） It is nearly half past five, and we cannot reach town before dark. （逗号+and） 文中解释如下： A comparison of the three forms given above will show clearly the advantage of the first. It is, at least in the examples given, better than the second form because it suggests the close relationship between the two statements in a way that the second does not attempt, and better than the third because it is briefer and therefore more forcible. 讲下“, and”和“, while”。and连接分句，告诉我们这两个分句有关系，但不告诉我们具体是什么关系，可以表示并列，可以表示承接，可以表示结果。 while在英文里用的很乱，经常用来表示although或whereas。因为一词多义容易产生理解上的歧义，所以有些学术刊物，比如牛津大学出版社下属的一些期刊，就建议论文写作者用单词的第一义（primary meaning）来写作。while的第一义是and at the same time。对我们而言，避开有歧义的词或是自己没有掌握好的词是最好的做法。 and用法，参阅《简洁的原理》（英文版）第一章法则4（脚注）。 while用法，参阅《简洁的原理》（英文版）第四章词条while。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）只在【清北复交】微信小店和淘宝店销售。 淘宝店链接： https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=578721768255
虞博士的博文： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-1147403.html 引文1： 语态对科学家来说， 非常简单。没有谁的文章是因为语态没有用对，被拒稿的。（如果有，请举手。）对英语语言大师来说，被动语态是非常有争议的话题。两派可以一直吵到下个世纪。但是，我们“外行人”不必去瞎掺乎。 没有谁的文章会因为语态没有用对被拒稿。其实，也没有谁的文章因为写的不好而被拒稿——这话是美国历史学家Jacques Barzun说的，出自他的大作： From Dawn to Decadence 。 被动语态有争议,但绝对不是非常有争议的话题,至少我看过的几十本各类写作指南或手册都建议少用被动态：能用主动态就不用被动态。博士推荐的 Style toward Clarity and Grace 已经展开讲得很具体。 注意，不是不能用被动态！！！ 引文（例子）2： Tool #1, tool #2, tool #3, tool $4, tool #5, tool #6, and tool #7 were used in this experiment. 改为： In this experiment, we used the following tools: tool #1, tool #2, tool #3, tool $4, tool #5, tool #6, and tool #7. 虞博士这个举例非常恰当。体现在三个方面：（1）主动态用得自然；（2）冒号用得到位；（3）“ and tool #7”前面的逗号用得好。 总结如下： 上面谈到的几点，《简洁的原理》（英文版）里都有。具体如下： 一、被动语态 第二章十条写作法则里第11条就是：Use the active voice。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）第60页。 This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary. Breakfast is served until 9 a.m. 二、冒号 冒号在第三章里。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）第94页。 A colon introduces a list of items, normally after expressions such as the following or as follows . The qualifications are as follows: a doctorate in physics, five years' experience in a national laboratory, and an ability to communicate technical matter to a lay audience. 三、逗号 逗号在第一章里。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）第21页。 In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last. An argument is a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer's position, belief, or conclusion is valid. 这个逗号有很多叫法：Oxford Comma，Harvard Comma，Serial Comma。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）里没有用这些术语。这本书的一大好处就是术语少，比很多英文写作书少。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）只在【清北复交】微信小店和淘宝店销售。 淘宝店链接： https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=578721768255
虞左俊博士的博文： https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LMYaAAmg3aHflddx3wxWog 文中提到如下文字： If you google 英语摘要的时态， you will see use the past tense. (网上搜索，你会看到“摘要应该用过去时”。） If you never wrote a paper on your own, you may take this as the truth and follow it faithfully. But, I have to say this rule needs to be relaxed. Here is why. （但是，摘要不一定非用过去时哦。） 用过去时还是现在时？虞博士讲了很多，很有道理。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）法则17 “ In summaries, keep to one tense” 第85页开头就说得明明白白： In summarizing the action of a drama, the writer should use the presenttense . In summarizing a poem, story, or novel, he should also use the present, though he may use the pastif it seems more natural to do so. If the summary is in the present tense, antecedentaction should be expressed by the present perfect; if in the past, by the past perfect. 也就是，可以用现在时，也可以用过去时。你想用过去时当然也可以，但最好用现在时。 abstract是a summary of points。所以，这儿讲的对摘要写作也适用。 这儿举Nature官网提供的Summary写作例子。大家一看便知道时态是现在时。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）只在【清北复交】微信小店和淘宝店销售。 淘宝店链接： https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=578721768255
Summary of ‘The Persistence and Transience of Memory’ The predominant focus in the neurobiological study of memory has been on remembering (persistence). However, recent studies have considered the neurobiology of forgetting (transience). Here we draw parallels between neurobiological and computational mechanisms underlying transience. We propose that it is the interaction between persistence and transience that allows for intelligent decision-making in dynamic, noisy environments. Specifically, w e argue that transience (1) enhances flexibility , by reducing the influence of outdated information on memory-guided decision-making, and (2) prevents overfitting to specific past events, thereby promoting generalization . According to this view, the goal of memory is not the transmission of information through time, per se . Rather, the goal of memory is to optimize decision-making. As such , transience is as important as persistence in mnemonic systems. 点评 修改完全运用《简洁的原理》（英文版）里提倡的18条基本法则： https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=578721768255 这篇summary初看还可以，细看还是有些问题值得我们去修改提升。 （1）predominant： 换成real、main或primary。 （2）consider： 用explore更合适。 （3）flexibility： 这个词的限定语不明确。是memory的还是decision-making的？后面的generalization也是同样的问题。 （4）overfitting： 牛津词典定义： Statistics. To produce or represent an analysis which corresponds too closely or exactly to (a particular set of data); to make (a model) fit a particular set of data too precisely. Also without object: to provide too close a fit. 统计学方面的词（有些词典里查不到这个词）。 （5）transmission of information： 名词短语结构是很多文章里的大问题，不是错但冗长抽象惹人烦。 （6）per se： per se的意思： By or in itself or themselves; intrinsically. （7）as such： as such的意思： In the exact sense of the word. 这个词在实际使用中的意思很多时候相当于therefore。 改后（部分地方有调整） 通俗版 The real focus in the study of memory has been on remembering, but recent studies have explored forgetting. We propose that it is the interaction between remembering and forgetting that allows for decision-making. We argue that by reducing the influence of outdated information on decision-making, forgetting (1) enhances memory’s flexibility, and (2) prevents remembering from being too close to specific past events, thereby making it possible to generalize about these events. According to this view, the goal of memory is not to transmit information but to optimize decision-making. Therefore, forgetting is as important as remembering. 专业版 The realfocus in the neurobiological study of memory has been on remembering (persistence), butrecent studies have exploredthe neurobiology of forgetting (transience). Here we draw parallels between neurobiological and computational mechanisms underlying transience. We propose that it is the interaction between persistence and transience that allows for decision-making. We argue that transience, by reducing the influence of outdated information, (1) enhances flexibility, and (2) prevents memory from being too closeto specific past events, thereby making it possible to generalize about these events. According to this view, the goal of memory is not to transmitinformation, but to optimize decision-making. Therefore, transience is as important as persistence in mnemonic systems.
科学网博主、留美学者虞左俊博士2018年11月17日发文评论我修订的《简洁的原理》（英文版），并说“大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材”。随后一个多月里写了几十篇跟 The Elements of Style 相关的文章。 二十几篇文章，阅读量也不小。首篇直指我修订的《简洁的原理》（英文版）。后面的几十篇更像是因我这本书引发虞博士“现学现卖” The Elements of Style 。 谬误甚多，有必要答复。 错误的英语写作观念一旦形成，要改正就很难。 期盼科学网的老师同学转发。 谢谢！ 回答11月17日这篇文章。博客原文： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-1146716.html 第一部分 我对余子龙老师的书《简洁的原理》（英文版）的看法： 这本书的对象不是中国科学家（包括研究生），因为是英文版。 （我问了一些“学生”，有的说： 看不懂 The Elements of Style （4th edition）第一部分的大纲。 ）我当然不敢说“伟人”写得不好，但是，大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材。 我不得不现实一点。 虞博士百分之百没有读过我的修订版。 所以，第一句话就说错了。 第一句错了，后面通盘都错，没有再看之必要。我还是认真看完并认真答复。 因为我修订这本书就考虑到广大的科学工作者、技术工作者，在读理工科的本科生、硕士生、博士生 。公众号菜单栏“不可不读”里的参考书目和注释出处可以佐证。《简洁的原理》（英文版）第51-52页引用《自私的基因》作者Richard Dawkins的文章“Good and Bad Reasons for Believing”讲的就是科学的方法。 我一个文科生为什么会考虑到中国科学家的需要？ 一个原因是2013年中国科协联合财政部、教育部、国家新闻出版署、中国科学院、中国工程院实施的“中国科技期刊国际影响力提升计划”。 另一个原因是我常常浏览科学期刊，国外的如 Nature 、 Science 、 Cell ，国内的主要是浙大英文刊物。 提升英文期刊影响力，文字是基础。英文写不好就少有人看，就会埋葬学术思想。 回到虞博士的文字。 （1）第一句犯了逻辑错误：“这本书的对象不是中国科学家（包括研究生），因为是英文版。” “因为是英文版”和“这本书的对象不是中国科学家（包括研究生）”之间没有因果关系。 （2）第二句（我问了一些“学生”，有的说：看不懂 The Elements of Style （4th edition）第一部分的大纲。）证明虞博士没有读过我的书。我的书有《使用说明》，在书的第3页。 这是我七年修订、几十遍拜读不同原版后的心得，是我给出的阅读建议。 读过的版本如下：斯特伦克两个版本（1918年版、1920年版）、怀特修订的三个版本（1959年版、1972年版、1978年版）、挂在怀特名下的两个版本（1999年版、2009年企鹅插图版），还有四五位美国英文教授、编辑修订的不同版本）。 虞博士说的一些学生看不懂怀特版的“ The Elements of Style （4th edition）第一部分的大纲”，在我的意料之中。 也有一看就懂的。 我曾建议北大一位读法律的研究生（本科英语专业）读这本书，那时我的书还没有出版。后来给她送书去，她说买了怀特的，都看完了，说”很简单，都能看懂“。 说容易，美国小学高年级就看这本书。有小学四年级学生给怀特写信，请教用法问题。虞博士有时间可以翻看怀特书信集： Letters of E. B. White 。 说不容易，大学老师、专业作家、专业编辑很多都在读，好些大学老师还要求学生必须背熟。我以前推 文用过香港 《号外》创办人陈冠中回忆他在美国波士顿大学学新闻的文字： 不过他 还有招。他要大家背熟一本叫《 简洁的原理 》 （英文版） 的书的部分章节。没错，是一字一字的背诵。《 简洁的原理 》 （英文版） 是教中学生或大一学生的课外书，而我们是堂堂新闻系研究生，现在不光被指定要看还要背，算什么跟什么？英语是我第二语，连我也觉得委屈，其他美国学生可想而知，何况那届同学里有一半是英文本科毕业的。 过去三十年，我劝过不少想学好英文作文的人去看这本书，也买过多本送人。 我从幼稚园学ABC开始，经过小学、中学、大学，漫漫十八载练英文，到了背熟《 简洁的原理 》 （英文版） 里的作文天条那个晚上，才算真正完成了英文作文的基础教育。后来连我的美国同学都没有一个抱怨。 （说明：书名已改为我现在的译名。） （3）第三句（我当然不敢说“伟人”写得不好，但是，大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材。 ）里，虞博士谦虚地说”我当然不敢说‘伟人’写得不好“。 但我翻看了虞博士的几十篇相关博文后认为，评论有些草率。 证明如下（原文截屏如下，不再去找原文，以后再点评原文；这儿只注意第一段文字）： 没有认认真真看完这本书，就现学现卖，我只能说：学术不严谨。 其实博士只要去清北复交淘宝店看看商品详情，至少我会认为您是读过我这本书后发表的评论： https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=578721768255 如果博士再有点探究精神，可以根据淘宝店页面详情后面的图片找到我的公众号【清北复交】菜单栏去看看我的修订参考了哪些书，用法和例子又出自何处。 参考书目我已经放在科学网博客里： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=3422258do=blogid=1206792 用法注释和例子出处还存放在公众号【清北复交】： https://mp.weixin.qq.com/advanced/selfmenu?action=indext=advanced/menu-settingtoken=105927496lang=zh_CN 虞博士所言的“大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材”是主观判断，还是科学依据？科学写作中应该少用这类模糊的词，怎么也得说百分之多少中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材。另外，“中文版的英语教材”，我还没有看明白，中文翻译还是用中文教英文写作？ 因为虞博士没有提供科学依据，所以我就认为“大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材”是虞博士的主观判断。 既然虞博士认为，“大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材”，我就不太明白您为什么要推荐 Style Toward Clarity and Grace by Joseph M. William。这本书是英文的，不是“中文版的英语教材”。而且，您的注解刚好适用评价这本书（以后为分析这本书）。 既然虞博士认为，“大多数中国科学家还是喜欢看中文版的英语教材”，我就不太明白您 为什么要推荐 College Writing Skills with Readings ，而且是在写完有关 The Elements of Style 的博文半小时后就推文。 2019年1月27日后更有十五六篇博文讲自己用这本书 CollegeWriting Skills with Readings 讲课用。 这本书是英文的，不是“中文版的英语教材”。 虞博士推荐的这两本英文书，我很熟悉。 我对 Style 这本书还有所研究。 图片是第10版文字，誊录了第11版的改动文字。 至于 College Writing Skills with Readings ，这本书要删去很多内容。 个人的研究很主观，自娱自乐，不足参考。 对这三本书， The Elements of Style 、 StyleToward Clarity and Grace 、 College Writing Skills with Readings ，我找一个比较客观、有一定说服力而且大家都可以找到的证据：Syllabus Explorer。截屏并分析如下： The Elements of Style 在1,732,393本指定阅读书目里名列第一。 Style有很多版本。 理念很好，但讲解分析啰嗦过头，自己提出的要求自己做不到。 College Writing Skills with Readings 有不同版次，但 Syllabus Explorer只有这一条数据。 往 Syllabus Explorer 上传syllabus的不是只有美国一个国家，而是全世界很多国家和地区。 所以，用这些书的并非都是美国的大学。 我们比较这三本书在所有推荐书目里的推荐排名。 从这些数据来看， The Elements of Style 是远超另外两本书的。三本都是好书，但好中有好，排名次：上、中、下。敢问虞博士，为何对一流的书连认真读完的兴趣都没有？ 俗话说：求乎上，得其中；求乎中，得其下；求乎下，得个屁啊。 话糙理不糙。严羽《沧浪诗话》里说得更顺耳：“学其上，仅得其中；学其中，斯为下矣。” 下面这四点是《简洁的原理》（英文版）专有。 1. 2011年，美国《时代》杂志（ Time Magazine ）把《简洁的原理》列为1923年至今的 100本最佳、最有影响力的图书之一 （https: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#cite_note-Time-2）。 2. 美国兰登书屋出版社的现代图书馆（Modern Library）100本非小说类最佳图书榜单上，《简洁的原理》在专家评选的榜单上名列 第21位 ，在读者评选的榜单上名列 第75位 （ www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-nonfiction ）。 3. 英国《卫报》（ The Guardian ）100本非小说类最佳图书排行榜上，《简洁的原理》名列 第23位 （ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/04/100-best-nonfiction-books-all-time-elements-style-william-strunk-eb-white ）。 4.学术杂志 Nature 官网上推荐的书只有这一本 （网址见文章最后部分内容） 第二部分 The Elements of Style 是给（美国）大学生上写作课用的教材。如果我们能啃下来，一定对写科技论文有益。但是，如果我每天走路30分钟就能降低血糖，我应该不想走90分钟（没有时间呀！）。所以，我的大纲是能简单就简单。对于能力非常强的学生，上一篇博客已经是“最后的一堂课”。 （1）第一句“ The Elements of Style 是给（美国）大学生上写作课用的教材”说对了一部分。这本书几十年前就成了美国大中小学的课外书，而且很早就走向社会为广大人民群众接受了，甚至成为有些家庭的传家宝（读这本书的铁杆粉丝Mark Garvey的书 Stylized 深入了解）。在美国，William Strunk和E. B. White已经成为这本小书的代名词，大家称这本书为：Strunk White。虞博士在美国工作，应该知道这个Strunk White的分量吧。 再说了，虞博士推荐的 StyleToward Clarity and Grace 、 College Writing Skills with Readings 都是美国大学生上写作课的教材。 （2）第二三句“如果我们能啃下来，一定对写科技论文有益。但是，如果我每天走路30分钟就能降低血糖，我应该不想走90分钟（没有时间呀！）”怎么理解？ 虞博士推荐的两本书 S tyleToward Clarity and Grace 和 College Writing Skills with Readings 都比 The Elements of Style 厚。 College Writing Skills with Readings 厚得不知超出几倍了。 《简洁的原理》（英文版）最薄， 全是干货 ，而且teaches what it preaches。是读干货满满的书节省时间能“降低血糖”，还是读啰嗦冗长言不由衷的厚书节省时间 能“降低血糖” ？ 用美国畅销书作家、很多人熟悉的 《肖申克的救赎》斯蒂芬·金说： 多数关于写作的书，里面写的都是废话……《简洁的原理》（英文版）是个例外（most books about writing are filled with bullshit ...One notable exception to the bullshit rule is The Elements of Style , by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White.）。 说得对极了！ 第三部分 1.语态 （最简单，虽然非常有争议） 2.常用时态（已发表的博客） 3.一些标点符号（参考The Elements of Style） 4.常用句型（主语谓语的“一致性”，参考The Elements of Style） 5.段落（参考The Elements of Style） 6.修改、修改、再修改（简洁为上／逻辑性／一致性） 虞博士的这六点可能是接第二部分后面文字：“我的大纲是能简单就简单”。我看不明白博士是贬还是赞 The Elements of Style 。罗列的六点，有三点是要参考 The Elements of Style 。其实这六点书里都有。如果博士读过我的修订版，应该知道第五章就是讲“修改、修改、再修改”。 总结 我没读懂虞博士的这篇博文，没发现逻辑性，也没发现一致性。推荐 The Elements of Style 这本书的科学家很多。我举一位国外的科学家和一位国内的科学家。这两位科学家从学术成就和文章写作两方面看都比虞博士有发言权。 第一位是 美国科学院、美国工程院、美国艺术科学院三院院士，H因子最高的化学家George Whitesides 。他说： 我还要推荐你读一读斯特伦克和怀特编著的《简洁的原理》 （英文版） ，去寻得遣词造句表达思想的感觉。 （ I also suggest you read Strunk and White, The Elements of Style (Macmillan: New York, 1979, 3rd ed.) to get a sense for usage. ） George Whitesides 的文章最早发表在 Advanced Material 上，据说在业内影响广泛。文章叫： Whitesides ‘ Group: Writing a Paper。下载地址： https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.200400767 第二位是清华大学药学院鲁白教授。他在 复旦大学上海医学院做讲座时说： 作为结束语，我想推荐一本书。有的书是经常要查和翻的，像 The elements of style ，很多字是怎么用的，它都有，我是放在桌子上经常用的，比如说compare with和compare to, 到底怎么用，这已经不是语法问题，而是什么情况下用，它会告诉你怎么用，这种类似的情况太多了，这个不是仅对我们中国人，美国人也经常把这本书放在桌子上。 鲁白教授的讲座网上有记录： https://www.douban.com/note/287562584/?type=collect 最后借用著名经济学家张五常教授的话总结： ……我就推荐E. B. White写的《Elements of Style》这本小书。 四十年前我用这小书学英文，获益良多。不浅，但简洁易记，内容全面。是教懒人学英文的经典之作，……。首先要指出的，是懂语文与懂得写文章是两回事。比方说，林先生文内提出的田先生的文字例子，我们不能说田先生不熟学英文，但他三十七个英文字才用一个标点，则不能说是懂得写文章。这没有贬意，因为写文章看来不是田先生的专业。是老师们的专业，也是我的专业。行家说行话，这里不妨苛求一点。 附： 对写作科学论文的老师和同学，推荐看看 Nature 杂志提供的资料。 How to write a scientific paper （ https://www.nature.com/nature-research/for-authors/write ） A number of articles and websites provide detailed guidelines and advice about writing and submitting scientific papers. Some suggested sources are: (1) SciDev.Net's Practical guides section (including How to submit a paper to a scientific journal and How to write a scientific paper ). (2) The Human Frontier Science Program's report Websites and Searching for Collaborations also contains useful writing guidelines for non-native-English speakers, as well as other helpful advice related to scientific publishing. (3) The classic book Elements of Style by William J. Strunk, Jr (Humphrey, New York, 1918) is now published by Bartleby.com (New York, 1999) and is freely available on the web in searchable format. (4) Advice about how to write a Nature journal paper is provided in the Nature Physics Editorial Elements of style . (5) Advice about how to write a summary paragraph (abstract) in Nature Letter format is available as a one-page downloadable information sheet . (6) An amusing but pertinent algorithm, How to write a paper (one possible answer) is at Nature Network's New York blog.
The 1-hour workday Jeffrey J. McDonnell + See all authors and affiliations Science 12 Aug 2016: Vol. 353, Issue 6300, pp. 718 DOI: 10.1126/science.353.6300.718 When I was an assistant professor, I felt constantly overwhelmed. I had classes to teach, relationships with new colleagues to navigate, a lab group to assemble, and an infant at home not to mention research to conduct and papers to publish. To get ahead, I took on any opportunities that were offered, including membership on various editorial boards and professional committees. Despite working like a madman, my productivity as measured by paper output was meager. I simply could not find time in my day for undistracted writing. And when I did find the time after an extended stretch away from writing, the warm-up period to get back into the paper was often long, further slowing my progress. ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER “I wake up early, make an espresso, and write until I'm spent.” At first I thought that this kind of frustration was routine for academic researchers. But as the years passed, I noticed a few senior colleagues who published with impressive regularity and always had a paper in the works. When I asked them what their secret was, I found that they prioritized doing small amounts of focused writing every day. I've since developed my own version of this approach. I call it the 1-hour workday, referring to the short, sacrosanct period when I do what I see as the “real” work of academia: writing papers. First thing in the morning is when I'm at my mental best, and when I'm still most in control of my time, so I now use the first hour of my day to write. For me, it's best done from home. I've developed something of a ritual: I wake up early, make an espresso, and write until I'm spent—or until distractions like email or the day's deadlines and meetings start to intrude. This is usually about an hour, some days a little less and some days more. I've found that, like hitting a ball in golf, regular writing is easier if I tee it up. I plan my early morning writing the night before. It is in my calendar and on my to-do list, with details about which paper and section I will be working on. This routine has transformed my work life. Instead of the frustration that frequently plagued me early in my career, now—no matter how work proceeds after I've completed my writing time—I go home at the end of the day with the satisfaction of having accomplished something. I have in no way mastered the writing game, but my 1-hour workday has certainly increased my academic output. And by keeping me focused and in practice, it has improved the quality of my writing and made the process much more enjoyable. It also offers an opportunity for deep thinking. I remember rarely having any such thinking time when I started out as a professor, but now I find that my daily keystrokes can lead to new ideas. When I string together days of successful writing, ideas flow and new connections present themselves even when I'm away from my keyboard, particularly on my bike ride to work or when I'm reading for pleasure. Many days, “writing” means editing and revising the work of others. This work can sometimes be a slog, but I keep my spirits up by thinking of it as a game of table tennis. My goal is to return the serve—when done quickly, this greatly improves the game. In any sport, one must stay toned and conditioned. If I fall out of practice, I quickly lose that fitness, and my writing and editing become labored. So, even though distractions abound, I protect that daily workout at the keyboard during the first precious work hour of the day. I've learned that writing does not need long stretches of uninterrupted time. Focus and regularity are what matter. I now advise my Ph.D. students and postdocs who are going on to faculty positions to adopt daily writing as an early-career habit so that they don't repeat my years of writing frustration. At any career stage, a daily writing ritual can help improve performance—and, perhaps most importantly, job satisfaction. Science Vol 353, Issue 6300 12 August 2016 Table of Contents Print Table of Contents Advertising (PDF) Classified (PDF) Masthead (PDF)
在科技论文中，经常见到on the contrary,on the other hand,in contrast,in/by comparion等短语。这些短语的中文意思接近，表示比较。但在写作时，他们的侧重点却不尽相同。 on the contrary : 用于否定或反驳前一个句子或分句所提出的论点。 in contrast : 用于介绍一个与前一句所陈述的观点强烈对照的新观点。e.g. Approach A provides high speed at the cost of increased memory requirement. In contrast,approach B is slower but requires much less memory. on the other hand, in comparison, by comparison : 用来提出新的信息，并与前一个句子或分句所提到的信息作比较或对照。 类似的短语和词有很多，例如时间副词Recently,often正确的摆放位置,and 与as well as 表示“和”时的侧重点等，这些用法的掌握都需要我们平时多阅读母语为英语的作者所写的论文，多比较，多积累。
好久没有更新我的博客了。原因有两个：进不来（log in failed often)和没时间(too much travel, plus WeChat)。 不过，我还是会常常过来看看“好友”。因为博客，我有幸结识了不少高手。在此，向科学网致谢。 如果有博友对我的英文写作博客有兴趣，只要百度一下（我没有试过）应该可以找到我。
J join (together) (joint) collaboration K kneel (down) (knowledgeable) experts L lag (behind) later (time) LCD (display) lift (up) (little) baby (live) studio audience (live) witness (local) residents look (ahead) to the future look back (in retrospect) M made (out) of (major) breakthrough (major) feat manually (by hand) may (possibly) meet (together) meet (with each other) (mental) telepathy merge (together) might (possibly) minestrone (soup) mix (together) modern ______ (of today) (mutual) cooperation (mutually) interdependent mutual respect (for each other) (number-one) leader in ________ N nape (of her neck) (native) habitat (natural) instinct never (before) (new) beginning (new) construction (new) innovation (new) invention (new) recruit none (at all) nostalgia (for the past) (now) pending From http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/redundancies_2.htm
If you are, you should work on the manuscript before you send it out for English editing. ps. This is how a frustrated English editor feels after having received two poorly written/translated manuscripts.
H had done (previously) (harmful) injuries (head) honcho heat (up) HIV (virus) hoist (up) (hollow) tube hurry (up) I (illustrated) drawing incredible (to believe) indicted (on a charge) input (into) integrate (together) integrate (with each other) interdependent (on each other) introduced (a new) introduced (for the first time) (ir)regardless ISBN (number) From http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/redundancies_2.htm
F (face) mask fall (down) (favorable) approval (fellow) classmates (fellow) colleague few (in number) filled (to capacity) (final) conclusion (final) end (final) outcome (final) ultimatum (firstand) foremost (first) conceived first (of all) fly (through the air) follow (after) (foreign) imports (former) graduate (former) veteran (free) gift (from) whence (frozen) ice (frozen) tundra full (to capacity) (full) satisfaction fuse (together) (future) plans (future) recurrence G gather (together) (general) public GOP (party) GRE (exam) green (in color) grow (in size) From http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/redundancies_2.htm
D depreciate (in value) descend (down) (desirable) benefits (different) kinds disappear (from sight) drop (down) during (the course of) dwindle (down) E each (and every) earlier (in time) eliminate (altogether) emergency (situation) (empty) hole empty (out) (empty) space enclosed (herein) (end) result enter (in) (entirely) eliminate equal (to one another) eradicate (completely) estimatedat (about) evolve (over time) (exact) same (exposed) opening extradite (back) From http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/redundancies.htm
An Editor's Five Rules of Thumb Gardner Botsford on Writing and Editing http://grammar.about.com/od/editorsandediting/a/botsfordediting.htm Rule of thumb No. 1. To be any good at all, a piece of writing requires the investment of a specific amount of time, either by the writer or by the editor. Wechsberg was fast; hence, his editors had to be up all night. Joseph Mitchell took forever to write a piece, but when he turned in, the editing could be done during one cup of coffee. Rule of thumb No. 2. The less competent the writer, the louder his protests over the editing. The best editing, he feels, is no editing. He does not stop to reflect that such a program would be welcomed by the editor, too, allowing him to lead a richer, fuller life and see more of his children. But he would not be long on the payroll, and neither would the writer. Good writers lean on editors; they would not think of publishing something that no editor had read. Bad writers talk about the inviolable rhythm of their prose. Rule of thumb No. 3. You can identify a bad writer before you have seen a word of his copy if he uses the expression we writers. Rule of thumb No. 4. In editing, the first reading of a manuscript is the all-important one. On the second reading, the swampy passages that you noticed in the first reading will seem firmer and less draggy, and on the fourth or fifth reading, they will seem exactly right. That's because you are now attuned to the writer, not to the reader. But the reader, who will read the thing only once, will find it just as swampy and boring as you did the first time around. In short, if something strikes you as wrong on first reading, it is wrong, and a fix is needed, not a second reading. Rule of thumb No. 5. One must never forget that writing and editing are entirely different arts, or crafts. Good editing has saved bad writing more often than bad editing has harmed good writing. This is because a bad editor will not keep his job for long, but a bad writer can, and will, go on forever. Good editing can turn a gumbo of a piece into a tolerable example of good reporting, not of good writing. Good writing exists beyond the ministrations of any editor. That's why a good editor is a mechanic, or craftsman, while a good writer is an artist.
标签: writing
