哪所大学最具有全球影响力？这一问题逐渐地主导着公众、政府和资助机构对高等教育发展道路抉择。因为文化、历史、地理等因素都以各种难以量化的方式来影响排名，解决这个问题的难点在于很难形成一个考虑所有客观因素的大学排名，比如英语作为世界上最通行的语言，其对英语国家以及英语国家大学的影响是难以准确衡量的；加之不同的研究机构对教学和科研的重要性有不同的看法，如何权衡这些因素也成为了提升大学排名可信度的一个重要方面。 法国 Franche-Comte 大学的 Jose Lages 教授及其团队利用 Google 引擎的 “ 网页排名算法 ” ，对 24 种不同语言版本的维基百科的内容进行了数理统计分析，生成了基于维基百科的世界大学排名（ WRUR ）。虽然世界上现存 287 种语言，但这 24 种语言的使用者涵盖了世界人口总数的 59% ，相关文章覆盖了维基百科文章总数的 68% 。 与传统的大学排名相比，维基百科大学排名更倾向于具有较大影响力的历史悠久的大学。 比如柏林洪堡大学在维基百科上排名第 11 位，但其并未出现在传统大学排名的前 100 名中，而该大学却已培养出 29 位诺贝尔奖获得者。同时，基于维基百科的大学排行榜存在较明显的国家多样性，美国排名第一，德国排名第二，英国紧随其后，排名第三。日本和印度的大学也更为突出，还包括了埃及爱资哈尔大学等非洲大学。总的来说，美国大学在新排行榜中不太突出，占总数的 38% 。新排行榜对非英语系国家均进行了较为客观的分析， 包容了不同文化视角下对世界大学的看法。 附表是以 PageRank 算法生成的基于维基百科的世界大学排名 (WPRWU)TOP200 。 当然，基于维基百科的大学影响力排名不可能完全取代传统的大学排名，但它为分析高等教育与研究的现状提供了一种新方法新思路，应该以积极的方式引起这方面的广泛探讨 附表：基于维基百科的世界大学排名 Top200 Rank Theta_PR Na University CC 1 2272 24 University of Cambridge UK 2 2247 24 University of Oxford UK 3 2112 22 Harvard University US 4 2025 23 Columbia University US 5 1887 23 Princeton University US 6 1869 21 Massachusetts Institute of Technology US 7 1783 22 University of Chicago US 8 1765 21 Stanford University US 9 1716 20 Yale University US 10 1557 19 University of California, Berkeley US 11 1531 21 Humboldt University of Berlin DE 12 1481 22 Cornell University US 13 1351 20 University of Pennsylvania US 14 1285 20 University of London UK 15 1224 19 Uppsala University SE 16 1209 20 University of Edinburgh UK 17 1195 20 Heidelberg University DE 18 1193 18 University of California, Los Angeles US 19 1171 20 New York University US 20 1131 18 University of Michigan US 21 1119 19 Johns Hopkins University US 22 1113 19 University of Vienna AT 23 1099 18 University of Gottingen DE 24 1030 16 London School of Economics UK 25 990 19 Moscow State University RU 26 974 19 University of Bologna IT 27 948 18 Leipzig University DE 28 928 15 California Institute of Technology US 29 911 18 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich DE 30 764 15 University of Southern California US 31 752 17 University of Tokyo JP 32 743 15 Leiden University NL 33 707 11 Lund University SE 34 680 13 Charles University in Prague CZ 35 668 12 University College London UK 36 577 11 University of Copenhagen DK 37 576 11 école Normale Supérieure FR 38 570 14 University of Manchester UK 39 556 13 école Polytechnique FR 40 538 14 University of Bonn DE 41 523 11 University of Texas at Austin US 42 519 15 Duke University US 43 507 15 Carnegie Mellon University US 44 505 9 Al-Azhar University EG 45 490 10 University of Helsinki FI 46 487 15 University of Virginia US 47 483 12 Hebrew University of Jerusalem IL 48 470 12 University of Toronto CA 49 460 9 King's College London UK 50 450 9 Imperial College London UK 51 447 11 University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign US 52 429 10 Sapienza University of Rome IT 53 428 8 ETH Zurich CH 54 426 12 University of Zurich CH 55 389 12 University of Washington US 56 377 12 University of Minnesota US 57 373 12 Georgetown University US 58 373 10 University of Wisconsin–Madison US 59 361 10 McGill University CA 60 351 9 University of Glasgow UK 61 346 8 University of Oslo NO 62 346 7 Peking University CN 63 344 6 Michigan State University US 64 340 13 Brown University US 65 338 8 University of Tübingen DE 66 332 8 Jagiellonian University PL 67 327 8 Saint Petersburg State University RU 68 324 8 Free University of Berlin DE 69 324 5 Kyoto University JP 70 317 9 University of Padua IT 71 314 7 Karolinska Institutet SE 72 301 5 Waseda University JP 73 300 5 University of Florida US 74 298 6 University of Geneva CH 75 295 6 Ohio State University US 76 273 7 University of Jena DE 77 269 5 Keio University JP 78 262 9 University of Arizona US 79 261 6 University of Maryland, College Park US 80 260 6 Stockholm University SE 81 248 5 Trinity College, Dublin IE 82 247 7 Boston University US 83 245 6 University of Strasbourg FR 84 239 6 University of Tartu EE 85 236 7 Rutgers University US 86 234 4 Institut Polytechnique des Sciences Avancées FR 87 232 6 University of Warsaw PL 88 228 6 Utrecht University NL 89 227 6 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill US 90 224 4 Rockefeller University US 91 217 7 Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg DE 92 211 5 Tsinghua University CN 93 209 6 University of St Andrews UK 94 208 5 University of Amsterdam NL 95 204 9 Northwestern University US 96 204 6 University of Notre Dame US 97 189 4 Technical University of Berlin DE 98 189 3 University of Coimbra PT 99 187 6 Indiana University US 100 187 3 University of Wroc ł aw PL 101 185 5 University of Hamburg DE 102 183 4 University of Cologne DE 103 182 7 Purdue University US 104 182 4 University of Marburg DE 105 179 3 Seoul National University KR 106 178 4 Cairo University EG 107 177 4 Dartmouth College US 108 175 2 Technion – Israel Institute of Technology IL 109 170 4 University of Graz AT 110 167 5 Pennsylvania State University US 111 165 4 University of Freiburg DE 112 165 4 University of Kiel DE 113 165 4 University of Belgrade RS 114 164 3 University of Sydney AU 115 162 3 Meiji University JP 116 162 2 Linköping University SE 117 161 2 Université libre de Bruxelles BE 118 159 6 University of Basel CH 119 158 4 University of Gothenburg SE 120 157 3 University of Greifswald DE 121 156 5 Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University FR 122 154 4 Brigham Young University US 123 151 6 Washington University in St. Louis US 124 151 3 Linnaeus University SE 125 149 4 University of Iowa US 126 148 3 Nanjing University CN 127 146 3 Ghent University BE 128 145 2 Lviv University UA 129 144 3 American University of Beirut LB 130 143 6 University of Pittsburgh US 131 143 3 George Washington University US 132 143 3 University of Liverpool UK 133 142 2 University of Groningen NL 134 139 3 Aarhus University DK 135 138 3 University of Florence IT 136 137 2 University of Liège BE 137 136 3 Technische Universität München DE 138 136 2 National Autonomous University of Mexico MX 139 135 5 University of Hawaii US 140 134 3 Nihon University JP 141 133 3 University of Paris-Sud FR 142 131 2 Paris West University Nanterre La Défense FR 143 130 5 University of California, San Diego US 144 129 4 University of Melbourne AU 145 129 2 University of Naples Federico II IT 146 128 2 Istanbul Technical University TR 147 128 2 Kansas State University US 148 125 3 University of Lausanne CH 149 124 4 University of British Columbia CA 150 124 3 Goethe University Frankfurt DE 151 124 2 Fudan University CN 152 123 3 University of Pavia IT 153 123 2 University of Erlangen-Nuremberg DE 154 123 2 University of Tennessee US 155 122 2 Istanbul University TR 156 119 2 Y ı ld ı z Technical University TR 157 118 2 Osaka University JP 158 117 2 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv UA 159 116 5 University of Salamanca ES 160 116 3 Shanghai Jiao Tong University CN 161 116 2 Alexandria University EG 162 114 2 University of Münster DE 163 114 2 Chuo University JP 164 114 2 Radboud University Nijmegen NL 165 114 2 Middle East Technical University TR 166 112 4 National University of Singapore SG 167 112 2 Dresden University of Technology DE 168 111 3 Tel Aviv University IL 169 111 2 Takushoku University JP 170 110 4 University of Birmingham UK 171 110 2 Marmara University TR 172 110 2 University of Malaya MY 173 106 4 Syracuse University US 174 105 2 Shiraz University IR 175 103 2 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens GR 176 103 2 VU University Amsterdam NL 177 103 2 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore IT 178 102 2 Damascus University SY 179 102 2 Umeå University SE 180 102 2 Paris-Sorbonne University FR 181 100 4 University of Latvia LV 182 100 3 Complutense University of Madrid ES 183 100 2 Weizmann Institute of Science IL 184 100 1 Eötvös Loránd University HU 185 100 1 Chulalongkorn University TH 186 100 1 University of Tehran IR 187 100 1 University of the West Indies JM 188 99 2 Maastricht University NL 189 99 1 Budapest University of Technology and Economics HU 190 99 1 Korea University KR 191 99 1 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki GR 192 99 1 Thammasat University TH 193 99 1 Nalanda University IN 194 98 2 University of Barcelona ES 195 98 1 University of Szeged HU 196 98 1 University of São Paulo BR 197 98 1 Yonsei University KR 198 98 1 Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań PL 199 98 1 Kasetsart University TH 200 98 1 Ankara University TR 说明： Theta_PR=Theta PageRank score ； Na=Number of appearances in the 24 Wikipediaeditions ； CC= countrycode （卞月妍整理编译。 Sources: Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities, Wikipedia-Mining Algorithm Reveals World’sMost Influential Universities ）
“ 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。
“ 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”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：你的研究有何意义？ 已有 349 次阅读 2012-5-15 10:22 | 系统分类: 科研笔记 | 关键词:讨论 意义 英语国家 影响力 资料 “ 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 本文引用地址： http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/blog-288924-571089.html
“ 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
刚刚看到盖敏强《 头版头条的错误 》，说有人将“英国约克大学”当成“美国纽约大学”。正好我在英国约克大学呆过，我就借此说说英语国家的地名重合问题。 当年大英帝国殖民遍地，导致了今日英语国家的地名重合问题。 先说美国纽约（ New York ）和英国约克（ York ）的关系。大概是当年英国约克人（ York ）去美国，将按照其老家地名及相似的地理位置关系（约克在英国英格兰东北部，纽约也在美国东北部），定名为“新约克”——纽约（ New York ）。至今，每年都有很多纽约人到约克去寻根之旅。 凑巧的是，在英属的加拿大，也有一个同名的约克大学（ York University ）。这恐怕多少与英国的约克人有关系。 实际上，英国、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚有很多重合的地名，读者一定还可以举出更多来。
许多（如果不是绝大多数）科学家喜欢在实验室做实验，但是却讨厌写论文，其实事实上，写论文至少和做实验同样重要。撰写一篇清楚明了(clear)的论文对你的读者和你自己都是重要的。“Write clearly” 是为了确保你的读者明白你的信息。作为作者，在写论文之前，最好先换位思考，作为一个读者，你想读到什么样的论文呢？很可能是短小、精悍、清楚明了的论文！事实上这样的文章才最有可能为读者所理解。你可以设想一下你的文章的可能的读者，当然最可能的是你的研究领域内的同行，但也不限于此，潜在的读者可能从刚从事科研的研究生到诺贝尔奖获得者，并且还要注意，读者还很有可能像你我一样来自非英语国家。所以你的文章要保证不但使英语国家的你研究领域内的同行可以很容易理解，还要使领域外的外行能够理解。另外，读者们也不会都在精神百倍的时候读你的文章，他／她可能是飞机上、公交车上、或在昏昏欲睡的深夜。因此，可以想象，使上述的读者都能在他们半清醒的状态下读你的文章时，还不至于不理解或误解你的文章，对作为作者的你显然是个挑战，但是你如果想让你的读者清楚无误的明白你的文章信息，你不得不使你的文章足够的让人明白。 但是，clarity的标准是什么呢？套用公元一世纪的罗马修辞学家昆体良（Quintilian）的一句话：“Clear writing is writing that is incapable of being misunderstood”。也就是说”clear writing”就是要不能被误解，这显然比能被理解是更高的标准。另一方面，“write clearly” 不仅仅是为了确保你的读者明白你的信息，同时也可以使你自己更加理清你的思路和想法。很多人认为，只要自己知道自己想说什么，将其写下来即可，但事实往往并非如此。写作可以帮助你发现你到底想表达什么。当你写论文时，你会经常发现你的思路方向变了，你可能最终回答了一个和你当初提出的有些不同的一个问题。这种思路的变化是写论文的一个很大的益处（事实上这也是写科学性很高的博文的一个好处）。另外一个好处就是，在你写论文时，可以发现错误的推理，因为当你读了你所写的，你将会发现一些问题，比如逻辑上前后不一致等等。这些问题迫使你重新考虑到底想表达什么。 因此，至少有两个很好的理由使你想write clearly，第一：确保你自己知道想表达什么；第二：使你的文章信息能使多种背景的读者都明白。所以write clearly确实很重要，如果说许多写论文的技巧都是像云雾一样令人捉摸不定，那么写的“明白的”（请注意：此处采用东北话发音）才是真谛，正如那句名言所云：“明明白白才是真”。 ［注：以上部分编译自一本专著(1)］ 那么到底如何才能write clearly，有个网站(点击参考：How to Write Clearly - The 10 Most Important Principles)提出了十项原则（够多的！我党也才只是提出了四项基本原则）,个人觉得非常好，实录如下，并补充一下自己的一点体会： 1. Use Short Sentences. 我们中国作者在英语的一个很大优势就是语法很强，所以往往句子写的很长，还没有语法错误，我最长就曾写过长达四、五行的一个句子。这种句子，读者和审稿人读起来会非常费劲，一定要避免，尽量使一句话只有10-20个单词。我们写论文的目的只是为了让审稿人和读者明白自己文章本身的内容，不是为了显摆自己的英语如何的NB, 就算牛，作为来自非英语国家的老中，还能玩得过人家老美、老英？！ 2. Prefer the Simple to the Complex. 就是尽量用一些简单的词，别玩一些偏僻词，整得自己很有学问似的，其实老美，尤其是平常说话，用的基本都是非常简单的常用的词，但是很有沟通效果，也很生动。 3.Prefer the Familiar Word. 这个就无需多说了，当然用自己熟悉的词，不熟悉，我们也搞不定啊。 4. Avoid Unnecessary Words. 避免不必要的词，这一点很有必要，因为有的期刊是按字数收出版费的，另外文章的总字数，许多SCI国际期刊都有具体的不同规定和限制。 5. Use Action Verbs. 即尽量用动词，比较："He drove very fast down the road." 和“He sped down the road". 为何后者更好？！ 6. Write as you Talk. 这个恐怕是针对英美人说的。 7. Use Terms your Reader Can Picture. 别用太抽象的词. 8. Connect with your Reader's Experience. 换位思考，上面已经详述。 9. Use Variety. 同一个意思，变换说法，别太单调。
标签: 英语国家
