有了一些思路，开始准备撰写文章了。 总结一下SCI期刊论文的撰写方法。 准备工作： 1. Four questions: (1) Why did you start? (2) What did you find? (3) What did you do? (4) What does it mean? 2. Preparation (1) The title and abstract of paper 论文的题目和摘要帮助读者更好的了解论文内容，也可帮助作者更好的组织论文结构。 (2) Analyze the research result 在结果和数据的分析中，要考虑哪些表格或图形要采用，如果发现有欠缺，要修改，甚至更改或者推翻论文的结论。 (3) Read the references.
“ 讨论”部分非常重要。在这部分，你要把“结果”中展示的证据线索和“引言”中的背景资料关联起来。遗憾的是，许多作者(特别是来自非英语国家的作者)常常不够重视“讨论”部分，认为只需把结果罗列出来，然后让读者自行去得出结论即可。但是，给出结果而不说明其意义只会造成随意解读，从而影响研究获得应有的影响力。而期刊编辑往往希望论文能推进该研究领域，并形成影响；所以有必要善用“讨论”部分来尽可能增强论文的影响力。 好的“讨论”可以在开头先重申一下“引言”中提出的研究问题和假设，接着总结一下你的主要研究结果。这样一来，读者对于你是否推进了该领域的研究就一目了然了。从最重要或最相关的结果写起，然后再转向相对次要的内容。此刻暂不要讨论有争议或者难以解释的结果。这个阶段，你只须描述那些能直接回答“引言”中提出的问题或与假设直接相关的主要结果。不要用那些数据不支持的“大而空”的语言，也不要夸大结果的重要性。用“suggests” 比用“shows”更好，切忌使用 “proves”。此外，要尽量不要重复结果”部分的内容，而只需简要说明主要结果然后再谈其含意。这部分需要变换时态，叙述你的结果以及文献结果时用过去时，论述其意义时用现在时。 “讨论”的第二部分常被忽视，并往往造成拒稿。重申问题和结果之后，还需要陈述其相关性和重要性。你需要把你的结果放在文献研究背景中加以比较，并讨论其意义。这部分构成了“讨论”主体；他告诉读者(当然还有编辑)：从已有文献的基础上来评价，你的结果到底有什么意义？它们与其他研究者的工作之间存在什么关联。你的研究可能存在备择解释，对此应予提及并尽可能排除(或者至少论证它们的可能性很低)。如果仍有备择解释无法排除，你的研究就属于“尚未完成”，或者至少是“尚在进行中”；在这种情况下，你需要在“讨论”的结尾部分，提出将开展哪些实验来进一步排除备择解释或确认哪种解释才是正确的。 主要结果和背景的关系理清之后，就可以提及有争议或难以解释的发现，并提出可能的解释。没问题，这里你可以猜测，只要不要太过分。关键的问题是，你讨论和阐述了这些问题，而不是置之不理。“讨论”部分不能出现新术语或新结果；所有结果都该在“结果”部分叙述完整；所有术语也应在“引言”中就提出。最后，“讨论”部分要解释一下此研究的局限性。与其等审稿人指出，不如自己提出；这样也许反而会增加正面审稿意见从而缩短发表周期。一个研究存在局限性本身并不是问题，大多数研究都有这样那样的局限性。所以重要的是要承认它并提出在进一步研究中如何克服。在阐述完局限性之后往往紧接着就是描述未来的研究。 有些期刊有单独的“结论”部分；就算没有，也要在“讨论”的最后一段点明研究的结论。最后一段 (或最后一部分)应简要复述一下主要研究结果及其重要性，陈述该研究如何推进了本领域的研究，但不要用完全相同的语言。要提及结果的新颖性和重要性，但再说一次，不要夸大其词。如有必要可以提出进一步研究，如果本工作是初步研究则进一步研究可放在最后一句。若不是初步研究，就可以用明确的措施来总结本研究的影响，但仍要注意不要夸大其词。。 示例 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》上一论文的讨论部分(doi:10.1172/JCI37622； 经同意转载)。其中显示了讨论部分的一些要素，其末尾是一个结论段落。 核对清单 1. 开始先复述研究问题，然后陈述主要结果。 2. 过去时叙述结果，现在时谈意义。 3. 将研究结果同现有文献作比较，陈述其意义。 4. 陈述所有结果的意义，不要忽略那些“不便提及”的内容。 5. 不要在“结果”部分简单重复其他部分已有的内容，不得引入新术语/报告新结果，或夸大其词。 6. 给出本研究的局限性和将来研究方向。 7. 结尾用明确的措辞陈述本研究的相关性和重要性。 英文原文 Discussion: what does it all mean? The discussion section of your manuscript is critically important. It is where you pull together all the ‘threads’ of evidence you have presented in the results in the context of the background you presented in the introduction. Unfortunately, many authors, particularly those from non-English-speaking countries, overlook the importance of this section considering it sufficient to merely present their results and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, presenting your results without describing their implications leaves them open to interpretation and reduces the impact they could have. Journal editors want papers that will advance the field and generate an impact; therefore, use the discussion wisely to maximize the impact of your findings. A good discussion will begin by restating the study question and any hypotheses presented in the introduction. This should be followed by a summary of the major findings of your study so that it is immediately clear how you have advanced the field. Start with the most important or relevant finding and then move to progressively less important ones. However, do not yet discuss results that are perhaps controversial or difficult to explain. At this stage you only want to describe the major findings that directly answer the research question you set out in the introduction and/or those that directly relate to your hypotheses. Avoid making grand statements that are not supported by your data and/or overstating the importance of your findings. The word “suggests” is preferable to “shows”, and the word “proves” should never be used. Also, there should be minimal repetition with the results section, with only brief descriptions of the main findings required before launching into their implications. A mixture of tenses is required, with the past tense used to describe individual results and the results of previous studies, and the present tense used to describe their implications. The next part is the component of a discussion that is often overlooked and a frequent cause of rejection from journals. Having reiterated your initial question and major findings, you need to describe their relevance and significance. This is where you put your findings into the context of previously published literature and discuss their implications. This part forms the bulk of the discussion section, showing the reader (and importantly, the journal editor) what your findings actually mean in the light of the existing literature and how they relate to the efforts of others. All possible alternative interpretations of your study should be described and excluded (or at least shown to be unlikely) wherever possible. If alternative interpretations remain viable, the study is considered ‘incomplete’, or at least ongoing, and experiments to rule out the alternatives or determine which of the alternatives is correct should be described at the end of the discussion section as future research. Once the major findings have been put into context, any controversial or difficult to explain findings should be mentioned along with plausible explanations for them. It is perfectly OK to speculate here (but not too wildly), but it is absolutely essential that these findings, and any inconsistencies, are discussed and addressed rather than ignored. No new results or terms should be introduced in the discussion section; all findings should be described in the results section and relevant terms will all have been introduced in the introduction section. Finally, any limitations of the current study should be explained. Peer reviewers are likely to comment on such limitations anyway, so it is best to be ‘up front’ about them and state what they were; doing so might even improve your chances of a positive peer review and thereby shorten the time to publication. The fact that your study has certain limitations is not a problem in itself, and most studies have limitations of some sort. It is therefore important to acknowledge these and describe how they can be addressed in future research. For this reason, the description of limitations is usually followed by a description of future research. Some journals have a separate conclusions section, but even in those that don’t, the same content should be merged with the discussion and contained in the last paragraph. This final section/paragraph should briefly restate the key findings and their significance, describing how your study represents an advance in the field, but avoiding direct repetition. The novelty and significance of these findings should be mentioned, but again, it is important not to over-emphasize either of these. Future studies should be mentioned where relevant, and can be the subject of the final sentence if the current study is preliminary. If your study is not preliminary, end with a strong statement that summarizes the impact of the study without over-stating its importance. Example The figure below, showing excerpts from the discussion section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission), shows some of the important components of a discussion section and the concluding paragraph at the end. Checklist 1. Start by restating the problem/research question and then state the main findings of your study 2. Describe results in the past tense, but implications in the present tense 3. Put findings in the context of the existing literature to describe their implications 4. Describe the implications of all results obtained; do not ignore ‘inconvenient’ ones 5. Avoid repetition, introducing new terms or results, and making grand statements about the importance of your findings 6. Describe the limitations of your study and future directions for research in the field 7. End with a strong statement describing the relevance and significance of your study Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监 “ 讨论”的重点在于对研究结果的解释和推断 , 并说明作者的结果是否支持或反对某种观点是、否提出了新的问题或观点等；撰写讨论时要避免含蓄 , 尽量做到直接、明确 , 以便审稿人和读者了解论文为什么值得引起重视。 讨论：注意事项 对结果的解释要重点突出 , 简洁、清楚：着重讨论本研究的重要发现，以及由此得出的结论，不要过细地重复引言或结果中的数据或资料； 推论要符合逻辑 , 避免实验数据不足以支持的观点和结论； 对结果的科学意义和实际应用的表达要实事求是 , 适当留有余地； 讨论的最后最好是论文的最重要的结论 (take home-message) 现在时：具有普遍的意义推论或结论 ; 过去时：推论的有效性只是针对本次特定的研究 Conclusion - 结论 单独列为一节或包括在“讨论” ( 或“结果与讨论”中 ) ；“结论” 结论中不应涉及新的事实 , 也不能简单地重复摘要、引言、结果或讨论等章节中的句子。
中国打到帝制之后的第一个总统袁世凯想复辟当皇帝，引起了全国一片反对声浪。他的大儿子袁克定一心想做传承帝位的皇太子，决议不让他的父亲听到任何反对声音，为此假冒《顺天时报》名义，为他的父亲一个人编印了一份专登拥戴帝制文章的假《顺天时报》，让他的父亲陶醉在颂扬声中。这份只有一个读者的《顺天时报》最终愚弄的还是袁大总统本人。 Extracted from China Sealed by Fog , authored by Qianglian He, page435-436
文 章的标题是“钓饵”，应该用来吸引读者 --- “推销”你的文章，给读者浏览目录或研究结果的机会。标题写得差可能使原本感兴趣的读者忽略了你的工作，也可能引起文不对题的情况。相比之下，好的标题可 吸引相关的研究人员，提高文章的引用率，这也是期刊编辑所青睐的，因为引用率与期刊影响因子直接挂钩。因此，写好正确的标题是很重要的。 好 的标题应尽量简短，同时又能传递文章的主要发现。避免叙述过于繁琐并使用不必要的专业行话和缩略语。标题必须能被科学界的广大读者读懂，因为他们中的一些 人可能并不具备你研究的专业领域的具体知识。标题宽泛到什么程度取决于目标期刊 --- 考虑目标期刊的读者情况，这通常会在期刊的网站上有所介绍；撰写的标题应便于被所有读者看懂，而不仅仅局限于你的研究领域。另外，应该查阅目标杂志的《稿 约》，确保遵守字数限制的要求以及是否需要提供短标题。 实例：较差的标题 “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” 这 个标题太长，含有非标准的缩略语，内容重复，部分内容太具体。修改如下：“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”。此外，也可使用“MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”，但要考虑目标杂志的要求，因为缩略语MAP使用广泛，读者可懂。 练习： 丁香园网友应邀对以下标题进行修改： “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” 以下是网友“Qikaka”的修改建议： “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” 改后的标题大大缩短：少了6个单词，合计61个字符。“survival”一词的使用涵盖了改善效果的两个方面(死亡率和住院率)，重复的“dose-related”也被删除了。最后，在新的标题中对缩略语LV做了精确的解释。 一 些网友也贴出了自己文章的标题和摘要，询问是否合适。其中有不少标题写得十分不错，也有一些与其他相比需要更多修改。网友“Yelry”的这个标题就很 好，清晰地体现了研究领域：“Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” 尽管表述清楚，但“Yelry”并未传达出重要的一点 ---文章的主要发现：该方法应该对于诊断十分重要，而且很有可能会区分开两组病例。因为这一重要性并未在标题中体现，作者“Yelry”可能会失去一些 感兴趣的读者。虽然标题可以涵盖的信息量取决于字数的限制，然而只需在“ascending venography”后面添加“is valuable”，就可以比原标题传达更多的文章内容。 First impressions: the importance of writing a good title The title of your paper is a “hook” that should be used to attract readers—it is your opportunity to “sell” your paper to readers browsing a table of contents or search results. A poor title will cause potentially interested researchers to overlook your work and may attract the wrong audience. By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant researchers and increase the number of citations you receive. Journal editors like this because number of citations relates to the impact factor a journal gets. Therefore, it is important to get it right. A good title should be as brief as possible while still communicating the main finding(s) of the paper. Avoid excessive detail and unnecessary use of field-specific jargon and abbreviations. Your title must be understandable by a broad scientific audience, some of whom may not have a detailed knowledge of your particular field. How broad depends on the particular target journal—consider the readership of your target journal, which is usually explained on the journal’s website, and write a title that can be easily understood by all, not only those in your immediate field. The target journal’s instructions for authors should also be consulted to ensure that character limits are complied with and to identify whether a running (short) title is also required. Example of a poor title: “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” This title is too long, contains non-standard abbreviations and a redundancy, and is too specific in parts. A better alternative would be: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. “MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration” would probably also be acceptable, depending on the target journal, because the abbreviation MAP is widely used and understood. Exercise: Scientists visiting an online life sciences network were asked to suggest a good alternative title for the following: “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” Among the responses was the following suggestion: “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” This title is six words and 61 characters shorter, which represents a significant reduction. The word “survival” is used to combine the two aspects of the improvement (mortality and hospitalization) and the repetition of “dose-related” has been removed. Finally, the abbreviation LV has been defined in the new title. Other researchers posted the titles and abstracts for their own papers, asking whether the titles were suitable. There were many excellent titles, some of which needed more changes than others. The following title, from Yelry, is well written and clearly defines the area of research: “Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” Although this is very clear, the author Yelry doesn’t convey the main findings of the paper, which were actually quite significant: the method was shown to be valuable for diagnosis and possibly able to separate two groups of patients. Because this significance is not conveyed in the title, Yelry could potentially lose some of the target audience. Character limits for titles dictate how much information can be included; however, the simple addition of “is valuable” after “ascending venography” says much more about the paper than the original title does. In this way, the key finding can be communicated. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
单词在句子中的位置十分重要，是读者理解句子所需的绝大部分线索。读者对每个句子的结构有自己的预想，如果事实与预想不符，他们就不得不将精力转向探索文章结构而非内容，如此便会增加错误理解或无法理解的可能性。更糟糕的是，一旦读者无法弄清句子结构，就会失去阅读兴趣。因此，作者需要特别关注词的位置，并精心组织文章结构。 作者的任务不仅是选择正确的词，还要以最有效的方式对单词进行定位，以引导和满足读者的预期，使大多数读者能如作者所愿地理解文章。 例 1: Mosquitoes often carry parasites. 该句中， “mosquitoes” 一词被放在 句子开头即主题的位置 ，而 “parasites” 被放在 句子结尾即被强调的位置 。对多数读者而言，这种结构表明之前作者在谈论 “mosquitoes”( 蚊子 ) ，此后将进入新话题 —— “parasites”( 寄生物 ) 。 同样一句话版本不同强调的内容便不同： 例 2: Parasites are often carried by mosquitoes. 虽然例 2 和例 1 使用的单词相同，但词的位置不同。在 2 中， “parasites” 变为大家熟知的话题出现在句首的位置，而 “mosquitoes” 作为被强调的词放在了句尾，这对读者起到了一种指示作用。作者想通过强调这个词让读者迅速了解文章的重点在蚊子而非跳蚤或老鼠；作者也想通过将 “mosquitoes” 置于句尾 ( 强调的位置 ) 试图让读者领悟到，文章即将进入一个新话题 (mosquitoes) ，以引导读者的注意力。 练习： 改写下面三段文字，注意单词的位置，使读者能够轻松追随信息的逻辑性 A: Vegetative cells are cells that are engaged in active growth and reproduction. Endospores can be produced by some bacteria that can cease vegetative growth. Endospores are highly resistant to heat, chemicals, and radiation, unlike vegetative cells. It is possible that the unique structure of the peptidoglycan layer of the spore is in some way associated with resistance. B: Mangrove plantations attenuate tsunami-induced waves and protect shorelines against damage. Human activities on the shorelines most damaged by the great 2006 tsunami had reduced the area of mangroves by 26%. Communities can be buffered from future tsunami events by conserving or replanting coastal mangroves and greenbelts. The conservation of dune ecosystems or green belts of other tree species could fulfill the same buffer as mangroves elsewhere. C: A quantum dot is a semiconductor nanostructure that confines the motion of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons in all three spatial directions. It has a discrete quantized energy spectrum. A small number (on the order of 1-100) of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons are contained in a quantum dot. Colloidal semiconductor nanocrystals are small quantum dots, which can be as small as 2 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to 10 to 50 atoms in diameter. 参考答案 A: Vegetative cells are cells that are engaged in active growth and reproduction . Vegetative growth can be ceased by bacteria that can produce endospores . Unlike vegetative cells , endospores are highly resistant to heat, chemicals, and radiation. Resistance may be associated with in some way with the unique structure of the peptidoglycan layer of the spore. B: Mangrove plantations attenuate tsunami-induced waves and protect shorelines against damage. On the shorelines most damaged by the great 2006 tsunami, the area of mangroves had been reduced by 26% through human activities . By conserving or replanting coastal mangroves and greenbelts, communities can be buffered from future tsunami events. The same buffer could be fulfilled elsewhere by the conservation of dune ecosystems or green belts of other tree species. C: A quantum dot is a semiconductor nanostructure that confines the motion of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons in all three spatial directions. It has a discrete quantized energy spectrum. A quantum dot contains a small number (on the order of 1-100) of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons. Small quantum dots , such as colloidal semiconductor nanocrystals, can be as small as 2 to 10 nanometers. 摘编自《科技写作与交流》 ( 任胜利 等 译 . 科学出版社 , 2012 年出版 ) 相关信息： 《英语科技论文撰写与投稿》：再版面世 新书出炉：科技写作与交流 -- 期刊论文、基金申请书及会议讲演
文 章的标题是“钓饵”，应该用来吸引读者 --- “推销”你的文章，给读者浏览目录或研究结果的机会。标题写得差可能使原本感兴趣的读者忽略了你的工作，也可能引起文不对题的情况。相比之下，好的标题可 吸引相关的研究人员，提高文章的引用率，这也是期刊编辑所青睐的，因为引用率与期刊影响因子直接挂钩。因此，写好正确的标题是很重要的。 好 的标题应尽量简短，同时又能传递文章的主要发现。避免叙述过于繁琐并使用不必要的专业行话和缩略语。标题必须能被科学界的广大读者读懂，因为他们中的一些 人可能并不具备你研究的专业领域的具体知识。标题宽泛到什么程度取决于目标期刊 --- 考虑目标期刊的读者情况，这通常会在期刊的网站上有所介绍；撰写的标题应便于被所有读者看懂，而不仅仅局限于你的研究领域。另外，应该查阅目标杂志的《稿 约》，确保遵守字数限制的要求以及是否需要提供短标题。 实例：较差的标题 “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” 这 个标题太长，含有非标准的缩略语，内容重复，部分内容太具体。修改如下：“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”。此外，也可使用“MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”，但要考虑目标杂志的要求，因为缩略语MAP使用广泛，读者可懂。 练习： 丁香园网友应邀对以下标题进行修改： “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” 以下是网友“Qikaka”的修改建议： “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” 改后的标题大大缩短：少了6个单词，合计61个字符。“survival”一词的使用涵盖了改善效果的两个方面(死亡率和住院率)，重复的“dose-related”也被删除了。最后，在新的标题中对缩略语LV做了精确的解释。 一 些网友也贴出了自己文章的标题和摘要，询问是否合适。其中有不少标题写得十分不错，也有一些与其他相比需要更多修改。网友“Yelry”的这个标题就很 好，清晰地体现了研究领域：“Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” 尽管表述清楚，但“Yelry”并未传达出重要的一点 ---文章的主要发现：该方法应该对于诊断十分重要，而且很有可能会区分开两组病例。因为这一重要性并未在标题中体现，作者“Yelry”可能会失去一些 感兴趣的读者。虽然标题可以涵盖的信息量取决于字数的限制，然而只需在“ascending venography”后面添加“is valuable”，就可以比原标题传达更多的文章内容。 First impressions: the importance of writing a good title The title of your paper is a “hook” that should be used to attract readers—it is your opportunity to “sell” your paper to readers browsing a table of contents or search results. A poor title will cause potentially interested researchers to overlook your work and may attract the wrong audience. By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant researchers and increase the number of citations you receive. Journal editors like this because number of citations relates to the impact factor a journal gets. Therefore, it is important to get it right. A good title should be as brief as possible while still communicating the main finding(s) of the paper. Avoid excessive detail and unnecessary use of field-specific jargon and abbreviations. Your title must be understandable by a broad scientific audience, some of whom may not have a detailed knowledge of your particular field. How broad depends on the particular target journal—consider the readership of your target journal, which is usually explained on the journal’s website, and write a title that can be easily understood by all, not only those in your immediate field. The target journal’s instructions for authors should also be consulted to ensure that character limits are complied with and to identify whether a running (short) title is also required. Example of a poor title: “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” This title is too long, contains non-standard abbreviations and a redundancy, and is too specific in parts. A better alternative would be: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. “MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration” would probably also be acceptable, depending on the target journal, because the abbreviation MAP is widely used and understood. Exercise: Scientists visiting an online life sciences network were asked to suggest a good alternative title for the following: “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” Among the responses was the following suggestion: “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” This title is six words and 61 characters shorter, which represents a significant reduction. The word “survival” is used to combine the two aspects of the improvement (mortality and hospitalization) and the repetition of “dose-related” has been removed. Finally, the abbreviation LV has been defined in the new title. Other researchers posted the titles and abstracts for their own papers, asking whether the titles were suitable. There were many excellent titles, some of which needed more changes than others. The following title, from Yelry, is well written and clearly defines the area of research: “Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” Although this is very clear, the author Yelry doesn’t convey the main findings of the paper, which were actually quite significant: the method was shown to be valuable for diagnosis and possibly able to separate two groups of patients. Because this significance is not conveyed in the title, Yelry could potentially lose some of the target audience. Character limits for titles dictate how much information can be included; however, the simple addition of “is valuable” after “ascending venography” says much more about the paper than the original title does. In this way, the key finding can be communicated. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
文 章的标题是“钓饵”，应该用来吸引读者 --- “推销”你的文章，给读者浏览目录或研究结果的机会。标题写得差可能使原本感兴趣的读者忽略了你的工作，也可能引起文不对题的情况。相比之下，好的标题可 吸引相关的研究人员，提高文章的引用率，这也是期刊编辑所青睐的，因为引用率与期刊影响因子直接挂钩。因此，写好正确的标题是很重要的。 好 的标题应尽量简短，同时又能传递文章的主要发现。避免叙述过于繁琐并使用不必要的专业行话和缩略语。标题必须能被科学界的广大读者读懂，因为他们中的一些 人可能并不具备你研究的专业领域的具体知识。标题宽泛到什么程度取决于目标期刊 --- 考虑目标期刊的读者情况，这通常会在期刊的网站上有所介绍；撰写的标题应便于被所有读者看懂，而不仅仅局限于你的研究领域。另外，应该查阅目标杂志的《稿 约》，确保遵守字数限制的要求以及是否需要提供短标题。 实例：较差的标题 “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” 这 个标题太长，含有非标准的缩略语，内容重复，部分内容太具体。修改如下：“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”。此外，也可使用“MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”，但要考虑目标杂志的要求，因为缩略语MAP使用广泛，读者可懂。 练习： 丁香园网友应邀对以下标题进行修改： “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” 以下是网友“Qikaka”的修改建议： “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” 改后的标题大大缩短：少了6个单词，合计61个字符。“survival”一词的使用涵盖了改善效果的两个方面(死亡率和住院率)，重复的“dose-related”也被删除了。最后，在新的标题中对缩略语LV做了精确的解释。 一 些网友也贴出了自己文章的标题和摘要，询问是否合适。其中有不少标题写得十分不错，也有一些与其他相比需要更多修改。网友“Yelry”的这个标题就很 好，清晰地体现了研究领域：“Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” 尽管表述清楚，但“Yelry”并未传达出重要的一点 ---文章的主要发现：该方法应该对于诊断十分重要，而且很有可能会区分开两组病例。因为这一重要性并未在标题中体现，作者“Yelry”可能会失去一些 感兴趣的读者。虽然标题可以涵盖的信息量取决于字数的限制，然而只需在“ascending venography”后面添加“is valuable”，就可以比原标题传达更多的文章内容。 First impressions: the importance of writing a good title The title of your paper is a “hook” that should be used to attract readers—it is your opportunity to “sell” your paper to readers browsing a table of contents or search results. A poor title will cause potentially interested researchers to overlook your work and may attract the wrong audience. By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant researchers and increase the number of citations you receive. Journal editors like this because number of citations relates to the impact factor a journal gets. Therefore, it is important to get it right. A good title should be as brief as possible while still communicating the main finding(s) of the paper. Avoid excessive detail and unnecessary use of field-specific jargon and abbreviations. Your title must be understandable by a broad scientific audience, some of whom may not have a detailed knowledge of your particular field. How broad depends on the particular target journal—consider the readership of your target journal, which is usually explained on the journal’s website, and write a title that can be easily understood by all, not only those in your immediate field. The target journal’s instructions for authors should also be consulted to ensure that character limits are complied with and to identify whether a running (short) title is also required. Example of a poor title: “Degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration” This title is too long, contains non-standard abbreviations and a redundancy, and is too specific in parts. A better alternative would be: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. “MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration” would probably also be acceptable, depending on the target journal, because the abbreviation MAP is widely used and understood. Exercise: Scientists visiting an online life sciences network were asked to suggest a good alternative title for the following: “Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction” Among the responses was the following suggestion: “Dose-related effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure” This title is six words and 61 characters shorter, which represents a significant reduction. The word “survival” is used to combine the two aspects of the improvement (mortality and hospitalization) and the repetition of “dose-related” has been removed. Finally, the abbreviation LV has been defined in the new title. Other researchers posted the titles and abstracts for their own papers, asking whether the titles were suitable. There were many excellent titles, some of which needed more changes than others. The following title, from Yelry, is well written and clearly defines the area of research: “Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression” Although this is very clear, the author Yelry doesn’t convey the main findings of the paper, which were actually quite significant: the method was shown to be valuable for diagnosis and possibly able to separate two groups of patients. Because this significance is not conveyed in the title, Yelry could potentially lose some of the target audience. Character limits for titles dictate how much information can be included; however, the simple addition of “is valuable” after “ascending venography” says much more about the paper than the original title does. In this way, the key finding can be communicated. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
闫茂伟|文 “小心地做研究和清楚地报道是辛苦的工作，其中包含了很多你需要同时关注的事情。不管你在规划时有多么谨慎，研究都是一条弯曲的路，会有一些无法预期的转折，甚至于兜圈子。然而，即使过程是那么复杂，我们还是得按部就班地进行。一旦你能够掌握个别环节，你就可以驾驭整个研究，进而可以更有信心地面对更多的研究。” （ P:5 ） 每一个上过学的人都会有着这样的记忆或回忆：老师时常要求学生将他（她）在课堂上讲的东西记下来，特别是小学语文老师，布置日记或周记给学生是常有的事，以及有的老师还会给学生讲，要随时记下突然而来的灵感，包括所思、所感、所悟等。这些不同情形的“记”大致均有 “写下来”或“写出来” 的意思。 “ 为什么要写出来？ ”（ P ： 10 ） （ W H Y W R I T E I T U P ? ） （ P:11 ） 老师让学生把一些东西记下来，其目的之一便是让学生们记住那些东西，以免忘记了可能是非常重要、非常美好、非常有趣的一些东西。而这样的一种好习惯不仅对于一般的普通学生而言非常重要，而且对于研究者来说也是至关重要的。当然，“记”在研究者那里也将有着较为复杂和更为丰富的内容，但不管怎样，“记”的确是很重要的，它是研究者必备的一种本领，即“写作”的本领。 “ 写作有助于记忆 ”（ P:11 ）（ Write to Remember ）（ P:12 ）这里，“写”和“记忆”实际上也是“记”的不同呈现形态，而且二者可以相互增益。“ 研究者写下他们所发现的，是为了将它们记住 。只有少数的幸运儿，能够不写下来却还能记得这些信息。但是包括本书作者在内的大多数人，都没能拥有这种本领。”而“大多数的研究者，只有借助写作才能策划和执行他们的研究计划——条列原始材料、整理研究概述、记录实验注释、拟出大纲等等。那些没有记录下来的，可能都会被忘记，甚至更糟的是被记错了。这就是为什么 谨慎的研究者，不会等资料齐全时才开始写作：他们从研究计划起始就开始写作，让自己的脑袋尽可能清楚地记得大部分的数据 。”（ P ： 11 ）这些数据当然应包括已有的其他人或机构的研究成果和自己的发现，哪怕仅仅是自己的最初的简单想法等。而 对于其他人或机构的研究成果，记的方式最好是，自己手写或用键盘亲自敲在电脑里，这样的效果会更好些，记忆和理解将更深刻；而不应简单地复制或剪切后粘贴 。 “ 写作有助于了解 ”（ P:11 ）（ Write to Understand ）（ P:12 ）此处的“ Understand ”不仅仅有“了解”的意思，“理解”应是其最佳的含义。“写作的第二个理由是协助了解研究成果。 当你以新的方式安排及重新安排研究的成果时，你会发现新的关联、对比、复杂性及意涵 。即使你能记住自己研究发现的全部结果，仍得梳理不同方面的论证，划定复杂的关系，以及区分专家之间的不同观点。……写作有助于对所发现的有更好的理解，以及从中发现更宽广的意义，进而丰富你的思考。”到这里，“记”已经不是简单地“记下来”或“写下来”，而是较为深刻地在思考中、在创作中写下或重组已有的研究成果，并从中记下自己的新发现，并以此促进自己再思考、再创作，而且把这些东西写出来，等等。 “ 写作可以获得新的观点 ”（ P ： 12 ）（ Write to Test Your Thinking ）（ P:12 ） “虽然写作最基本的理由是 把你脑袋里的思维变成文字，进而以更清楚的书面形式把自己的思考看得更清楚 ，但另一个理由则是这种书面形式会 让你的观点更清晰，并且不至于过分夸张 。”很多人，包括我自己在内，或许只能做到前者，而对于后者甚至根本没有意识到。虽然“当你以注释、大纲、概述、评论还有其他书面形式去促进思考时，思考将能获得改善。但 你只有从快速混乱的思维中将特定的想法分离出来，并以一种有组织、有条理的形式确定下来，才能知道自己真正 能 思考什么 。”（ P ： 12 ）即是说，通过书面形式的写作弄清楚“自己能真正能思考什么” ，能够帮助自己“从快速混乱的思维中将特定的想法分离出来”，以利于自己更好地写作。而那种随便、非正式的写作效果将会大打折扣。 “简而言之，你应该写作，如此才能有正确的记忆、更好的理解，以及更清楚地理解自己的思维。而且你也会发现，当你写得更好的时候，在阅读上也会更具有批判力。”（ P:12 ）由此说明，“读”、“写”、“记忆”之间也是相互增益的。 研究是一种边思考边写作的过程，也即一种边“想”边“记”的过程。一支笔或一个键盘再加一个“笔记本”应是做研究自始自终必备的，目的就是要让研究者动起手来，把自己脑子的东西、其他人或机构的东西随时“记”下来，并将这些东西以有组织、有条理的书面形式写出来。如此还不够，还要有一份正式的书面报告，由此才能真正地做起研究来。 “ 为何要有一份正式的报告？ ”（ P:12 ）（ W H Y A F O R M A L R E P O R T ? ）（ P:13 ） “即使你同意写作是学习、思考，以及理解的重要部分，有些人可能会疑惑：为什么我不能以自己喜欢的形式写作？为什么我得满足研究团体——特别是尚未加入或甚至不想加入的研究团体——强加的格式限制？这些为他人写作而设定的限制，时常让某些学生感到痛苦，他们相信自己没有理由迎合一个自己没有参与创立的对话惯例。 我不能了解，为何我要采用不属于自己的措辞和格式？我自己的措辞有什么问题？你不过只是想把我变成像你一样的学究吧？如果我按照老师期望的方式去写作，会不会有丧失自己特性的顾虑？ ”（ P:12 ） 不少研究生同样会有上述的顾虑，“然而，一个完全无法改变你的教育会是个无法起作用的教育。 接受越多的教育，越可能改变你所视为理所当然的‘你’ 。”（ P:12 ）而“学习做研究不会让你成为老师的复制品。他会改变你的思考模式，不过却是一种赋予你更多思考模式的方式来改变你。你或许会变得不同，但你能更自由地去选择你想成为什么样的人，以及你以后想做什么事。”（ P ： 13 ）由此，不要担心自己的特性会丧失掉，因为，有时坚持特性也是盲目的或任性的。 那该怎么办呢？“或许， 学习用读者期待的方式撰写研究报告最重要的理由，是以别人的标准和价值去检验你的想法，进而让你更理解自己的自己和自己的想法。为别人写作会比为自己写作的要求更严格 。”（ P ： 13 ）很多时候。我也只是觉得写作就是为自己而写，看来，为自己写而写的意识和理念是需要改变的了。 因为“当你明确地试着去预想读者的问题时，你将会更了解自己的作品： 如何评价你的证据？为何你认为它是有关联的？你的观点意味着什么？你曾经考虑过但后来拒绝的观点是什么？你如何回应读者可想见的问题、保留意见和异议？ 所有的研究者都会想起曾经有过这样的时刻：在他们为了满足读者的期待而写作的过程中，显露了自己研究的瑕疵或纰漏，或甚至重新抓住从初稿中溜走的珍贵想法。”（ P ： 13 ）将读者放在心中在写文学作品时非常必须，做研究亦然！ 而“从读者的角度以书面形式思考，会比其他形式的思考更仔细、更能持续、更能调和不同的观点；换言之，更为深思熟虑”。（ P ： 14 ） 研究者应该时刻和处处生活在研究的世界里，否则，他（她）将不会是或不再是一个研究者，因为，如今的整个世界已经悄然成为了一个正在被研究和期待被的世界。而“ 如果你现在学会把研究做好，不管将来从事哪方面的工作，都将占有优势 。”（ P ： 13 ）而不论一个学习者以后是不是走向学术研究的道路。 最后请记住：“ 世上有些最重要的研究是由那些即使面对冷漠甚至敌意，却仍然不屈不挠的研究者所完成的，他们从未丧失对愿景的信心！ ”（ P ： 14 ） 心得（自我反思） ： 1. 读硕士时有一些时日喜欢拿着纸质笔记本到图书馆或在自习时边看书边抄写一些自己感兴趣的东西，原来这是一种好的习惯，但后来却将这个习惯给扔掉了。直到导师提醒要随时记录读书过程中的好东西后才再次捡了起来，最好是录在电脑里而形成电子文档以供参考，而却又因为感到这样读书的速度太慢总不能坚持得很好。看来，自己在这方面是一而再再而三地犯了错误，由此带来的后果是，自己可利用的学术资源很少，“战略性的学术资源储备”更是极少。 2. 不仅要摘录所读文献的原文，更应随时记录自己对所读文献的感悟甚至是评判，以及在此基础上形成的、在自己心中产生的想法和构思等。 3. 很长一段时间里，自己的写作过于随便和流于形式，而不是按照学术性论文的要求和规范去写，以至于自己写出来的文章连看起来都不像学术论文。而对于措辞，我也有着亲身的经历和体会，因为我个人在论文的写作措辞上就有着非常严重的问题，以致于自己写出来的文章看上去根本就不像是正儿八经的学术性论文。我曾经也固执地认为自己的写作风格是好的，无需改变，但现在发现我果真错了！ （ 备注：文中原文均摘录自【美】布斯等著；陈美霞等译：《研究是一门艺术》 一书，如需引用，请查阅原书原文 。） 东南大学九龙湖畔 2012-6-27
书桌上恰好有一本 Norton 文选（ The Norton Reader , 7th ed. ），打开前些天提到的 Nabokov 的短文——“好读者和好作家”（ Good readers and good writers ）——他颠覆了我们通常坚持的一些读书观点（如从小说认识过去）： Can we rely on Jane Austen’s picture of landowning England with baronets and landscaped grounds when all she knew was a clergyman’s parlor? 那么，抱着那个观点读书的人就不会是好读者喽。我还真的想从小说去熟悉当年的生活呢，而且相信它比历史更真实。在老纳（ Nab. ，不是“老衲”）看来，小说其实就是童话，而且是童话里的童话（“ The truth is that great novels are great fairy tales—and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales ”）。我喜欢童话，不做好读者。 老纳曾向同学们提出过 10 个选项，让每个人选出他心目中的“好读者”的元素： 1. The reader should belong to a book club. 2. The reader should identify himself or herself with the hero or heroine. 3. The reader should concentrate on the social-economic angle. 4. The reader should prefer a story with action and dialogue to one with none. 5. The reader should have seen the book in a movie. 6. The reader should be a budding author. 7. The reader should have imagination. 8. The reader should have memory. 9. The reader should have a dictionary. 10. The reader should have some artistic sense. 他认为，好读者的要素是后面四点，也就是要做一个“四有新人”：有想象力，有记忆力，有一本字典，有一点艺术的感受力。这个标准似乎太低了，而做起来实在不容易——因为“想象力”的想象空间太大了，而字典，好多同学可能都不用了吧？
在书店遇到一本小书，精装的中英双语本，题目是《非普通读者》（ The Uncommon Reader , by Alan Bennett ），想当然是从“ 普通读者 ”（ common reader ）衍生出来的。“普通”的意义，源自 Johnson 博士。他为《墓园哀歌》（ Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard ） 的作者 Thomas Gray 写传时说（见他的《诗人传》，那么有名的著作，可我还没见过它的中译本，有吗？）： In the character of his Elegy I rejoice to concur with the common reader ; for by the common sense of readers uncorrupted with literary prejudices, after all the refinements of subtilty and the dogmatism of learning, must be finally decided all claim to poetical honours. 【后半句话是倒装的，在老文章里常见，其结构是： all calim to poetical honours must be finally decided by the common sense … ……就是说，诗的荣耀取决于普通读者—— after all 在这儿的意思等于“除了……而外”。有的译文似乎不大准确。】 后来， Virginia Woolf 借“普通读者”来命名她的文学评论集。她说，“ 约翰逊博士心目中的普通读者，不同于批评家和学者。他没有那么高的教养，造物主也没有赏给他那么大的才能。他读书，是为了自己高兴，而不是为了向别人传授知识，也不是为了纠正别人的看法……” 不过，小书里的“非普通读者”只是一个身份特殊的读者，是英女 王 Elizabeth II 。故事是虚构的，说女王有一天遛狗，遇到了流动图书馆（ mobile library ），先是出于礼貌借了一本书，后来借了还还了借，阅读越多，就上瘾了…… 故事的情节有点儿像舞台小剧，读它不需要追究什么背景和意义。女王读书原来是为了“责任”，后来却只想为了娱乐——从“非普通读者”成为“普通读者”，我们眼下缺少的正是这个似乎有点儿堕落的“逆过程”。 女王觉悟了，意识到读书的乐趣就在于书的“冷漠 ”( indifference ) ，不在乎什么人读它——文学就有那么一股“傲气” ( something lofty about literature ) 。她认为 Literature is a commonwealth; letters a republic . ——她以前在毕业典礼上听说过 the republic of letters 这个词儿，可不明白什么意思，这会儿明白了。 中译本将那个词儿译为“ 字母王国 ”，像学中医的，“望闻（文）”而“生译”。《牛津字典》分明有那个短语的定义： the republic of letters, the collective body of those engaged in literary pursuits; the field of literature itself. 女王还有一个好习惯，一旦开始读一本书，就要把它读完。这一点，我这会儿是学不会了。
“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
“结果”可能是论文最重要的部分。在这部分你要叙述主要的研究结果，读者想知道的也就是这些。而且，研究结果还影响到”引言”和”讨论”部分的编排，目标期刊的选择和以及后续研究的方向。 在开始撰写“结果”之前，你应全盘考虑你的试验发现，并审视他们到底意味/提示什么。此时你应该已经完成了数据分析，并已制作了几幅图表以便简单明了地展示结果。后文将有一些图表制作和统计分析方面的注意事项，所以这里就暂不赘述。不过，一定要记得：图是“结果”的重要组成部分，所以图、表、正文之间不能有重复的叙述。简而言之，如果用图表比用文字表达得更清楚，就用图来表达，然后在正文中简单提及；如果用文字就可以简单阐明，就无需再用图来表达。 一旦确定要把哪些结果纳入正文以及这些结果的意义，，你就可以把它们按一个符合逻辑的顺序组合成一个“故事”。在“引言”部分已经说明了假设或拟研究的问题；现在，在“结果”部分展示你收集的全部证据，用于支持你的假设或排除其他备择解释。用现在时态的子标题把每种不同的结果分成单独的小节。这些子标题应该与“方法”部分的子标题以及图表的标题相互对应。与“方法”部分一样，叙述“结果”时应使用过去时。你用于支持假设的证据种类越多(以及越不含混)，你的结论就越无可置疑。这里暂时不要去讨论你结果的影响或大谈其意义—那是“讨论”部分的任务。这里只用展示你的证据，然后留待读者自行去下结论。 “ 结果”部分经常需要比较样本和对照，或者比较某个时间点前后的结果，所以有必要了解陈述比较时一些常犯错误。其中一些也包括在“克服语言障碍”一章的注意事项中。最重要的是“同类事物间才能做比较”。例如，有这样一个句子：“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with non-smokers” 就应该改成“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers”。这里的一个关键是“were compared” 这个短语(其他句子中也可能是 “compared with”)的位置。如果这个短语位于被比较双方 (如此例中：吸烟者的p53 levels 和 不吸烟者的p53 levels)之间，那么比较的双方都必须要有足够的信息来清楚界定到底比较的是什么。也可以把这个短语放在被比较双方之前或之后，例如：“Expression levels of p53 in smokers and non-smokers were compared”。叙述比较的另一个问题是，比较性的词语如“more”，“higher”和 “faster”等，后面需要跟一个”than”开始的从句来解释是比谁多、高或者快。比如，“transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol”这个句子中是比谁高就不明确，因此应该加上“than control mice”。 示例 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》上一篇论文的“结果”部分(doi:10.1172/JCI37155；经同意转载)。其中显示了“结果”部分的一些要素。 核对清单 1. 你的数据如果用图表更容易表达就用图表；反之用文字。 2. 使用过去时叙述结果。 3. 同类事物才能做比较。 4. 图、表、正文内容不能重复。 5. 正文中说明统计分析结果，如P值。 英文原文 Results: what you found The results section is possibly the most important section in your paper. In this section you will describe the main findings of your research, which is what everyone who is going to read your paper wants to know about. Also, whatever findings you obtained will determine how the introduction and discussion sections are framed, what target journals you can consider, and what direction(s) your subsequent research needs to take. The easiest way to approach writing a results section is to consider all of your findings and what they mean or suggest. You will already have analyzed your data and probably also generated a number of figures and/or tables to show it in a clear and concise manner. Later tips in this series describe some important considerations to keep in mind when preparing display items and performing statistical analyses, so I won’t go into much detail on those processes here. However, it is important to remember that graphics are important components of the results section, and therefore, that there should be no redundancies or duplications among the text, figures and tables. Put simply, if something can be more clearly shown in a figure or table than explained in the text, then use a graphic and refer to it briefly in the text; if something can be easily summarized with text, then there is no need for an additional graphic showing the same thing. Once you have a clear idea of what results you want to include and what each of them shows, you should assemble them in a logical order to make a ‘story’. You will have already described your hypothesis or research question(s) in the introduction; use the results section to lay out all of the evidence you have gathered, building up a solid case to support your hypothesis or to exclude alternative explanations. Each different finding should have its own subsection, beginning with a subheading in the present tense. These subheadings should match those in the methods section and the headings used in figure/table legends. The results themselves should be described in the past tense, like the methods. The more types of evidence you can provide for a given hypothesis (and the less ambiguous these are), the more irrefutable your conclusions can be. Resist the urge to discuss the implications of findings or go into detail about what they mean—that is what the discussion section is for. Rather, present the evidence and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Results sections frequently involve comparisons between a test sample and a control, or between before and after time-points, so you should be aware of some common errors made when describing comparative results. Some of these have already been described in the tip “Overcoming the language barrier”. It is particularly important to compare “like with like”. For example? the sentence “Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with non-smokers” should actually be “Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers”. The critical point here is the placement of “were compared” (or in other situations, “compared with”): if the comparing term appears between the words describing the two items being compared (here, p53 levels in smokers and p53 levels in non-smokers), then enough information needs to be provided either side of the comparative term to make it absolutely clear what is being compared. An alternative to this is to place the comparative term before or after the words describing the items being compared: for example, “Expression levels of p53 in smokers and non-smokers were compared”. While still on the subject of comparisons, it is important to remember that relative terms, such as “more”, “higher” and “faster”, require an accompanying “than” clause to explain what this change is relative to. For example, in the sentence “transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol” it is unclear what these levels were higher than; thus, a “than clause”, such as “than control mice”, is required. Example The figure below, showing a couple of excerpts from the results section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37155; reproduced with permission), shows some of the important components of a results section. Checklist 1. Use figures and tables to summarize data except where such data can be easily summarized in the text 2. Describe results in the past tense 3. Compare like with like 4. Do not duplicate data among figures, tables and text 5. Show the results of statistical analyses, for example, p values, in the text. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
选好期刊和发表类型至关重要：选对了能立马增加发表的机会和引用率。相反，投到不对的期刊往往造成拒稿。在选择目标期刊前，应综合考虑以下因素：期刊的宗旨和范围；目标读者和近期发表情况；拟投稿件的研究结果有多重要、吸引面有多广；研究类型。 首先应考虑的是：拟投论文的侧重点是什么？谁可能会读它？在撰写论文（尤其是“讨论”部分）时就应予以明确。你的研究是侧重于临床还是基础科学？你的结果是对科学界会产生广泛影响还是只限于一个专门领域？属于初步结果尚需更多工作来验证，还是已经有多种互补的数据来支持你的假说？你是急着马上发表，还是不那么着急从而可以收集更多数据去试投高影响因子期刊？回答了这些问题，你对目标期刊就有了一个基本的概念。接下来，你需要列出个清单。 目标期刊最直接的来源就是你论文的参考文献。与你相似或相关的工作应该被你的论文引用过；研究这些工作和他们所发表的期刊。那些多次出现的期刊就可作为候选。另外一个寻找候选期刊的办法就是用关键词搜索Medline和 Pubmed等数据库。同样，重复出现的期刊可能就是比较合适的投稿对象。此前未发表过此领域论文的期刊可能也会对你的结果感兴趣。最好的办法是翻阅和检索图书馆书架、Thompson ISI数据库 (其中包括SCI)，或者各大出版商的主页(学术期刊出版商很多，下文仅列举了其中几家)。根据你对上述问题的回答，你应该能找出适当的期刊。 至此你已有一个候选期刊的清单，头脑中也已有了适宜期刊的形象。你把这两者放在一起看看他们是否吻合。期刊网站中通常有“宗旨和范围”一栏，有的还会说明该期刊的目标读者范围。通常还有影响因子、论文类型、刊期、接受到见刊周期、拒稿率、发表费等信息。这些因素都需要综合衡量。比如，若你希望迅速发表，就应该专门留意反馈快和见刊时间短的期刊。如果你经费紧张，就不要考虑开放获取(open access)期刊或发表费高的期刊。如果你需要把论文发表在影响因子高于某个值的期刊，就应马上排除低于该值的期刊。认真研究期刊网站，考虑编辑和读者为何会对你的结果有兴趣，在此基础上你能更有针对性地撰写投稿信，也能帮你决定清单中那一种期刊才是传播研究结果的最佳平台。根据这些标准把期刊清单缩减至两三家，随后把它们再按照你的具体要求排序。至此，你就可以开始撰写投稿信和投稿了。 Edanz开发了一个期刊选择工具来帮助您完成这个过程，欢迎试用： http://www.liwenbianji.cn/journal_selector 几个有用的网站 检索或浏览SCI期刊: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=K Thompson ISI 检索数据库: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ 美国国家医学图书馆数据库 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ Elsevier 期刊列表: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cws_home Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ Wiley-Interscience 期刊: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/browse/?type=JOURNAL Springer期刊: http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=5-102-0-0-0 实例 我们来做一个撰写论文标题的练习。假定题目是：“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”。该虚构研究显示，动物(假定是小鼠)摄入一种毒素okadoic酸(OA)后，海马区CA3和齿状回区域内的神经元退化。此外，MAP激酶依赖途径也参与了神经退行性疾病。 如果神经细胞变化与功能丧失之间在功能上不存在关联，那么，该研究会被视为停留在初步阶段，很难获得发表机会。那么，再假定我们也进行了行为学研究，且结果显示小鼠摄入毒素后产生了学习和记忆障碍。这样一来，我们就有了组织学、生化和行为学数据。 用关键词检索Pubmed数据库只找到很少几个类似研究(鉴于该案例为虚构，当不足为奇)，不过仍然指出了几个潜在期刊，如《Journal of Neuroscience》，《European Journal of Neuroscience》，《Neuroscience， Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications》，《Neurobiology of Learning and Memory， Neuropharmacology》和《Journal of the Neurological Sciences》。 其中，《Journal of Neuroscience》和《European Journal of Neuroscience》可能要求更多数据，比如显示与某人类疾症的相关性和/或细胞死亡相关机制的详尽分析，不过后者尚有发表可能，也许值得投去试试。《Journal of the Neurological Sciences》更关注临床，所以只有当OA处理已知是某个疾病的良好模型时，才可考虑投到这个期刊。但是，如果该研究确实显示存在这种关联，这是一个很好的目标期刊。《Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications》的范围较广，发表各种生物领域的研究；神经生物学属于其兴趣领域，且该期刊表明它致力于迅速传播成果。对于希望尽快从编辑部获得回应或希望尽快发表论文的作者，这可能是一个很好的初步目标期刊。如果行为学数据较为新颖，《Neurobiology of Learning and Memory》也可以是一个很好的目标；该刊的“外联部”的答复速度很快，也很适合需要尽快发表的作者。最后，若结果中揭示“神经系统是如何运作的”等方面的内容，《Neuroscience》就是一个很好的目标期刊，因此，根据终稿的侧重点(如临床vs神经生物学vs行为学)和作者的需求(影响因子和出版时间)，可以将候选期刊按照其适合程度排序。 英文原文 Choosing the right platform Selection of an appropriate journal and publication type is critical: get it right and you instantly increase your chances of successful publication and regular citation. By contrast, sending a manuscript to an inappropriate journal is a frequent cause of rejection. The aims and scope of the journal, the journal’s target audience and recent publication history, the significance and broadness of appeal of the findings described in your manuscript, and the type of study performed should all be considered before selecting your target journal. Start by considering what the main focus of your paper is, and therefore, who you would expect to want to read it. This should be clear from the results you have obtained and your knowledge of the current literature in the same field. Is there a clinical focus or do you describe basic science findings? Are the findings of relevance to a broad cross-section of the scientific community or will they only appeal to researchers in a specialist field? Are the findings preliminary, with more work required to make an irrefutable and comprehensive story, or do you have multiple types of complementary data to support your hypothesis? Indeed, do you need to publish right away, or can you delay publication while collecting more data to try for a journal with a higher impact factor? By asking yourself these questions, among others, you will be able to build up a picture of the type of journal you should be targeting. Then, you need to generate a short-list. An immediate source of potential target journals is in your own paper’s reference list. Any similar or related previous work should have been cited in your study; identify those studies and the journals they were published in. Some journals will appear more than once, and these are likely candidates. Another way to identify candidate journals is performing keyword searches in literature databases such as Medline and PubMed. Again, journals that appear repeatedly are potentially suitable. Of course, journals that haven’t previously published in the same area of research might equally be interested in your findings; the best way to identify these is to search or browse your library’s journal shelves, Thompson ISI databases, including the Science Citation Index, or the websites of major publishers (see below, but note that these are just a few of many publishers of academic journals). You should be able to recognize journals that might be appropriate based on your answers to the questions above. Now that you have a short-list of possible target journals and a clear picture of the type of journal your study would be suitable for, you need to merge the two to see where they correspond. Journal websites generally contain and ‘aims and scope’ section and occasionally describe their target audience. They will usually also contain information on impact factor, publication types, publication frequency, time from acceptance to publication, rejection rates, and publication charges. All of these factors need to be weighed up. For example, if you require rapid publication, you should specifically look for journals that offer fast response times and short periods from acceptance to publication like Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. If you are on a tight budget you may need to rule out open access journals or journals that have high publication charges. If you require publication in a journal with an impact factor above a certain level, you can instantly rule out any with impact factors lower than that. Study the journal websites closely and consider why the editors and readers of each would be interested in your findings; as well as giving you an angle for the approach in your cover letter (see the previous post on journal cover letters and a free example letter here), this will help you decide which of the remaining journals in your short-list is the most relevant platform from which to disseminate your findings. When your short-list has been reduced to two or three journals on the basis of the above criteria, you should rank them as first, second and third choices based on your particular requirements. Then you are ready to write your cover letter and submit your manuscript! To assist you in this process, Edanz has developed a Journal Selection Tool that is free to use at: http://www.liwenbianji.cn/journal_selector. Helpful Links To search or browse Science Citation Index journals: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jloptions.cgi?PC=K Thompson ISI searchable databases: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ US National Library of Medicine database PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ Elsevier journal titles: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cws_home Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ Wiley-Interscience journals: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/browse/?type=JOURNAL Springer: http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=5-102-0-0-0 Example The following manuscript title was used in the exercise accompanying the section on writing a good title: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. This imaginary study showed degeneration of neurons in the CA3 and dentate gyrus regions of the hippocampus after administration of the toxin okadoic acid, let us assume in mice. It also showed involvement of a MAP kinase-dependent pathway in this neurodegeneration. Without a functional correlate of the neuronal cell loss, the study would be considered very preliminary and would be difficult to publish; thus, let us assume that behavioral studies were also performed and that these showed deficits in learning and memory in mice administered the toxin. Therefore, the data shown are histological, biochemical and behavioral. A keyword search of the PubMed database throws out very little in the way of similar studies (not surprisingly given that the example study is imagined), but does point to potential journals such as the Journal of Neuroscience, European Journal of Neuroscience, Neuroscience, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, Neuropharmacology and the Journal of the Neurological Sciences. Among these, the Journal of Neuroscience and the European Journal of Neuroscience are likely to require more data, perhaps showing relevance to a human disease or condition and/or an exhaustive analysis of the mechanisms involved in the cell death, although the latter journal is a possibility and might be worth an initial submission. The Journal of the Neurological Sciences has more of a clinical focus and should only be considered if administration of OA was known to provide a good model of a particular disease or condition. However, if such a link was shown, this journal would represent a good target. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications has a broad focus, publishing studies in diverse fields of biological research; however, neurobiology is one of their areas of interest and they claim to be devoted to rapid dissemination of results. For authors who want a quick answer or who need to publish soon, this could represent a good initial target journal. Depending on the novelty of the behavioral data, the journal Neurobiology of Learning and Memory could be a good target; with a rapid communications section, this journal could also suit those authors in need of immediate publication. Finally, Neuroscience represents a good target journal if the findings reveal aspects of ‘how the nervous system works’. Thus, depending on the focus of the final paper (eg. clinical vs neurobiological vs behavioral) and the authors’ requirements (impact factor and time to publication), the candidate journals selected can be ranked in terms of their suitability. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
好的读者成就好的作者。 在历次培训活动中，理文编辑一直鼓励作者积极阅读以提高自己的写作水平。今后，我们会陆续与大家共享一些生动有趣的科技英语文章以共勉。欢迎大家踊跃交流意见，分享阅读心得。 科技英语文章阅读会之： Unlock local research potential with open access 新闻来源：www.scidev.net
“结果”可能是论文最重要的部分。在这部分你要叙述主要的研究结果，读者想知道的也就是这些。而且，研究结果还影响到”引言”和”讨论”部分的编排，目标期刊的选择和以及后续研究的方向。 在开始撰写“结果”之前，你应全盘考虑你的试验发现，并审视他们到底意味/提示什么。此时你应该已经完成了数据分析，并已制作了几幅图表以便简单明了地展示结果。后文将有一些图表制作和统计分析方面的注意事项，所以这里就暂不赘述。不过，一定要记得：图是“结果”的重要组成部分，所以图、表、正文之间不能有重复的叙述。简而言之，如果用图表比用文字表达得更清楚，就用图来表达，然后在正文中简单提及；如果用文字就可以简单阐明，就无需再用图来表达。 一旦确定要把哪些结果纳入正文以及这些结果的意义，，你就可以把它们按一个符合逻辑的顺序组合成一个“故事”。在“引言”部分已经说明了假设或拟研究的问题；现在，在“结果”部分展示你收集的全部证据，用于支持你的假设或排除其他备择解释。用现在时态的子标题把每种不同的结果分成单独的小节。这些子标题应该与“方法”部分的子标题以及图表的标题相互对应。与“方法”部分一样，叙述“结果”时应使用过去时。你用于支持假设的证据种类越多(以及越不含混)，你的结论就越无可置疑。这里暂时不要去讨论你结果的影响或大谈其意义—那是“讨论”部分的任务。这里只用展示你的证据，然后留待读者自行去下结论。 “结果”部分经常需要比较样本和对照，或者比较某个时间点前后的结果，所以有必要了解陈述比较时一些常犯错误。其中一些也包括在“克服语言障碍”一章的注意事项中。最重要的是“同类事物间才能做比较”。例如，有这样一个句子：“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with non-smokers” 就应该改成“Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers”。这里的一个关键是“were compared” 这个短语(其他句子中也可能是 “compared with”)的位置。如果这个短语位于被比较双方 (如此例中：吸烟者的p53 levels 和 不吸烟者的p53 levels)之间，那么比较的双方都必须要有足够的信息来清楚界定到底比较的是什么。也可以把这个短语放在被比较双方之前或之后，例如：“Expression levels of p53 in smokers and non-smokers were compared”。叙述比较的另一个问题是，比较性的词语如“more”，“higher”和 “faster”等，后面需要跟一个”than”开始的从句来解释是比谁多、高或者快。比如，“transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol”这个句子中是比谁高就不明确，因此应该加上“than control mice”。 示例 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》上一篇论文的“结果”部分(doi:10.1172/JCI37155；经同意转载)。其中显示了“结果”部分的一些要素。 核对清单 1. 你的数据如果用图表更容易表达就用图表；反之用文字。 2. 使用过去时叙述结果。 3. 同类事物才能做比较。 4. 图、表、正文内容不能重复。 5. 正文中说明统计分析结果，如P值。 英文原文 Results: what you found The results section is possibly the most important section in your paper. In this section you will describe the main findings of your research, which is what everyone who is going to read your paper wants to know about. Also, whatever findings you obtained will determine how the introduction and discussion sections are framed, what target journals you can consider, and what direction(s) your subsequent research needs to take. The easiest way to approach writing a results section is to consider all of your findings and what they mean or suggest. You will already have analyzed your data and probably also generated a number of figures and/or tables to show it in a clear and concise manner. Later tips in this series describe some important considerations to keep in mind when preparing display items and performing statistical analyses, so I won’t go into much detail on those processes here. However, it is important to remember that graphics are important components of the results section, and therefore, that there should be no redundancies or duplications among the text, figures and tables. Put simply, if something can be more clearly shown in a figure or table than explained in the text, then use a graphic and refer to it briefly in the text; if something can be easily summarized with text, then there is no need for an additional graphic showing the same thing. Once you have a clear idea of what results you want to include and what each of them shows, you should assemble them in a logical order to make a ‘story’. You will have already described your hypothesis or research question(s) in the introduction; use the results section to lay out all of the evidence you have gathered, building up a solid case to support your hypothesis or to exclude alternative explanations. Each different finding should have its own subsection, beginning with a subheading in the present tense. These subheadings should match those in the methods section and the headings used in figure/table legends. The results themselves should be described in the past tense, like the methods. The more types of evidence you can provide for a given hypothesis (and the less ambiguous these are), the more irrefutable your conclusions can be. Resist the urge to discuss the implications of findings or go into detail about what they mean—that is what the discussion section is for. Rather, present the evidence and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Results sections frequently involve comparisons between a test sample and a control, or between before and after time-points, so you should be aware of some common errors made when describing comparative results. Some of these have already been described in the tip “Overcoming the language barrier”. It is particularly important to compare “like with like”. For example¸ the sentence “Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with non-smokers” should actually be “Expression levels of p53 in smokers were compared with those in non-smokers”. The critical point here is the placement of “were compared” (or in other situations, “compared with”): if the comparing term appears between the words describing the two items being compared (here, p53 levels in smokers and p53 levels in non-smokers), then enough information needs to be provided either side of the comparative term to make it absolutely clear what is being compared. An alternative to this is to place the comparative term before or after the words describing the items being compared: for example, “Expression levels of p53 in smokers and non-smokers were compared”. While still on the subject of comparisons, it is important to remember that relative terms, such as “more”, “higher” and “faster”, require an accompanying “than” clause to explain what this change is relative to. For example, in the sentence “transgenic mice showed higher levels of cortisol” it is unclear what these levels were higher than; thus, a “than clause”, such as “than control mice”, is required. Example The figure below, showing a couple of excerpts from the results section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37155; reproduced with permission), shows some of the important components of a results section. Checklist 1. Use figures and tables to summarize data except where such data can be easily summarized in the text 2. Describe results in the past tense 3. Compare like with like 4. Do not duplicate data among figures, tables and text 5. Show the results of statistical analyses, for example, p values, in the text. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
接下来我们来看一下涉及到不同内容进行嵌套的前言,这些前言通常要向读者提交一个非常恢宏的画面，好像就要把自己研究的某个研究领域的某个部分完整地呈现出来，我们写这些文章时，注定我们通盘考虑，认真设计，斟酌再三，但即使这样，到最后写出来的文章却往往是没有层次感，总感觉到大排档吃饭了少上一个果盘那样不爽。 先来看一个例子： Journal of Cell Science 118, 1373-1384，2005，文章的题目：Functional INAD complexes are required to mediate degeneration in photoreceptors of the Drosophila rdgA mutant Introduction Transmembrane signalling cascades initiated by G-proteincoupled receptors are a widely used mechanism for signalling the detection of many sensory modalities. These cascades end with the activation of plasma-membrane ion channels whose activity alters membrane potential and initiates synaptic transmission of a signal to the central nervous system. Several different families of ion channels have been implicated in this process. Historically, the oldest and best characterized are cyclic-nucleotide-gated channels, whose role in vertebrate visual and olfactory transduction is well established (Matulef and Zagotta, 2003). More recently, members of the TRP family of ion channels have been implicated in the transduction of several sensory modalities in both vertebrate and invertebrate systems. These include light (Drosophila TRPC), pheromones (rodent TRPC2), taste (rodent TRPM), physical stimuli and temperature (Drosophila and mammal TRPV, TRPA and TRPN) (Montell et al., 2002). Currently, a crucial factor limiting our understanding of how TRP channels encode sensory modalities is the lack of information about how these channels are activated. In several cases, only a few transduction components have been identified and the inability to perform in vivo analysis of channel activation has been a major obstacle in revealing how TRP channels are activated. The Drosophila phototransduction cascade is historically the oldest and to date the best understood model for the analysis of a TRP channel involved in sensory transduction (Hardie and Raghu, 2001). In the fly eye, rhodopsin, a seventransmembrane- span G-protein-coupled receptor, activates phospholipase CO1666;O1472;(PLCO1666; (Bloomquist et al., 1988) via Gq (Scott et al., 1995). This initiates a biochemical cascade that ends with the opening of two classes of calcium- and cationselective TRPC channels, TRP and TRPL (Niemeyer et al., 1996). Several key elements of the transduction cascade have been identified including Gq, PLCO1666;O1472;and protein-kinase C. Several of these components, along with the TRP channel, are clustered into a macromolecular signalling complex by the multivalent PDZ-domain protein INAD (Tsunoda et al., 1998). The INAD complex is thought to increase the speed and specificity of the light response (Montell, 1998; Tsunoda et al., 1998). However, despite this wealth of detail about the components of the transduction cascade, the mechanism of activation of TRP and TRPL remains poorly understood, and is one of the outstanding problems in both sensory neurobiology and intracellular calcium signalling. Although the essential role of PLCO1666;O1472;in the activation of TRP and TRPL is well established (Bloomquist et al., 1988), the biochemical events initiated by this enzyme that lead to channel activation remain unclear. Inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP3), the best-understood second messenger generated from phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate hydrolysis by PLCO1666;O1472;(Berridge, 1997) was originally postulated to be the second messenger that leads to TRP and TRPL activation (Hardie and Minke, 1993). However, several recent lines of evidence strongly indicate that IP3-induced calcium (Ca2+) release, or indeed a physical interaction between the IP3 receptor (IP3R) and the light-activated channels, is unlikely to underlie the mechanism of TRP and TRPL activation (Raghu et al., 2000a). More recently, lipid second messengers derived from PI(4,5)P2 have been implicated in the activation of TRP and TRPL as well as their vertebrate homologues (Hardie, 2003). Polyunsaturated fatty acids, potential metabolites of diacylglycerol (DAG), the primary lipid generated by PI(4,5)P2 hydrolysis, have been shown to activate TRP and TRPL in situ, as well as in inside-out patches of TRPL channels expressed in S2 cells (Chyb et al., 1999). In addition, both DAG and PI(4,5)P2 have been shown to modulate TRPL channel activity in cell culture models (Estacion et al., 2001). Analysis of TRPC2 activation in the rodent vomeronasal organs shows considerable parallels to our current understanding of the mechanism of Drosophila TRP and TRPL activation (Lucas et al., 2003). However, despite these findings, the physiological relevance of PI(4,5)P2-derived lipids as activators of Drosophila TRP channels in vivo remains to be established and the precise identity of the phospholipid species that is involved is unknown. Recently, genetic evidence of a role for lipid messengers in the activation of TRPC channels in vivo has been obtained in Drosophila photoreceptors from an analysis of the retinal degeneration A (rdgA) mutant. The rdgA mutant was first isolated because it failed to respond to light in a behavioural assay (Hotta and Benzer, 1970). Analysis of retinal ultrastructure revealed that all alleles show varying degrees of photoreceptor degeneration (Harris and Stark, 1977). Biochemical analysis showed impaired diacylglycerol kinase (DGK) activity (Inoue et al., 1989) and reduced levels of light induced phosphatidic acid (PA) formation (Yoshioka et al., 1983) in head extracts of rdgA mutants. The gene that is defective in rdgA mutants has been cloned and found to encode an eye-enriched isoform of DGK (Masai et al., 1993), the principal enzyme that inactivates DAG by phosphorylation to PA. However, most significantly, under voltage-clamp conditions, several alleles including rdgA1, rdgA3, rdgA6 and rdgAKS60 (Raghu et al., 2000b) (Hardie, personal communication) all show a small constitutively active inward current, which, on the basis of its biophysical characteristics, genetics and pharmacology, has been shown to be composed largely of TRP channels. The retinal degeneration phenotype of rdgA can be rescued by genetically removing TRP channels (i.e. the double mutant rdgA;trp), whose photoreceptors now lack their principal plasma-membrane calcium-influx channels. These results suggested a model in which excessive calcium influx through constitutively active TRP channels results in retinal degeneration in rdgA (Raghu et al., 2000b). The light response of rdgA;trp photoreceptors shows defects in deactivation suggesting that DGK might play a role in terminating the light response (Raghu et al., 2000b) and recent evidence suggests that DGK plays a role in regulating signal amplification during the response to light (Hardie et al., 2002). Despite these recent observations that suggest a direct role for rdgA in phototransduction, previous studies have suggested a distinct mechanism underlying the retinal degeneration phenotype of rdgA. First, unlike most other phototransduction mutants, the retinal degeneration of rdgA is reported to be light independent (Harris and Stark, 1977). Second, norpA mutants, which lack the PLC activity essential for TRP channel activation, were reported not to suppress the retinal degeneration of rdgA (Masai et al., 1993). Third, several studies have suggested that a failure of rhabdomere biogenesis and protein trafficking underlies the rdgA phenotype (Masai et al., 1997; Suzuki et al., 1990). To address these apparently conflicting results and to understand the mechanism of degeneration in rdgA, we are undertaking a genome-wide forward-genetic screen for mutants that suppress or enhance the retinal-degeneration phenotype of rdgA. Our goal is to identify molecules whose function might help us to understand the basis of the constitutive TRP-channel activity that is associated with the rdgA phenotype. Here, we describe the isolation and characterization of two mutants identified in our screen. We then describe experiments that address the requirement for the light response in the degeneration phenotype of rdgA. 书写嵌套前言是需要技巧的，大家都拍床戏，有的甚至拍成了三级片，不能公开放映，可李安拍的《色戒》同样也是真刀真枪地干，而且还是大牌的梁朝伟在演，可是却能公开放映，因为这是需要真功夫的。其实梁朝伟是不是仅仅在做假动作，由于压力那东西不可能持续那么长的时间倒不是很重要的。人们众口一词，剧情需要，鬼！鬼才相信呢。 取得效果的原因在于李安建立了一套规则： 1.名作 2.名人的书 3.名导演 4.爱国的大背景 5.以抗日的名义做着“不抗日”的事情，前者是给观众看的，后者是汤唯做的。 你说这部片子能不公映吗？因为公映，他能不赚钱吗？ 同样，我们嵌套前言也需要建立一套规则，先列明规则吧： 1. 分出段落，同时在不同段落间保持特有的向“问题”聚焦的连接。 2. 设计嵌套循环，每个嵌套都按照背景－焦点－问题进行小循环。 3. 按照对某个研究的认识进行排列，同时对最重要的嵌套按照假设－结果进行文献回溯，并尽量放在前言最突出的位置。 你自己分析一下上面的前言，看看是不是这样一回事。哎呀，如果这样，我们其实也拍了一个成功的三级片。 前文谈了各种前言的写法，现在我们开始说结果Results，Results是文章的基本部分，当然结果需要从你的实验结论中提取和升华，要将那些能够直接回答或最支持前言中提出的问题的结论放上去，而那些无关或关系不大的材料则要忍痛割爱，放在下一篇文章中去展示了。 因此结果这个架构最重要的是告诉别人你的data和有效地进行data的组织，并从这种组织中引出下一个data和下一个组织，以便最后在逻辑上环环相扣，最有说服力地回答你前言中的问题。 告诉别人你的RT-PCR结果，然后是western blot结果，还有免疫荧光等等，所有这些都是要告诉别人这种细胞或组织有某种物质在基因和蛋白水平的表达，而且这种表达具有时空特点。 所以结论涉及到下列问题： 1.DATA的展示 2. DATA的组织 3. 不同层次间实验的转接 我们将就这三个问题进行逐个剖析。 我们先来谈第一个问题,data的展示： 在这个年代，展示变得非常重要，就如李安的《色戒》，为什么这部电影这么红？大陆甚至有所谓的影迷为了看《色戒》的完整版，专门坐飞机到香港去看这部电影？不容讳说，影片中的“蛋蛋”其实是关键因素。但为什么很多人看惯了东西方黑白黄几乎所有花样频出的A片，却还热衷于这不三级片呢？ 展示的好！梁朝伟的蛋蛋，高难度复杂的回别针，还有大牌的李安，加上张爱铃，所有的因素构造起来让这部说穿了就是黄色的小电影（美国定级为NC－17）却让很多人大呼好，一些影评家甚至说20年将难有电影望其项背，你看，这就叫展示，这种艺术化的展示正是我们构造SCI论文的结果需要的。 DATA的展示同样需要这种艺术，你不能罗列，是什么就说什么，没有人会接收你的论文的。要处理，怎样处理？ 1. 数据要转化为一看就懂的，一读就理解的。 2. 要有对照，好的为什么好的，是因为有对照！ 3.要有对比，要有不同的，不同的处理造成不同的结果。 4.要有统计，用大家公认的统计方法说明差别。 关于数据处理的问题,其原则就是要用最直观和简洁的展示来说明问题,因此文章中出现不经处理和分析的大量原始资料简直是对你工作的亵渎。文章中的数据只能是“a few”，不能是‘many“，更不能是‘all’，而且一般情况下你只能展示，通常不做注解，如果你不简洁明了，没有傻子会去分析你的数据的意义。因此，为了给读者留下印象，或者说直白点，为了你的文章被接受，你要使用一些处理技巧，通常的处理技巧大家都知道，直观的图和表，用这些图和表让人很容易理解你的意思。 我们知道，数据一般包括原始数据、经过平均化用mean±SD表示或者适当转化用对数或百分数表示等几种类型，这些数据即使讲出来也是枯燥的，不被理解的，结果则是经过设计的，通常的特点就是引进了比较，比如，你高1.8m，我2.6米，这是数据，现在说我比你高0.8米，就是结果，关键在于这个结果是单纯的结果，现在说我们比日本人高0.8m（P0.05，n=1200），这就有意义了，他的意思说分别拿出1200个随机样本，那么中国人比日本人平均高0.8m，而且有显著意义，这就是有意义的结果。 真**通俗的概念，我还罗嗦什么？好了，现在谈谈结果中最重要的组织。如何把材料有机地组织在一起，特别是形成环环相扣的结论，这是非常关键的技巧。
注：本文发表于 科学学研究, 2011(3): 321-26.（ 当期首篇，封面文章 ） ，其中Boundary Object的翻译按照ANT广义的对称性传统，翻译成“边界物”其实比“边界对象”更能体现其内涵，故在本文中做了相应的修改。在此也对给读者带来的不便表示抱歉。 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 摘 要： 跨国家层面的政策学习是全球化时代的基本特征之一。而原本旨在“解决问题”的政策学习却在造成大规模政策趋同的同时，也不断剥夺着发展中国家的话语权力。拉美国家经济政策和中国技术标准政策学习的两个案例，都表明了传统政策学习理论所信仰的政策知识中立的预设难以成立。引入STS建构主义的视角则可揭示出：一方面政策话语作为一种边界物，更多是为发展中国家的施政提供了“合法性”；另一方面，发达国家通过话语权力的建构形塑发展中国家的认知和行动。在发达国家过河拆桥地限制真正的“好”政策并通过智库渗透等更加隐蔽的手段宣扬所谓的“好”政策的形势下，发展中国家更应该对政策学习中的话语权争夺提高警惕 。 关键词：政策学习；全球化；政策话语；话语权力；边界物 中图分类号：D50 文章标识码：A 诺斯（North, D.）认为 ，制度是一种以共享观念（common belief）方式体现的、无形中约束着我们行动的博弈规则（rules of game），制度变迁的具体内容也决定了社会演进的方式。由于制度变迁理论所建立起的自身同经济绩效之间关系的良好愿景 ，在这样一个改革已经成为社会惯性或者说社会习惯、改革本身亦成为正当性和合理性之代名词的时代里，“变”成了一种社会意义上的常态 。如何理解和促动“好”的制度的变迁，也就因此成为了学术界和政策界所共同关心的话题。 在全球化成为一种历史趋势的与境下，政策学习（policy learning）和政策转移（policy transfer）更是为国家之间制度的相互借鉴提供了机会和窗口。一方面为了解决政策借鉴国的实际问题，某一些政策被抽离出来并在国际范围内得到争相效仿，最终逐渐地衍生出了新的“普适”体制 ——比如时下已经被接受为“共识”的市场经济体制，就是某种程度上全球化政策学习的结果 。而另一方面，发展中国家却在这场“无法抗拒的潮流”（irresistible fad）中却日益丧失着话语权——无论是昔日的旨在通过改善知识产权环境促进创新的“乌拉圭回合”，还是今天的旨在通过节能减排实现可持续发展的“哥本哈根会议”都是如此。 1. 解决难题：来自政策学习理论的回答 将目光聚焦在跨国家层面政策相互借鉴的研究，主要汇集在公共政策和国家创新系统两条理论进路当中。 其中，公共政策领域对政策学习现象的关注最早可以追溯到20世纪70年代，如赫柯罗（Heclo, H.）所持的“很多政治互动都可以体现为社会学习的过程”之观点，后来也成为了政策学习研究的经典论断 。然而，真正意义上的政策学习研究直到20世纪90年代才真正兴起。与研究的逐渐升温相对照的是，虽然政策学习大都围绕着政治科学的基本问题之一“难题”（puzzling）而展开 ；但在关于什么是政策学习的基本概念上，学界始终未能达成共识。因此很多对于政策学习的研究，都是基于“分类学”的意义上探讨的。其中一个经典的划分就是根据学习的核心内容，将政策学习划分为关注政策工具和实施设计的工具学习（instrumental learning），以及以对政策问题、政策范围和政策目标进行社会建构为核心的社会学习（social learning）两种类型 。事实上，后来很多的研究都没能跳脱这个“工具学习-社会学习”的二分框架。 比如罗斯（Rose, R.）对跨国家层面不同程度的经验/教训（lesson-drawing）汲取进行了诸如复制、改造、混合、综合和启发等不同程度的划分，然而其本质依然是对工具学习概念的同义反复 。尽管多洛维兹（Dolowitz, D P.）承认了从工具学习到社会学习之间本来就是一个连续的谱系，其社会学习的概念也更多指涉国内各方力量对于国外经验/教训的再吸收和再理解。他甚至使用了政策转移这样一个概念来描述 “在某一特定时间或空间的政策、行政安排或制度，被借用来发展另一时空的政策、行政安排或制度”的情况 。在他看来，其他国家的政治系统可以扮演政策改革实验室的角色，这样就可以将这种“外生”的实践性成果借用到本国的实践当中 。从这个意义上讲，发展中国家在政策学习中的话语权丧失的问题，就被冠以全球治理（Global Governance）为名的运动所天然消解了。事实上在“华盛顿共识”的领导下，IMF等国际组织正是通过结构调整贷款（SALs）等手段，将进行宏观经济改革，改革国家体制，厘清公共部门和私营部门的作用，按其要求进行重点投资，推行基本制度改革（如私有化）等“好”的政策，推广向正在遭受经济危机的嗷嗷待哺的发展中国家 。 尽管将内涵等同于创新的学习放在了理论的核心位置，但和公共政策理论一样，国家创新系统视角也将政策学习的本质看作是一个知识性的问题，并认为这种知识有着可以跨越国家之间边界的某种共性。因此，如果政策可以在不同的国家范围内同时试验，作为并行的、可重复性实验结果的成功或是失败政策，就可以成为多层次学习的经验“范本” 。自20世纪90年代开始兴起的政策标杆管理（policy benchmarking）方法，也一直是欧盟委员会所力推的试图通过评估和比较欧盟国家创新系统绩效，激励欧盟成员国追逐“最佳”的政策供给的主要手段 。 总之不难看出，两种政策学习理论背后有着强烈的政策知识“中立”性预设。这也导致了理论都倾向于认为最终指向全球治理的政策学习是改善一国制度环境即“解决难题”的有效途径，对其持默许进而支持的态度。甚至在很多时候，政策学习反而被列为评价政府行政能力的一个重要方面。如果真的只是关乎于如何解决经济和社会运行中的难题而无关于权力，那么发展中国家在“被治理”过程中的逐渐失语又该如何解释呢？ 2. 学习中的迷失：“拉美模式”和“苏联模式” 要证伪上述的结论并不难，历史中的很多真实的证据就可以给出作答。 比如 “拉美模式”的形成，就是这种“解难题”式政策学习模式的最好例证。面临着战后重建和意识形态斗争的双重任务，发达国家针为拉美国家的经济和社会发展开出了自由主义的药方——而这些也正是前文提到的“华盛顿共识”所涵盖的内容。无需否认，欣然接受了这种向自由主义的趋同，的确给拉美国家带来了一定时间的经济繁荣。主要表现在：1. 财政赤字减少；2. 拉美走出了20世纪80年代的“失去的10 年”的阴影；3. 外资大量流入该地区；4. 大部分企业效益提高；5. 国民经济总量和市场化程度提高；6. 货币通胀大幅度降低等等诸多方面 。特别是长期充斥于西方报端的“成功样板”阿根廷：不但在1958年到1970年间其GDP翻了近一番，年均增长率近6%；19世纪末20世纪初时，更是被誉为“世界的粮仓和肉库”，并跻身于世界10大富国行列，人均GDP甚至超过了当时的德国和法国。然而好景不长，阿根廷的经济自1999年开始就不断暴露出种种败绩。虽经此后几届政府的努力，但仍然难挽狂澜。全方位的国家危机终于爆发：随着比索大幅贬值，阿根廷的人均年收入跌到2000美元左右，失业率也飙升到2位数。 虽然在是否是自由主义理念的引进根本上导致了“拉美模式”的失败还有待商榷，从历史的经验中无疑可以肯定：盲目照搬照抄发达国家的“最佳实践”的做法是相当危险的——起码是从针对于本国实际进行本土化改进和反思的意义上讲。更需要指出的是，早在1994年墨西哥金融危机期间关于拉美新自由主义的负面评价就已经开始显露，在梅内姆总统执政（1989-1999）的中后期阿根廷推行新自由主义政策所带来的一些负面效应已经有所显露，但这些邻国和历史的经验都没有得到充分的重视。因此可以认为即便在“解决难题”的意义上，以阿根廷为首的拉美国家的政策学习暴露出强烈的盲目性和选择性——即仅仅关注于某些国家有限的政策范本，而不是立足于解决本国的社会经济问题而面向“全局”所做出的“理性选择”。 事实上，这种状况也是极为普遍的。更为我们所熟知的也是更为极端的例证，是即便到今天还影响深远的“苏联模式”。建国以后，以对苏联社会主义模式的认同为前提，我国对苏联开始了全面的政策学习和借鉴。对此，刘少奇同志还专门写了《关于向苏联学习党和国家建设经验问题给联共布中央斯大林的信》（1949年7月6日），详细说明了中国急需要学习苏联的几个方面 。在10月5日的中苏友好协会成立大会上，刘少奇更直接指出，“我们要建国，同样也必须‘以俄为师’，学习苏联人民的建国经验”；“苏联有许多世界上所没有的完全新的科学知识，我们只有从苏联才能学到这些科学知识。例如：经济学、银行学、财政学、商业学、教育学等等” 。在国家领导人的高度重视之下，从政治体制、工业化战略到文教体制等经济和社会发展的诸多方面都进行了相当全面的政策“转移”。比如1952年5月开始的“院系调整”，就完全参照了“苏联模式”取消私立大学并交由国家统一管理，同时将我国原有的欧美式“通才型”综合性大学调整为苏联式的“专才型”文理综合大学。其实，这种“全盘苏化”的风潮不仅体现在政治、军事和教育等制度建设层面，苏联的电影、流行音乐、服装等也成为20世纪50年代的时尚和潮流。当时有一句非常流行的口号，就叫做“苏联的今天就是我们的明天” ——而此时政策学习的动机，则早已远超过“解决难题”方面的考虑了。 然而起码就机制设计而言，“以俄为师”时期的政策学习起码从“解决难题”的意义上讲，还是得到了某种程度上的保障的：我国一方面动员了大量党内干部和技术专家到苏联学习、参观；一方面也聘请大量苏联顾问来华协助政府有关部门进行行政和经济管理。然而由于双方能力上的不对等，学习往往不能达到预期的成效，照搬的痕迹依然很严重。比如我国技术标准体制的最初建立也是来自于对苏联的“一边倒”的学习或者说模仿 。1954年，薄一波在第一届全国人民代表大会第二次会议上指出，要根据我国工业发展的具体条件，参照苏联国家标准，逐步统一制定我国的国家标准。2年后，我国又派代表团参加了在莫斯科召开的社会主义国家标准化机构代表会议，会后考察了苏联国家一级有关部门的标准化工作机构，并写出考察报告。报告中对指定我国国家标准的原则以及建立国家一级的标准化工作机构的体制等问题提出了初步的设想和建议 。然而在操作层面，作为生产质量控制重要政策的技术标准，也几乎通通是翻译苏联的版本而忽略了我国的实际情况。对很多标准的解释都参考了苏联专家的意见，就连标准的编号也沿用苏联。政策学习的实际效果也再次偏离了“解决难题”的初衷。 时至今日，虽然自1960年中苏关系恶化以后苏联对我国的直接影响已经大大减弱，我国对于技术标准社会职能的认识已经受到欧美其他国家的影响发生了变化，但技术标准政策学习背后的政治意涵一直到今天都没有改变。在“苏联模式”集权主义-计划经济的体制之下，“不合标准的不准生产”成为了一道死命令——不但得到了多位领导人的首肯，还写入《标准化法》成为了一种制度性保障。从这个意义上讲，技术标准本身对于企业而言就相当于“法定”权力：一方面，这种“法定”权力依靠国家的权威而确立并发挥作用；另一方面，企业只能处于被这种“法定”权力所约束的地位——即便是在远离计划的市场经济当中，广义上的“生产什么”还是要由技术标准来确定。更为重要的是，在承认技术标准即“法定”权力认同的背后，也掩藏着一个“合理”的逻辑外推：即认为一旦掌握了技术标准的制定权，也就同时掌握了控制整个产业生产的主导权。事实上在媒体和公众之间闹得沸沸扬扬的“馒头国标”事件当中，河南兴泰公司参与起草本是出于食品安全考虑的“小麦粉馒头国家标准”的最根本的心态，就是通过参与技术标准制定最终得到“一步到位”的垄断 。 综上可以看出，无论是在“拉美模式”还是“苏联模式”的政策学习当中，“解难题”都不能构成促动学习的唯一的动机。盲目的照搬背后，我们看到的更多的都是在偶然性初值选择下的必然性的路径依赖（path-dependence）。其实政策学习本身并不仅仅是在“解决难题”，也在“行使权力”。两者之间是无法割裂开来的 。正是政策被借鉴国的这种权力，帮助借鉴国形成了对于“权威”所拥有的政策知识是重要的，以及他们的确是有知识的这种关乎政策学习制度内核的信念。 3. 边界物：政策学习与话语权力的相互建构 福柯（Foucault, M.）曾经指出：话语绝对不是一个透明的中性要素，言说者正是通过言说来赋予自己权力。而这里所谓的权力也不单单是一个压制性的铁笼。相反，生产性成为了权力的根本特征——权力创造了社会现实，也生产了出自身的欲望和需求，又进而生产出了话语 。如果将政策也看作是一种话语，那么上述权力与话语的相互建构关系也正是发展中国家在政策学习中迷失状况的真实写照。 事实上在公共政策理论当中的确存在政策话语（policy discourse）这样一种表述。所谓政策话语是指个人、团体、社会运动和制度的互动，主要是通过一种“可探讨的情境”，即言说者和聆听着所构成的一个特定的沟通场域，来改变政策问题、议程设定和政策产生 。无疑对于跨国家层面的政策学习而言，全球化的大背景就恰恰构成了这一特殊的场域。正如追赶研究真正意义上的创始人格申克龙（Gerschenkron, A.）所指出的那样，落后只是一个相对的概念——因为不仅落后这种表述本身就预设了更先进的国家存在，而且“落后的程度”其实也是很难去精确衡量的 。但在全球化的“看板”之下，这种落后却可以被放大为极大的心理落差。落后本身或者说在于发展停滞的现实与工业化的强烈愿望之间的“张力”，促使着发展中国家去相信本属于地方性的先发国政策“最佳实践”，及其背后所隐藏着某种普遍性。因此即便并不是在“被迫”接受其所开出的限制性条件的情况下，发展中国家依然愿意“主动”去成为发达国家政策话语的听众。或者说相反，如果发展中国家不去借鉴所谓的“最佳实践”，反而会由于施政上的另辟蹊径但成效不佳而遭到其他利益相关者的诟病。从这个意义上讲，政策学习的另一种作用便是政策借鉴国施政“合法性”的修辞；而其中所蕴含的权力正是苏珊·斯特兰奇（Strange, S.）所言的决定办事办法的、构造国与国之间关系的结构性权力（structural power） 。 因此，政策学习当中的知识绝不可能“中立”，更多是作为一种未完成的转译（translation）的边界物（boundary objects）而存在。边界物是指能够沟通不同的社会世界，却在各自的社会世界中保持自身同一性的事物 。在政策学习的与境中，政策话语就成为了政策借鉴国和被借鉴国之间的边界物。一方面标准化的政策表述似乎成为了两方唯一共同的东西，而至于政策范本如何“解决问题”甚至是不是关乎于“解决问题”则却有着不同的理解。由于政策借鉴国和被借鉴国之间往往具有着不同的社会、政治、经济和文化传统，更由于在政策学习的过程中往往很难得到来自于政策被借鉴国的真实反馈，学习过程中的转译是必然的，转译也必然是不完全的。在政策借鉴国围绕着政策话语进行着本土化建构的同时，政策借鉴国和被借鉴国之间的网络联结（association）也被建构起来。进而被“黑箱化”的网络联结，又促成了新一轮边界物的产生。于是，政策学习和话语权力的相互建构就在这种不断基于边界物的转译中逐渐形成了。也就是说全球化时代话语权力的失衡，正是在政策学习的社会实践中政策的借鉴国和被借鉴国之间不平等的互动和协商（主要表现为被借鉴国的言说和借鉴国的失语）的结果。从这个意义上讲，甚至是经常被描述为一种社会现实、一种社会变化的解释和进步观念的全球化概念也是被建构起来的 。全球治理的框架、实际性目标和“优越性”，也都是通过包括了话语权力在内的诸多权力所编织的复杂网络来打造的。而现代国家日益陷入了充满超国家的、政府间的和跨国的力量所组成的地区和全球网络之中，国家的政策话语权也在经受着被全球化“挖空”的威胁。 但恐怕，完全的失语对于发展中国家而言还不是最危险的事情。由于社会系统本身多固有的多重惯性，引进的新政策理念往往会和原有的制度、文化或者价值观念发生冲突，社会行动者出于自身的利益和传统对于新理念的理解也必将是异质性的，国家内部层面学习的转译也是必然发生的。作为边界物的政策范本在“合法性”寻求的动机下，可能由于社会行动者的异质性转译而使得政策初衷发生严重的偏离，却可以完好的套着原有政策话语的外衣。前文论述中所提到的在“一流的企业做标准”口号的感召之下“馒头国标”的制定也正是如此。从这个意义上讲，发展中国家在政策学习中的选择性的本质就是转译，即通过借用权威性的语言将自己的利益进行表述 。从而，在政策语言被“挖空”以后反而在“合法性”的旗帜之下各行其是、不知所云才是全球化时代发展中国家政策学习所面临的最严峻的风险。 4. 结论和启示 总之可以看到，发展中国家在全球化时代的政策学习更多可以被看作成一种“合法性”寻求之行为。也正是这种发展上的差距，使他们更加倾向于相信发达国家相对于自身的政策“增量”能够直接改善其落后现状的简单逻辑。于是在发展中国家获得了“灵丹妙药”的心理安慰的同时，发达国家获得的却是可以一直引领整个国际政策舞台的话语权力。而且这种话语权力也在某种意义上不断强化着他们的领先地位，最终导致了发展中国家而不是发达国家自己成为了政策的试验场。政策学习和话语权力的相互建构，也成为了发达国家领先地位的新一轮保障。 然而需要指出的是，一方面发达国家往往并不是借助他们所宣扬的自由贸易、自由市场等“好的”政策和制度体系发展起来。相反，被他们所极力反对并各国国际规则明令禁止的诸如产业保护和出口补贴等 “坏的”贸易和产业政策，才是帮助他们实现经济和技术能力的大量积累的秘诀 。另一方面，发达国家也拥有者较国际制度的限制性条款更为隐蔽的行使权力的手段，如充满着“海归派”的智库已经成为形塑中国政策话语的一个非常理想的制度性跳板 。从这个意义上讲，一些国际势力或跨国公司通过国际组织或基金会企图操纵国内智库发表观点，也成为了中国在政策上失语的又一潜在风险 。至少从上述两点意义上讲，我们都应该以一个更加审视的态度去面对全球化和全球化背景下的政策学习。如何避免在互动中的失语甚至更加主动地去争夺政策的话语权，则是政策界和学术界所应该共同关注的新主题。 参考文献 North D C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1990. North D C. Understanding the process of economic change . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005. 杨瑞龙. 制度创新：经济增长的源泉 . 经济体制改革, 1993(05): 19-28. 李汉林，渠敬东，夏传玲，等. 组织和制度变迁的社会过程——一种拟议的综合分析 . 中国社会科学, 2005(01): 94-108. Kasper W, Streit M E. Institutional economics: social order and public policy . Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 1998. Simmons B A, Dobbin F, Garrett G. The global diffusion of markets and democracy . Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Heclo H. Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden; from relief to income maintenance . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974: 306. Braun D, Benninghoff M. Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research . Research Policy, 2003, 32(10): 1849-1863. May P J. Policy Learning and Failure . Journal of Public Policy, 1992, 12(4): 331-354. Rose R. What Is Lesson-Drawing? . Journal of Public Policy, 1991, 11(1): 3-30. Dolowitz D P. Policy transfer and British social policy: learning from the USA? . Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 2000. Dolowitz D P. A Policy-maker's Guide to Policy Transfer . Political Quarterly, 2003, 74(1): 101-108. Strange S. The Retreat of the state: the diffusion of power in the world economy . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kerber W, Eckardt M. Policy learning in Europe: the open method of co-ordination and laboratory federalism . Journal of European Public Policy, 2007, 14(2): 227-247. Porte C, Pochet P, Room G. Social Benchmarking, Policy Making and New Governance in the EU . Journal of European Social Policy, 2001, 11(4): 291-307. 张恒军. “北京共识”与“华盛顿共识”之比较——一种中国模式与拉美模式的视角 . 当代教育论坛, 2005(07): 126-128. 刘少奇，中共中央文献研究室，中央档案馆 编. 建国以来刘少奇文稿（第一册） . 北京: 中央文献出版社, 2005. 杨东平. 艰难的日出：中国现代教育的20世纪 . 上海: 文汇出版社, 2003. 戴国强. 关于我国技术标准的战略思考及国家技术标准专项的有关情况 . 国防技术基础, 2007(12): 13-16. 赵全仁，黄儒虎. 标准化发展史 . 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1993. 王程韡. 中国食品安全规制政策的社会学习——以“馒头国标”为例 . 公共管理学报, 2008(04): 1-8, 122. Foucault M. The order of discourse: Inaugural lecture delivered at the Collège de France . Language and politics, Shapiro M J, New York: New York University Press, 1984, 108-167. Rein M, Schön D. Reframing Policy Discourse . The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, Fischer F, Forester J, Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993, 145-166. Gerschenkron A. Economic backwardness in historical perspective . Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962. Strange S. States and markets . London; New York; New York, NY: Pinter Publishers; Distributed in the USA and Canada by St. Martin's Press, 1994. Fujimura J H. Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and "Translation" . Science as practice and culture, Pickering A, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, 168-211. Star S L, Griesemer J R. Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 . Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19(3): 387-420. Stiglitz J E. The Overselling of Globalization . Globalization: what's new, Weinstein M M, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005, 228-261. Callon M, Latour B. Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologist Help Them To Do So . Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro and Macro-Sociology, Knorr-Cetina K, Cicouvel A V, Boston, MA; London: Routledge, 1981, 277-303. Chang H. Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective . London: Anthem, 2002. Li C. Foreign-educated returnees in the people's Republic of China: Increasing political influence with limited official power . Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2006, 7(4): 493-516. Li C. China's New Think Tanks: Where Officials, Entrepreneurs, and Scholars Interact . China Leadership Monitor, 2009(SUMMER 2009: 29). 朱旭峰. 中国智库：避免跌入依附陷阱 . 南方周末, 2009-08-13.
第五章: 限制轨道作用的几何优化 一个新的探究芳香性本质的理论方法 Chapter 5: The Restricted geometry Optimization - New Procedure to Get New Insight into Aromaticity 第五章第三部分：与Schleyer教授等私下和公开的学术争论 第三部分第二节：分子轨道定域化的理论和方法 - 与Schleyer等三教授的私下学术争论 (本次上传的是第三部分中的第二节，为便于读者阅读，将已经上传的第三部分的序言放在本节的末尾。如果读者感兴趣，读完苯节后，可以继续读). 在2006年6月初，我们的论文：“"The Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Fundamentally Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types"，正式完成定稿. 当时的感觉是，我们这篇论文，无论在研究方法和结果的可靠性方面，在芳香性领域应该是一个很大的创新，它将为揭示芳香性的本质，提供一个新的研究方法，为合理评估芳香分子的芳香性，提出了一个新的能量准则. 因此，在正式投稿前，先征求Schleyer教授的意见(Schleyer 是芳香性领域的权威之一，多次在Chemical Reviews 编辑芳香性专辑)，希望他能将我们的论文推荐到JACS. 大约在1996年6月10日，我将论文手稿通过Email发给了Schleyer 教授. Schleyer 教授收到论文后，对于我们的工作表示了很大的兴趣. 并且邀请他的两位朋友一起与我讨论. 其中一位是德国的教授，是某著名刊物的主编，另一位是在美国的华人副教授，他多次与Schleyer合作发表论文，建立和发展了BLW (block-localized wave function)法. 早在2005年，我们完成题为 “Theoretical Studies on the Role of p-Electron Delocalization in Determining the Conformation of N-benzylideneaniline with Three Types of LMO Basis Sets“的论文前(在2006年，这篇论文表在 J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27,809)，我们已经很详细地研究了BLW的计算原理。而且在丙烯正离子，CH2=CH-CH2+，的基础上，将我们方法的计算结果与BLW法的结果做了比较 (在2011年，这个比较结果已经发表J. Comput. Chem. 2011 32, 248.). 所以，对BLW法的严重缺陷，我们是很清楚了. 没想到，这成了我与Schleyer 私下讨论时的核心问题. 因此，在整个私下讨论中，我能清楚地懂得他们在说啥，能理解他们想说啥. 但是, 在整个讨论过程中，他们三个教授中，竟然没有一个教授能懂得我在说啥(当然，这绝对不是语言问题产生的理解障碍). 大约在2006年6月29日，Schleyer 转来了他的朋友对我们论文的评价： “Professor Yu's main problem comes from his misunderstanding that localization means non-interaction. In his approach, the Fock and overlap integrals among localized pairs are set to zero. (This can be easily done as in the Orbital Deletion Procedure). Hence, there is no physical interactions among the pairs, but this is severely incorrect. Delocalization comes from the interactions between occupied and virtual orbitals. In localized systems, however, there are still Pauli exchange interactions among the pairs. But in Yu's approach, even this exchange interaction has been erased. This leads to incorrect results - a localized structure (e.g., GL of hexatriene in Fig.1) may have lower energy than a delocalized state. As a consequence, delocalization can appear to destablize a system. But this is totally wrong. If this were the case, nature will choose a localized state for the system. That's why the resonance energies derived from Yu's method are significantly underestimated. (I agree strongly; the total RE of benzene is about 60 kcal/mol and its ASE, relative to acyclic models, is about hal that. Benzene stabilization energies derived from thermochemical data do not range over 50 kcal/mol when all the contaminating effects of the improper models are taken into account. Kistakovsky's method, for example, does not take the hyperconjugation stabilization of his three cyclohexenes into account. This is worth about 30 kcal/mol total, so that the real RE of benzene is about 66 kcal/mol.” 我将这个评语概括成下述几点: (i) 苯分子中，双键之间的离域能只能产生于一个双键的占据轨道与另个双键空轨之间的作用. 但是，虞(就是本作者)的方法不仅消除了这个作用，还消除了交换作用. 所以，虞的方法是严重错误的; (ii) 虞得到的离域能是失稳定的，所以这完全是错误的；(iii)苯的共轭能是，60 kcal/mol, 虞的结果39 kcal/mol，虞低估了苯的芳香能。 根据Morokuma的定义，电子的离域产生于下述的轨道作用：(i) 一个双键的占据轨道与另一个双键的空轨道之间的电荷转移作用; (ii) 两个双键的占据轨道之间，包括两个双键之间的空轨道之间，的交换作用. 很显然，Schleyer 等人的关于电子的离域只产生域两个双键之间的电荷转移作用的观点是错误的. 正确的恰恰是我们的方法. 我相信，BLW法的建立者肯定知道Morokuma的关于电子离域的定义，肯定知道电子的离域不仅仅只产生与双键之间的电荷转移作用. 但是，BLW法只能消除双键之间的电荷转移作用，它没有能力也不可能消除双键之间的交换作用的. 这是由BLW法的计算原理决定的， 这才是BLW法的根本性的缺陷. 关于这点，我们很清楚，建立BLW法的教授心里也一定非常明白. 但是非常奇怪的是，他竟然不顾Morokuma的定义，不顾自己方法的根本性的缺陷，竟然居高临下地断言：我们的方法是完全错误的 (“severely incorrect”, “total wrong”)，是有严重问题的. 说我们的方法并不是“Fundamental different ” 而是”Fundamental flawed”. 由于我们是向Schleyer等教授请教的，尽管Schleyer教授再三要我们评论BLW法，要求我们与BLW法的计算结果做比较，但是我始终不对BLW做任何的评论. 因为我牢记JACS审稿人的一句话，不要轻易评论和批评他人的工作. 出于对他们几位教授的敬重，我在回复中，仅仅提到Morokuma的关于电子离域的定义，只是表明，我们的方法没有违背Morokuma能量分解的基本原理. 绝对没想到的是，在他们的回复(2006.6.30)中，竟然会这样说：”It's true that Morokuma's energy decomposition is also based on the deletion of certain Fock matrix elements. But there is a fundamental difference between Morokuma's and Yu's approaches. Morokuma's method correctly focuses on the MO's. Only the off-diagonal elements between occupied MO's in one fragment and the virtual MO's in another are set to zero. Note there is still an Pauli repulsion energy term in Morokuma's approach. However, in Yu's method, the AO Fock and overlap integral matrix elements among the fragments are set to zero. This will subsequently remove the Pauli repulsion among localized occupied MO's. I would suggest to Yu to compute a simple complex such as NH3...BH3 and compare his results (charge-transfer energy) with Morokuma's approach.” 他们的答复可以归结为两点：(i) 在Morokuma法中，也只是消除电荷转移作用，交换作用是保留的; (ii) 在Morokuma法中，Fock矩阵是以分子轨道为基，而在我们方法中是以原子轨道为基的. 所以，Morokuma法与我们的方法是不同的. 这时我才真正明白，Schleyer等三位教授确确实实不懂Morokuma法，因为他们是搞价键法的，他们必须努力维护价键理论， 所以它们大概从没有阅读过Morokuma的论文和专著. 自从1998年起，我们的近50多篇的能量分解的论文都是建立在Morokuma能量分解的基础上的，通过将Morokuma的分子之间的能量分解推广到分子内，逐步建立和发展了我们的新的能量分解法. 在本专著的第三章和第四章，叙述的就是Morokuma的分子之间的能量分解法在分子内的应用. 尤其是， 在2006年的JCC论文中(Bao, P.; Yu, Z. H. “Theoretical Studies on the Role of p-Electron Delocalization in Determining the Conformation of N-benzylideneaniline with Three Types of LMO Basis Sets“ , J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27,809), 我们已经详细地论证了，消除LFMO Fock ( LFMO：绝对定域的片断分子轨道) 矩阵元与消除AO Fock矩阵元是等价的. 到此，我已经明白，已经没有必要再与Schleyer等教授继续讨论Morokuma能量分解法了， 继续讨论电子离域的概念了. 所以，在回复Schleyer的邮件中，我只是婉转地引用Jug的消除AO矩阵元的方法 (Behrens, S.; Koster, A. M.; Jug, K. “delocalization Energy of a Electrons as an Index for Aromaticity of Polycyclic Hydrocarbons”, J. Org. Chem. 1994, 59, 2546). 意思是说，在Jug的方法中，也是通过消除AO Fock矩阵元的方法来建立定域态的. 经过三教授内部的讨论，他们做了如下的回复：“I also briefly read Jug's 1994 JOC paper again, where the authors proposed to derive a localized wavefunction by setting the off-diagonal Fock metric elements among localized parts to zero. This is rational as an effective way to get a strictly localized wavefunction. In the calculation of the energy of this localized wavefunction, no primitive atomic integral has been changed. This is fundamentally different from Yu's approach, where at least the overlap integarls have been set to zero.” 他们的意思是说，在我们的方法中，不仅设AO Fock 矩阵元为零，还设重叠积分矩阵元也等于零. 但是在Jug法中，仅仅设AO Fock 矩阵元为零。所以，这三个教授认为，Jug的方法与我们的方法是根本不同的. 面对这样的低级错误的回复，尽管我十分惊讶，我还是非常耐心地回复他们：“Jug 法是建立在半经验的SIND01法基础上，在半经验的方法中，非对角元的重叠积分本身就是等于零的，不必再设零了” 在讨论中，尽管我能懂得他们在说啥，想说啥，但是他们根本就不懂得我在说啥. 这样的讨论实在太累，完全没有必要再继续了. 在最后的回复中，我说：谢谢您们的帮助，我决定让步，将“电子离域是失稳定”的说法改成“GE-m和GL态之间的能差是失稳定的”. 实在没想到，在Schleyer的回复中，他竟然要求我们放弃这篇论文，他说：“In view of the shortcomings of your method, which you concede, I urge you to abandon it in favor of alternative analyses, which are soundly based”. 几天后，我们的论文投欧洲化学，出于尊敬，在致谢部分对Schleyer等表示感谢。正是这个感谢，导致Schleyer成了审稿人. 论文投出没几天，Schleyer 就通知我，他已经收到编辑部寄给他的论文， 他已经拒绝推荐我们的论文了，并且质问我，为何不通知他就投稿. 面对这个结果，我能说啥！ 最后，我们的论文被JPCA接受，并在2007年发表 (2007-JPCA 论文). 可能是，在致谢部分，我们删除了对Schleyer等三教授的感谢. 所以，Schleyer没有成为我们论文的审稿人. 其后，在Schleyer 教授的导演下，克罗地亚教授Maksic发表了对我们2007-JPCA论文的评论. 私下的讨论变成公开的争论, 学术讨论变成对我们研究的围剿，变成对我们投稿中的新论文的追杀. （待续） ============================================= (下面，是已经上传的第三部分的第一节，没有读过的博友可以继续) 序言 1997年，我的第一篇关于新的能量分解法的论文（也就是1998年在JPCA发表的）首先是投JACS. 一个审稿人说，我很难判断这篇论文到底是适合JACS还是JPC，但是在JPC发表肯定是没有问题的. 这个审稿人又说，写论文写自己的工作就足够了，不要评论他人的工作. 建议，在引言中有关评论他人工作的内容全部删除. 在其后的20年，我始终牢记那个审稿人的建议，从不轻易在论文中评论和批评他人的工作. 我们的关于芳香性的重要论文主要有下述四篇： 1. Yu, Z. H.; Xuan, Z. Q.; Wang, T. X.; Hai-Min Yu, H. M. “A Novel Energy Partition for Gaining New Insight into Aromaticity and Conjugation”, J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 1736. 2. Peng Bao, P.; Yu, Z. H. “Restricted Geometry Optimization: A Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types”, J. Phys. Chem. A 2007,111, 5304. 3. Bao, P.; Yu, Z. H. “Restricted geometry optimization for estimating stabilization energies of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons”, J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2010, 23, 16. 4. Bao, P.; Yu, Z. H. “New Procedure to Evaluate Aromaticity at the Density Functional Theory, Hartree–Fock, and Post-Self-Consistent Field Levels”, J. Comput. Chem, 2011, 32, 248. 为叙述方便，上述四篇论文分别被称为2000-JPCA, 2007-JPCA, 2010-JPOC, 2011-JCC. 其中，2000-JPCA的计算原理是限制轨道作用的单点能计算. 在这篇论文中，芳香分子的的垂直离域能大多是稳定的, 其他三篇的计算原理都是限制轨道作用的几何优化. 正如在前面两节特别强调的，在芳香分子内，局部的共轭效应是失稳定的. 随着分子轨道理论的高速发展，芳香性领域似乎是价键理论唯一尚存的领地. 我们的限制轨道作用的几何优化法的建立，直接威胁价键理论生存，尤其是威胁到BLW法的生存和发展. 因此，当我们的2007-JPCA的论文发表后，Schleyer 等采用三种方式，对我们的研究工作发动了围剿. 首先，Schleyer非常不满 (下面将详细说明具体的经过)我们的2007-JPCA论文的发表. 这导致，在2008年9月，克罗地亚的Zvonimir B. Maksic 教授向JPCA提交了一篇评论我们2007-JPCA的文章. 在这篇评论的手稿中，没有作者自己计算的任何数据，也没有引用他人的任何数据，几乎没有引用一篇文献. 作者用人身攻击的语言，以口号式的方式，企图全盘地否定我们的论文. 唯一的理由是，我们的局部共轭能是失稳定的. 这充分表明，Maksic 缺乏足够的专业知识，其行为违背了ACS的学术伦理. 但是，经Schleyer审阅后(果然, 审稿人是Schleyer)，推荐该评论文章的发表. 同时，Schleyer不仅拒绝推荐发表我们的答复，还要我们承认错误. 最后，JPCA的副主编威胁地说，如果我们不承认错误，今后将永远禁止我们在JPCA发表论文. 整个一系列的步骤，似乎由一个大人物在导演. 仅仅因为学术争论，就可以永久性地将论文的作者列入JPC的黑名单，在国际学术界，这几乎是闻所未闻的. 所以，我当即回复副主编说：“我可以判断审稿人是Schleyer教授，这次Schleyer等的行为，是一个学术丑闻. 我们将尽一切努力，来保卫我们的学术声誉. 将来，失去学术声誉的必定是Zvonimir B. Maksic.” 而后，我将Zvonimir B. Maksic的评论文章，我们得答复文章等，全部在我的博客上公布. 与此同时，他们又追杀我们后来发表在JPOC的论文（2010-JPOC论文）. 我们的2010-JPOC论文原先是投一个IF很高的刊物(2008年一月投出). 5个月后，第一审稿人完全同意，第二审稿人一直不表态， 最后请第三审稿人. 第一个审稿人意见是“ 对于进一步发展理论化学，作者的方法必定是有用的， 结论是具有启发性的，论文是必须可发表的”. 原文是：“The present authors' method for seek for the clue to the aromaticity by partly modifying the Fock matrices must be useful for further developing theoretical chemistry. General conclusions in this sense are instructive and so must be publishable.” 第三审稿人否决我们的论文，原文的部分内容是：“This study concerns the evaluation of aromacity for polycyclic benzenoid hydrocarbons (PBHs) by using the restricted geometry optimization technique, which was previously developed by the authors. However, the presentation of the manuscript is poor from the abstract till conclusions. The abstract is not an abstract and the introduction is not an introduction……….“ 我们的论文已经发表，大家可以看看，我们的论文是不是如第三审稿人所说的，”写得摘要不是摘要，引言不是引言的.“ 第三个方式是设陷进，引诱我们自己否定自己的2007-JPCA论文. 论文被否决后，2008年9月，也就在Zvonimir B. Maksic 教授向JPCA投出评论我们论文的同时，我们将论文转投北美的一个化学刊物. 第一个审稿人认为,这是一篇非常好的论文，同意推荐发表；第二审稿人认为不适合这个刊物，建议投更专业性的刊物，最后，主编转述第三审稿人的最后意见. 第三审稿人审我们论文的时间正好与JPCA审理我们与Maksic的争论同步. 第三个审稿人的意见非常奇妙. 第一个审稿人意见：“This is very good paper, which deals with an estimation of stabilization energies due to pi electron delocalization in a series of polycyclic benzenoid hydrocarbons. This group of compounds has been often used to check the validity of various hypothesis concerning behavior of aromatic compounds. The authors develop their original method published in J. Phys. Chem. A (2007) to be applied for polycyclic systems. I appreciate their work and I have no general objections as far as the procedure concerns.” 第三审稿人同意第二审稿人的意见，但是他又给予我们发表论文的第二个机会 (主编转述说：The adjudicative referee offers a second chance to publish your paper in XXX (XXX是刊物名), with the following revisions)，但是有四个条件. 下边是4个条件中的第四条： “(iv) The authors should emphasize that the reliability of their method has hardly been established and that the comparisons with the experimental resonance energy of benzene and with the reported values of the theoretical aromatic stabilization energy of benzene have their limitations in terms of reliability of the method.” 这就是说，如果我们想发表这篇论文，就必须强调指出，在2007-JPCA论文中，我们建立的限制轨道作用的几何优化是不可靠的. 这显然是在引诱我们，企图让我们自己否定自己的工作. 我们当即拒绝第三审稿人的建议. 最后，我们的论文在JPOC发表. 值得注意的是，我们的2010JPOC和2011-JCC论文的发表，是我在博客公开我们与Schleyer私下和公开的争论后. 这表明，国际学术界是公平的. 任何一个学术权威企图控制学术界是不可能的. 无论在私下的通讯还是在空开的争论中，对于Schleyer的学术贡献，我都表示尊重，对于Schleyer教授本人都表示尊敬. 但是面对一而再地围剿和追杀，我觉得有必要公开整个事件的过程. 整个过程包括： 1. 长达一个月的，与Schleyer等三位教授私下的通讯讨论 2. 公开争论:(i)博客公布我们与Maksic的争论;(ii)我们发表2011-JCC论文;(iii) 2011年向JPCA投正式批驳Maksic的评论，要求Maksic向我们道歉和撤销他的JPCA的评论文章. （待续）
厚积薄发 ——我的学术科研之路 进入研究生学习的几年中，我经常与导师龚一鸣教授讨论自己的科研体会以及未来的发展目标。开始的一年多时间里，我觉得自己文章发表得少，写好的论文又常被导师加很多批注，提很多问题，因此心里总觉得不是滋味，甚至还产生了一点抵触做科研、搞地质的情绪。后来，有机会作为国家公派留学生在澳大利亚进行为期一年的学习，慢慢体会到做科研是一个苦做功的过程，要埋下头去，脚踏实地，坐得住冷板凳；同时，也慢慢体会到做科研不只要有扎扎实实的积累，还要学会思考，尤其是学会跨学科、跨专业的思考，才会有更好的想法、更好的思路。 科研这条路，有人靠悟性，有人靠踏实刻苦；有人进入状态快些，有人则慢些，我想我是后者。在科研这条道路上，导师龚一鸣教授教给我的不只是做科研的方法、做科研的态度，还有更多的是科研以外的，那些从每个细节上我所体会到的如何做人、如何做事的风范。他常对我讲，科研是一条很辛苦的路，要不断地积累、不断地学习、不断地思考，哪怕有一分钟的懈怠，你都会觉得你已被甩下好远。我知道，他是这样说的，而他自己在三十年中也是坚持这样去做的。在我思想动摇的时候，也是龚老师的鼓励，使我更坚信自己。虽然有些时候我也偶尔对自己发发脾气，但终归能够调整状态，坚持下来。王国维说做学问有三重境界“第一重是独上高楼，望尽天涯路；第二重是衣带渐宽终不悔，为伊消得人憔悴；第三重是蓦然回首，那人却在灯火阑珊处。”现在如我，一年中却好似把三个阶段走了一遍。积累沉淀思考，再积累沉淀思考，然后有一些东西，就开始豁然开朗；不过随后又会发现更多的问题，更多的思考触点。所以也开始知道，其实做学问的人一直是在路上。“路漫漫其修远兮，吾将上下而求索”。 ——中国地质大学（武汉）地球科学学院古生物学与地层学博士研究生 张立军 一种融会贯通的感觉 回国以来，我体会到：当老师和做学生是不一样的。读本科时，我用学生的视角去看校园、学业和人生，常感到迷惘，不知自己将来要干什么。如今成了老师，同样走在校园里，视角变了。重心转为教学、科研、学术服务和社会服务，不再为学业和人生迷惘，反而能为学生出谋划策。以前做学生正如到食堂打饭、打菜，而当老师正如在“幕后”烧饭、做菜。有了两方面的经历，对大学的认识更全面了。 在国外时，我买不到中文书，只能读英文书。如博恩·崔西的Time Power、Eat That Frog，厄尼·泽林斯基的101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting等时间管理和人生哲理书。还有科研生存技能的书，如A PhD is Not Enough、Who Wants to be a Scientist、At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator。回国后，发现这些书已被引进出版。读了英文版再读中文版，理解更深入了。这正如本科时把老师指定的课本和其他大学的教材结合起来读，理解更深刻。 自己读书只是一个方面，通过教书更能加深认识。比如在国外读到一本101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting，感到极有启发。回国后，我校征集“复旦学院经典读书计划”指导老师，我毛遂自荐，推荐了这本书的中文版（中信出版社《生命中不该忘记的事》）。在小组活动中，不但学生学得津津有味，而且我从学生的讨论和自己的“备课”中得到很多启发，深化了对该书的认识，以后说不定还可以发表书评。 还有专业教学：学生读书时，老师教什么就学什么，不求甚解。而当老师后教专业课，完全是两回事。备课很花时间，不但要看很多教科书，而且要制作PPT、反复试讲等。这对自己巩固专业知识很有用！例如我在讲授英语科技论文写作前，准备了很多材料。通过准备，形成了完整的框架，以后无论是指导研 究生、开讲座，还是写讲义或者介绍性 的文章都不愁了。这就是融会贯通的 好处。 还有很多融会贯通的事儿。比如，在国外时读过一些国内同行的科研论文，甚至审过他们的稿子，回国后参加学术会议碰到，把脸和名字对应起来，这也是一种融会贯通。同理，读者读了我的博客，只见文字，不谋其面，在国内开会碰到，把脸和博客对应起来，这也是一种融会贯通。 了解、认识、感悟、升华......融会贯通的感觉真好！生命是一段旅程，不是终极目标。在旅途中看到的风景，比到达目的地更重要呢。 ——复旦大学环境科学与工程系副研究员 马臻 （责任编辑 李娜，张杰青）
What Chinese College Graduates Go Through 点击上面的链接可以看到纽约时报的读者来信评论，下面是一些评论摘要。真正的旁观者清啊。当然其中也有一位化学教授在中国院系统工作了一年，对中国学生的努力和聪明给予了很高的评价。 Chinese vs. Western Graduates My observation from hiring both Chinese and Western graduates is that with Chinese graduates, you get a much better guarantee of someone who will actually work hard at their task for 8 hours a day, but, you will need to supervise them and give them a great deal of guidance. With Western graduates, about 75 percent of them are completely useless because they are so undisciplined and lacking in basic knowledge. The remaining 25 percent, however, and pure gold. They attack problems creatively, are eager to show you their best and rapidly take to new tasks and challenges. I hope this can point out some of the flaws in the Western education system that challenges the best, but leaves the average students coddled and overly confident in their abilities. — J; Beijing 我非常同意这样一个观察结果。中国学生和年轻职工，在完成一项具体事情上时很能干，可是缺少自我管理能力，缺少长远眼光。换句话说，中国学生总体上，缺少在Vision, Mission, and Values三个方面的真正思考和训练，而这正是西方所倡导的Liberal Education的真正意义。我的个人浅见是，中国的人文教育被非常庸俗地归 结为一句话：做事先做人。又曰：听话、出活。 "... Perhaps most important is the huge difference between how Chinese and Americans value an university education. In China, high school and the gaokao exam scores are the apex of many students’ education. While the prestige of the university is very important for parents and students, the quality of education that a student receives at university is not always of the greatest concern." 这句话说得太对了。中国普通家庭，大体上在子女考上大学后都会长嘘一口气，自己的孩子在大学里学得什么，再也很少过问了。直到哪一天，孩子被要求劝退了，家长们又辞工到学校附近来蜗居陪读。 "... There is little reason to study if you know you will receive your degree regardless of your class performance. In turn, faculty and administrators lack incentive to improve their programs because parents and students often are more concerned about receiving a degree than receiving a quality education." 宽进严出在中国几乎成为一个禁忌词，讨论了多少年，还没有见到一个学校真正实施。按道理，从经济的角度，中国的大学最有可能实现宽进严出，因为财政拨款似乎不会直接与毕业率挂钩，不像北美私立学校，退掉一个学生，学费马上就没有了。但是优秀的大学仍然知道质量取胜的道理。 "... the other 95 percent of educators in China are just scraping by and have no interest in the job. // The curriculum are mandated by bureaucrats, equally lacking in dedication. The system of entrance exams is rigged against the poor, and the rote memory methodology rewards good memory and cheating. Thinking is not required, memorization is required." 教师不敬业；教学大纲受官僚控制，粗编滥造。 "... Having the piece of paper -- not the degree -- is what employers require. The Human Resources profession is a joke in China , so interview skills on the employer side are a joke as well, and since getting ahead is a function of who you suck up to, not what you are capable of, why should it be a surprise that a degree is worthless?" 只要你认识人，你就能进去，才不管你有没有能力！ Delayed Adolescence "Many middle-class Chinese kids from the city have never worked or held a job until after they finish college." 迟熟品种 -------------------------- 一小时后补充：如果大家愿意花点时间看那篇报道的另外几位华裔教授的观点，真是让人不安。下面再次拷贝那里的一个读者的留言： 1. Jack D Shanghai December 3rd, 2010 4:21 am Unfortunately I have to concur with this assessment. Having hired and fired more than a few"straight out of university" employees, my experience has been mostly negative. They come in with high marks and high wage demands but can't complete even the simplest real world tasks. They might be able to solve math problems quickly but real world problems leave them frozen. 5. The Ryan Beijing December 3rd, 2010 10:31 am I couldn't agree more with Jack. It is an unfortunate reality that has shown up time after time. And what's worse is that even experienced hires and domestic managers often disappoint as well. I don't walk in with a bias to bring in an assignee or expat, but that is often where I end up after I have wasted my time interviewing others who come in with high hopes and high demands. Something is not right with their system . 8. Josh Pittsburgh December 3rd, 2010 10:50 am This analysis is so wrong that I do not know where I should to start to rebut. First of all, the problem of China higher education is not Gaokao. The entrance exam is vigorous and fair to everybody. It is a much better system that the US SAT exams. The US college admission system is plagued with so many corruptions: subjective, often with personal prejudice assessment by a reader, all sorts of political and financial agenda, favoritism, racial and ethnic preference. Based on my teaching experience in a major US research university, an average chinese high school graduate can easily outperform an American counterpart in math and science in average. Now here is the problem: Most of the post-doc fellows from China in my lab appear very weak and inappropriate trained, even from some of the most elite Chinese Universities, at least in the beginning. I sometimes wonder whether Chinese are running some diploma mills. The problems of Chinese college or graduate school graduates are not because of GaoKao, but with its college education curriculum and training for the students. These problems lie with the quality of its college professors and administrators, not of high school. They should reform the University education system with more vigorous screening of qualified faculties and programs, but should keep its college admission system. You grossly misdiagnose the disease. 14. Shanghai Jill Asheville, NC December 3rd, 2010 11:17 am When I was living in China, I was hiring an assistant and the resumes poured in touting their English proficiency, yet when it came to the interviews, very few could communicate with me. They'd passed the tests without learning to speak on a rudimentary level. Also, once I'd hired people, they weren't that curious about learning the business and if something else came along, they'd just leave. The odds that an assistant will stay a year are very slim. Which is not to say that all Chinese college grads are lazy. I hired and met a lot of very bright and curious young people -- but only after a good bit of digging. The teach to test system has also had a very big effect on innovation. If all you think about is learning it the way you are told, you don't think outside the box and that is where innovation comes from. I think it explains why China is great at copying but not so great at invention (at least in the last century.) 这个可是真实的上海、北京的外资企业外方人员对中国大学毕业生的评价啊？我们的大学，教了学生解决什么样的real world tasks? 尊敬的科网编辑：能否将此文置顶，让大家讨论一下这个话题？什么叫国际竞争力？本土人才不能在本国外资企业中保持住饭碗，谈什么创建一流大学？ 谢谢编辑。 同时谢谢各位推荐。 -------------------------------------------- 再及：为什么美国人会关心中国的教育问题？ 最近相关信息：上海中学生被评价为世界上最聪明的学生；加拿大MACLEAN杂志认为亚裔学生过于注重学业，忽视课外社团、社交活动。
标签: 读者
![[转载]让书香盈满心房 4](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201206/05/120041cqmox0p2fbccbtmp.jpg.thumb.jpg)
