Notes from literature reading: “Empirical evidence that soil carbon formation from plant inputs is positively related to microbial growth”, Bradford et al. 2013 Plant inputs include aboveground litter, root litter and root exudation. The chemical composition of all these forms of plant inputs contain low molecular weight C compounds (LMWC), i.e. dissolved sugars, organic acids and amino acids. LMWC inputs are not directly decomposed and transferred to CO 2 efflux, but could be used by microbes and then becomes the dominant precursors for formation of stable soil organic carbon. However, the different respiration rates and microbial use efficiencies of different LMWC forms, over flow metabolism theory and preferential assimilation all suggest the different contributions of various LMWC forms to SOC formation. The forms of LMWC ortheir proportions would vary with plant species shift under global environmental changes. Therefore, it is urgently needed to investigate how LMWC compound identity influences SOM formation under global environmental changes. In this study, the authors added 13 C- glucose and glycine to the soil collars in field experiments to quantify C partitioning to respiration,microbial biomass, SOM, soil solution and plants and, therefore, clarified which LMWC form with higher contributions to SOC formation. This experiment was designed with four treatments (water, N, P, and N+P) and replicated three times, which totally twelve plots. The twelve plots were part into three blocks.Three soil collars were put in each plot and were added with 13 C-glucose and glycine for 28 weeks. The measured variables included: soilrespiration, 13 C contents of CO 2 efflux, and the mass of plant shoots, roots and microbes, and their %C, %N, 13 C- and 15 N-contents.Linear mixed-effects models were used for the statistical analysis conducting in the freeware statistical package R. The results suggested microbial biomassis a dominant precursor for SOM, and glucose had greater contribution to SOM formation from three hypotheses relating to growth efficiencies, preferential assimilation and biomass turnover. This study investigated controls on SOM formation from LMWC compounds, not on how addition of these compounds influenced bulk SOM stocks. 13 C stable isotopes were used to completely clarify the fates of LWMC inputs and the C partition in different pools. The chronic amendments of dissolved compounds, not pulsed additions, are more representative of processes such as root exudation. The random effects from the spatial (i.e. blocks) and temporal (e.g.soil respiration measure time) were accounted for by using the linear mixed-effects models for statistical analysis. In addition, the results were closely related to three hypotheses relating to growth efficiencies, preferential assimilation and biomass turnover on SOM formation from glucose and glycine.
和工程师不同，基础研究的成果就是论文，SCI或者非SCI。几十年之后，99.99%以上的论文和99.9%的从事基础研究的科学家会被人完全遗忘。既然如此，我们的工作还有意义吗？我们为什么还要冒这种虚度一生的危险？诺贝尔奖获得者，理论物理学家 Steven Weinberg 的一番话，或许能给我们一些启发。 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Four golden lessons — Advice to students at the start of their scientific careers Steven Weinberg When I received my undergraduate degree — about a hundred years ago — the physics literature seemed to me a vast, unexplored ocean, every part of which I had to chart before beginning any research of my own. How could I do anything without knowing everything that had already been done? Fortunately, in my first year of graduate school, I had the good luck to fall into the hands of senior physicists who insisted, over my anxious objections, that I must start doing research, and pick up what I needed to know as I went along. It was sink or swim. To my surprise, I found that this works . I managed to get a quick PhD — though when I got it I knew almost nothing about physics. But I did learn one big thing: that no one knows everything, and you don’t have to. Another lesson to be learned, to continue using my oceanographic metaphor, is that while you are swimming and not sinking you should aim for rough water. When I was teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1960s, a student told me that he wanted to go into general relativity rather than the area I was working on, elementary particle physics, because the principles of the former were well known, while the latter seemed like a mess to him. It struck me that he had just given a perfectly good reason for doing the opposite. Particle physics was an area where creative work could still be done. It really was a mess in the 1960s, but since that time the work of many theoretical and experimental physicists has been able to sort it out, and put everything (well, almost everything) together in a beautiful theory known as the standard model. My advice is to go for the messes — that’s where the action is. My third piece of advice is probably the hardest to take. It is to forgive yourself for wasting time. Students are only asked to solve problems that their professors (unless unusually cruel) know to be solvable. In addition, it doesn’t matter if the problems are scientifically important — they have to be solved to pass the course. But in the real world, it’s very hard to know which problems are important, and you never know whether at a given moment in history a problem is solvable. At the beginning of the twentieth century, several leading physicists, including Lorentz and Abraham, were trying to work out a theory of the electron. This was partly in order to understand why all attempts to detect effects of Earth’s motion through the ether had failed. We now know that they were working on the wrong problem. At that time, no one could have developed a successful theory of the electron, because quantum mechanics had not yet been discovered. It took the genius of Albert Einstein in 1905 to realize that the right problem on which to work was the effect of motion on measurements of space and time. This led him to the special theory of relativity. As you will never be sure which are the right problems to work on, most of the time that you spend in the laboratory or at your desk will be wasted. If you want to be creative, then you will have to get used to spending most of your time not being creative, to being becalmed on the ocean of scientific knowledge. Finally, learn something about the history of science, or at a minimum the history of your own branch of science. The least important reason for this is that the history may actually be of some use to you in your own scientific work. For instance, now and then scientists are hampered by believing one of the oversimplified models of science that have been proposed by philosophers from Francis Bacon to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. The best antidote to the philosophy of science is a knowledge of the history of science. More importantly, the history of science can make your work seem more worthwhile to you. As a scientist, you’re probably not going to get rich. Your friends and relatives probably won’t understand what you’re doing. And if you work in a field like elementary particle physics, you won’t even have the satisfaction of doing something that is immediately useful. But you can get great satisfaction by recognizing that your work in science is a part of history. Look back 100 years, to 1903. How important is it now who was Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1903, or President of the ? What stands out as really important is that at , Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy were working out the nature of radioactivity. This work (of course!) had practical applications, but much more important were its cultural implications. The understanding of radioactivity allowed physicists to explain how the Sun and Earth’s cores could still be hot after millions of years. In this way, it removed the last scientific objection to what many geologists and paleontologists thought was the great age of the Earth and the Sun. After this, Christians and Jews either had to give up belief in the literal truth of the Bible or resign themselves to intellectual irrelevance. This was just one step in a sequence of steps from Galileo through and to the present that, time after time, has weakened the hold of religious dogmatism. Reading any newspaper nowadays is enough to show you that this work is not yet complete. But it is civilizing work, of which scientists are able to feel proud. ---------------------------------------------- 是的，我们的工作可能就是一粒沙，一滴水，但它仍然是科学的历史的一部分。 （有感于在科学网上不断有人对基础研究说三道四。）
莫言获2012年诺贝尔文学奖 更新时间 2012年10月11日, 格林尼治标准时间12:31 中国作家莫言获得2012年诺贝尔文学奖，成为获得该奖项的首位中国籍作家。 诺贝尔文学奖委员会说莫言获奖是因为他讲述了“人与幻觉的现实主义融合的民间故事”。 在此之前，旅居法国的中国大陆作家高行健在2000年获得诺贝尔文学奖，成为首位获得此奖项的华人作家。 相比高行健当年获奖后中国官方媒体的沉默，莫言的获奖在中央电视台马上得以公布，并强调他是“有史以来获得诺贝尔文学奖的首位中国籍作家”。 瑞典学院秘书皮特·英格兰德说，瑞典学院曾经联系过莫言，他表示“对获奖感到高兴同时也害怕。” 诺贝尔文学奖评委提到的莫言作品包括《红高粱》、《天堂蒜薹之歌》。 英格兰德说，“莫言写过11部小说和数以百计的短篇小说。如果你要了解他的写作和他的道德中心点，那么我推荐你看他的《天堂蒜薹之歌》。” 莫言今年4月来伦敦参加书展时曾接受BBC中文网的采访，他说自己是一个“现实主义作家”，但是手法是魔幻的。 莫言还回应外界有关他的作品主题多为历史题材，认为“我觉得写历史题材未必自由，因为我们一写历史，你想写到国民党和共产党的战争，你自由吗？不自由。我们写到抗日战争，你自由吗？也不自由。所以写历史未必比写现实自由，反而写到当下的生活，我觉得它呈现了更多特彩。” “而历史的特彩在我们的教科书里已经被固化了，不是红，即是白。是吧。我们就是试图在红白之间找到一种共通的东西。” Chinese author Mo Yan has been awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize for literature. Mo Yan is the author's pen name, which means 'don't speak' A prolific author, Mo has published dozens of short stories, with his first work published in 1981. The Swedish Academy praised his work which " with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary ". The 57-year-old is the first Chinese resident to win the prize. Chinese-born Gao Xingjian was honoured in 2000, but is a French citizen. Mo is the 109th recipient of the prestigious prize, won last year by Swedish poet Tomas Transtroemer. Presented by the Nobel Foundation, the award - only given to living writers - is worth 8 million kronor (￡741,000). "He has such a unique way of writing. If you read half a page of Mo Yan you immediately recognise it as him," said Peter Englund, head of the Academy. He said Mo had been told of the award, adding: "He was at home with his dad. He said he was overjoyed and terrified." Born Guan Moye, the author writes under the pen name Mo Yan, which means "don't speak" in Chinese. He began writing while a soldier in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and received international fame in 1987 for Red Sorghum: A Novel of China. Made into a film which won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival in 1988, the novella was a tale of the brutal violence in the eastern China countryside where he grew up during the 1920s and 1930s. Favouring to write about China's past rather than contemporary issues, the settings for Mo's works range from the 1911 revolution, Japan's wartime invasion and Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution. "He has a very impressive oeuvre," Michel Hockx, Professor of Chinese at the University of London, said. "He has a large readership and he addresses the human condition in a way in which the Nobel Committee likes to see." Mo's other acclaimed works include Republic of Wine, Life And Death Are Wearing Me Out and Big Breasts and Wide Hips. The latter book caused controversy when it was published in 1995 for its sexual content and depicting a class struggle contrary to the Chinese Communist Party line. The author was forced by the PLA to withdraw it from publication although it was pirated many times. After it was translated into English a decade later, the book won him a nomination for the Man Asian Literary Prize. Despite his social criticism Mo is seen in his homeland as one of the foremost contemporary authors, however critics have accused him of being too close to the Communist Party. "A writer should express criticism and indignation at the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature," the author said in a speech at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2009. "Some may want to shout on the street, but we should tolerate those who hide in their rooms and use literature to voice their opinions." His latest novel, Frog, about China's "one child" population control policy, won the Mao Dun Literature Prize - one of his country's most prestigious literature prizes - last year. Mo and the other Nobel laureates for medicine, physics, chemistry and peace, will receive their prizes at formal ceremonies in Stockholm and Oslo on 10 December - the anniversary of the death of prize creator Alfred Nobel in 1896. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19907762
by Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D., C.Psych. (Research Director, Graduate Program in Counselling Psychology. Trinity Western University Langley, BC, Canada) Most students and beginning researchers do not fully understand what a research proposal means, nor do they understand its importance. To put it bluntly, one’s research is only as a good as one’s proposal. An ill-conceived proposal dooms the project even if it somehow gets through the Thesis Supervisory Committee. A high quality proposal, on the other hand, not only promises success for the project, but also impresses your Thesis Committee about your potential as a researcher. A research proposal is intended to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project and that you have the competence and the work-plan to complete it. Generally, a research proposal should contain all the key elements involved in the research process and include sufficient information for the readers to evaluate the proposed study. Regardless of your research area and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions: What you plan to accomplish, why you want to do it and how you are going to do it. The proposal should have sufficient information to convince your readers that you have an important research idea, that you have a good grasp of the relevant literature and the major issues, and that your methodology is sound. The quality of your research proposal depends not only on the quality of your proposed project, but also on the quality of your proposal writing. A good research project may run the risk of rejection simply because the proposal is poorly written. Therefore, it pays if your writing is coherent, clear and compelling. This paper focuses on proposal writing rather than on the development of research ideas. Title: It should be concise and descriptive . For example, the phrase, “An investigation of . . .” could be omitted. Often titles are stated in terms of a functional relationship, because such titles clearly indicate the independent and dependent variables. However, if possible, think of an informative but catchy title. An effective title not only pricks the reader’s interest, but also predisposes him/her favourably towards the proposal. Abstract: It is a brief summary of approximately 300 words. It should include the research question, the rationale for the study, the hypothesis (if any), the method and the main findings . Descriptions of the method may include the design, procedures, the sample and any instruments that will be used. Introduction: The main purpose of the introduction is to provide the necessary background or context for your research problem. How to frame the research problem is perhaps the biggest problem in proposal writing. If the research problem is framed in the context of a general, rambling literature review, then the research question may appear trivial and uninteresting. However, if the same question is placed in the context of a very focused and current research area , its significance will become evident. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules on how to frame your research question just as there is no prescription on how to write an interesting and informative opening paragraph. A lot depends on your creativity, your ability to think clearly and the depth of your understanding of problem areas . However, try to place your research question in the context of either a current “hot” area, or an older area that remains viable. Secondly, you need to provide a brief but appropriate historical backdrop . Thirdly, provide the contemporary context in which your proposed research question occupies the central stage. Finally, identify “key players” and refer to the most relevant and representative publications . In short, try to paint your research question in broad brushes and at the same time bring out its significance. The introduction typically begins with a general statement of the problem area, with a focus on a specific research problem, to be followed by the rational or justification for the proposed study. The introduction generally covers the following elements : 1. State the research problem , which is often referred to as the purpose of the study. 2. Provide the context and set the stage for your research question in such a way as to show its necessity and importance. 3. Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doin g. 4. Briefly describe the major issues and sub-problems to be addressed by your research. 5. Identify the key independent and dependent variables of your experiment. Alternatively, specify the phenomenon you want to study. 6. State your hypothesis or theory , if any. For exploratory or phenomenological research, you may not have any hypotheses. (Please do not confuse the hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis.) 7. Set the delimitation or boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. 8. Provide definitions of key concepts . (This is optional.) Literature Review: Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introduction section. However, most professors prefer a separate section, which allows a more thorough review of the literature. The literature review serves several important functions: 1. Ensures that you are not “reinventing the wheel”. 2. Gives credits to those who have laid the groundwork for your research. 3. Demonstrates your knowledge of the research problem. 4. Demonstrates your understanding of the theoretical and research issues related to your research question. 5. Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant literature information. 6. Indicates your ability to integrate and synthesize the existing literature. 7. Provides new theoretical insights or develops a new mode l as the conceptual framework for your research. 8. Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature). Most students’ literature reviews suffer from the following problems: * Lacking organization and structure * Lacking focus, unity and coherence * Being repetitive and verbose * Failing to cite influential papers * Failing to keep up with recent developments * Failing to critically evaluate cited papers * Citing irrelevant or trivial references * Depending too much on secondary sources Your scholarship and research competence will be questioned if any of the above applies to your proposal. There are different ways to organize your literature review. Make use of subheadings to bring order and coherence to your review. For example, having established the importance of your research area and its current state of development, you may devote several subsections on related issues as: theoretical models, measuring instruments, cross-cultural and gender differences, etc. It is also helpful to keep in mind that you are telling a story to an audience. Try to tell it in a stimulating and engaging manner. Do not bore them, because it may lead to rejection of your worthy proposal. (Remember: Professors and scientists are human beings too.) Methods: The Method section is very important because it tells your Research Committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. It will provide your work plan and describe the activities necessary for the completion of your project. The guiding principle for writing the Method section is that it should contain sufficient information for the reader to determine whether methodology is sound. Some even argue that a good proposal should contain sufficient details for another qualified researcher to implement the study. You need to demonstrate your knowledge of alternative methods and make the case that your approach is the most appropriate and most valid way to address your research question. Please note that your research question may be best answered by qualitative research. However, since most mainstream psychologists are still biased against qualitative research, especially the phenomenological variety, you may need to justify your qualitative method. Furthermore, since there are no well-established and widely accepted canons in qualitative analysis, your method section needs to be more elaborate than what is required for traditional quantitative research. More importantly, the data collection process in qualitative research has a far greater impact on the results as compared to quantitative research. That is another reason for greater care in describing how you will collect and analyze your data. (How to write the Method section for qualitative research is a topic for another paper.) For quantitative studies , the method section typically consists of the following sections: 1. Design -Is it a questionnaire study or a laboratory experiment? What kind of design do you choose? 2. Subjects or participants - Who will take part in your study ? What kind of sampling procedure do you use? 3. Instruments - What kind of measuring instruments or questionnaires do you use? Why do you choose them? Are they valid and reliable? 4. Procedure - How do you plan to carry out your study? What activities are involved? How long does it take? Results: Obviously you do not have results at the proposal stage. However, you need to have some idea about what kind of data you will be collecting , and what statistical procedures will be used in order to answer your research question or test you hypothesis. Discussion: It is important to convince your reader of the potential impact of your proposed research. You need to communicate a sense of enthusiasm and confidence without exaggerating the merits of your proposal. That is why you also need to mention the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research, which may be justified by time and financial constraints as well as by the early developmental stage of your research area. Common Mistakes in Proposal Writing 1. Failure to provide the proper context to frame the research question. 2. Failure to delimit the boundary conditions for your research. 3. Failure to cite landmark studies. 4. Failure to accurately present the theoretical and empirical contributions by other researchers. 5. Failure to stay focused on the research question. 6. Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research. 7. Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues. 8. Too much rambling — going “all over the map” without a clear sense of direction. (The best proposals move forward with ease and grace like a seamless river.) 9. Too many citation lapses and incorrect references. 10. Too long or too short. 11. Failing to follow the APA style. 12. Slopping writing. 下面是来自其他一些学术从业者关于如何写proposal的意见： * Writing Research Proposals, Drew University On-line resources for writers. * Guide to Writing a Research Proposal, University of Technology, Sydney. (A research proposal is required for admission to the program.) * Beginners Guide to the Research Proposal, University of Calgary Centre for Advancement of Health. * The Art of Writing Proposals: Some Candid Suggestions for Applicants to Social Science Research Council Competitions, Adam Przeworski and Frank Salomon. * The Elements of a Proposal, Frank Pajares, Emory University. 以及，关于如何写学位论文proposal的指导（Dissertation Proposal Writing and some strategies for completing the dissertation） * Dissertation Proposal Workshop, Institute of International Studies, UC-Berkeley. * Writing and Presenting your Thesis or Dissertation , LearningAssociates.net. * Dissertation/Project Hints: Proposal Writing, Hazel Hall, School of Computing, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK. * Writing Theses and Dissertations, Claremont Graduate University Writing Center.
Lutz Bornmann在Scientometrics (2011) 86:173–177发表了一篇题为“Mimicry in science?”的文章。这篇文章涉及了一些科研评价、科研人员的行为等有关话题。正好这几天在与几位前辈探讨中涉及到了这方面的内容。下面对这篇文章的主要内容做了一些翻译，与大家分享，从中也许可以获得一些感兴趣的研究主题。 Abstract： Since bibliometric indicators have obtained a general acceptance in science policy and attained applied relevance in research evaluation, feedback effects on scientists’ behaviour resulting from the use of these indicators for science funding decisions have been reported. These adaptation strategies could be called mimicry in science. Scientists apply strategies that should enable them to comply to bibliometric accountability and to secure funds to their own research. Keywords： Research evaluation Mimicry Scientific progress Bibliometric data are being used by leading and fast-growing countries in science for research evaluation purposes. In UK the allocation of public funds to the universities will be mainly carried out according to these data. “The Government has a firm presumption that after the 2008 RAE the system for assessing research quality and allocating “quality-related” (QR) research funding to universities from the Department for Education and Skills will be mainly metrics-based (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006)“. Due to this development “the death of peer review” in the allocation of research funds is being discussed (Gilbert 2006). The reason for the popularity of bibliometrics compared to peer review is seen in lower costs and criticism of the peer review system (Weingart 2005). In an ever more complex science system, bibliometric analysis should allow for evaluation of mass-data no longer understandable to the single reviewer (Butler 2004). 科研人员行为的耦合 Back coupling on scientists’behaviour Since science funding has become more and more determined by principles of ‘publish or perish,’ the following changes of publication behaviour have been reported in the literature (see here Lawrence 2003; Research Evaluation and Policy Project 2005): (1) To increase probability of acceptance of their papers by a journal, scientists tend to do research in accordance with the mainstream in their fields and avoid unusual research (e.g. risky, interdisciplinary or long-term); (2) To be able to come to publishable results more quickly, scientists pursue short-term rather than longterm research; (3) Scientists attempt to provide their paper to low-quality journals as long as these journals are indexed by literature data bases used for bibliometric analyses in research evaluation; (4) To boost the number of publications, scientists slice their findings as thin as salami and submit these to different journals even though findings could be presented in a single paper. 当科学基金越来越被"出版或出局"这个规则所决定时，科研人员的发文行为就会出现下面一些特点： （1）为了增加自己论文被一个期刊录用，科研人员的研究会更加遵循所在领域的主流研究，而放弃一些冒险、跨学科、长期研究等“不太规矩”的研究。 （2）为了能够尽快发表其研究成果，科研人员更趋向于一些短期研究。 （3）科学家会尝试在一些质量相对较低，但是又科研评价中被确定的期刊上发表论文。 （4）有的时候，一篇文章本来就可以把一项研究成果一次性发表，但科研人员会象切香肠一样，把一项研究内容有意识地拆开，然后在不同期刊上发表。 这种现象在生物学上叫“仿生”（mimicry，Patent 1978） Fraser and Martin (2009)研究发现，在科学论文中经常会出现关键的、决定性的、重要的（e.g. pivotal, crucial, and essential）等词汇。这个发现是科研人员想通过这些词汇的运用来增加其论文被录用的可能性。Merton (1938)认为，在这种极端的“仿生”会导致一个混乱的状态。Merton (1938)研究了社会结构如何影响对特定的人群，这种影响是鼓励这些人群去遵守规则，还是不守规范。如果“赢得比赛”超过了“在一定规则下赢得比赛”，那么破坏规则的现象就会发生(Martinson et al. 2006)。如果科研人员去迎合基于评价指标的目标，科学不端行为的现象就会出现。很多情况下，发文的压力会导致学术不端行为的出现。中国一些大学的高质量成果与奖金、房子、津贴等挂钩的同时，也在面临着不少学术失范行为（Qiu 2010）。 Increase in productivity as an effect of national research evaluation systems 发文量增加对国家科研评价系统的影响 在过去一些年，除英国外，象澳大利亚、芬兰等国家利用评价系统来分配科研资金的做法被不断完善 (see an overview in Macilwain 2010; Schneider 2009)。一些调杳表明，这些评价系统对科研人员的行为产生了一定的影响。在澳大利亚(Butler 2003, 2004)，自从“发文等于基金”（formula based funding）的制度实施之后，科研人员每年的发文量有了很大的提升 (如发文的与基金分配的关系），虽然这些文章被发表在WOS收录的期刊上，但多数是在低影响因子的期刊上。 Glaser and Laudel (2007)的5位访谈者表示，他们改变了他们的发文策略：发更多的论文、独立发表论文、在高影响力的期刊上发文。而且被采访对象更倾向于一些应用性和热点研究主题的论文。在西班牙，科研人员根据the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI, Madrid)的规定在高水平的期刊发表其成果。一项对科研政策影响的测度表明：首先，这种政策导致了西班牙科研人员发文习惯的变化，其次，科研人员在ISI收录的西班牙期刊上发文的数据在增加；第三，西班牙文献计量数据库的source items趋于稳定(Jimenez-Contreras et al. 2002)。同样的影响也其它的研究中被发现（Rey et al. 1998）。UK RAE Moed (2008) 发现，三种明显的文献计量模式可以来解释科研人员对RAE标准的适应。RAE1992强调发文总数时，英国科研人员的发文量就出现一个确定的增长。当RAE1996注重由数量向质量转变时，英国科研人员的发文和被引次数都有了提高。在1997–2000年之间，机构增加了其科研人员的数量，并鼓励研究人员之间紧密合作，即使论文并不是真正合作的产物。 Possibilities of increasing citation impact 提高引用影响的可能性 与发文量相比，被引次数对科研人员似乎是不敏感的。但是Bornmann and Daniel (2007)研究结论正好相反。......只有少数研究人员能够看较多的所在领域的文献，因此，写越多的论文，其被引用的可能性越大。 Do behavioural changes contribute to scientific advancements in science? 科研人员的行为变化对科学发展是否有益？ 世界各中政府要求科研人员有更多的产出才能获得持续的支持 (Mervis 2007)。评价体系的引入希望能够提升科研人员产出的数量与质量。这种系统导致科研人员行为的变化正是政府想要的结果。数量是指在同行评审期刊上发表的论文数量，研究的影响和重要性是通过被引次数来衡量的(National Science Board 2010)。一些研究表明，这种适应过程在实际中被观察到。不管这种科学中的“仿生现象”如何解释，没有对科研起步产生正面影响而被科研人员人为操纵是错误的。Evidence Ltd（2007）：一个与基金分配相关的指标，它一开始就失去了最初扮演某个角色的信息内容。有了一所可操纵的房子，就可能会导致在些意外行为只是去获得部分研究过程和它的利益。 这种行为的适应性也可以对科技进行有正面的影响。一方面，科研人员在SCI收录的低影响因子上发文是负面的，另一方面，这些期刊能够作为来源刊，它们也是要达到一定标准的。低影响因子期刊比高影响因子期刊的质量相对较差，但还是要好于那些没有被作为来源刊的期刊。一方面，好多研究人员都倾向于主流的研究是有问题的，但这些主流是一个领域最重要的研究内容。追求短期影响就真的比长期的研究会影响科学的进步吗（(Laloe¨ and Mosseri 2009)?）在大科学时代，短期影响会不会影响规则？要回答这些类似的“科学仿生问题“，要深入研究评价系统、发文行为和引用行为的适应性和科学知识生产需要之间的联系是非常必要的。 （In times of big science (de Solla Price 1965), isn’t short-term impact the rule? To be able to answer these and similar questions concerning mimicry in science satisfyingly, the results of in-depth analysis on the relationship between an evaluation-based research system, adaptation of the publication and citation behaviour and scientific knowledge production are needed.） 原文可以从： http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/Mimicry.pdf 下载 一点感受：一个评价系统，一个评价指标，总有其局限。系统、指标并无严格的好坏之分，更多的应该是如何合理去应用。应用得当，扬长避短，就有可能事半功倍。
一个关于PubMed数据库各种API的webinar： Software developers are invited to join NLM data experts as they showcase NLM APIs and provide valuable information on how to find, use, and incorporate medical literature, drug, clinical trial, consumer health information, molecular biology, and other data into novel products. The free webinar, NLM API Showcase: Using NLM APIs for Product Development , will be held April 10, 2012 from 2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (ET) . 具体内容见如下网址： http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/ma12/ma12_api_webinar.html
Culture Computing’ 2012, Oct. 22-24, Hangzhou, China Web: http://www.iccc2012.com:2012/ Contact: Fan Dai, "dmhci" dmhci@hznu.edu.cn, To bring the computing techniques into the culture may be one of the newest research trends in recently. There are many successful research topics, which integrate the culture and computing, e.g. evaluating the trend of literature culture via data mining, constructing the scenes of culture heritages via 3D modeling, reappearing the culture heritages via AI etc. The International Conference on Culture and Computing (Culture Computing) will be held in Hangzhou, a famous city with many cultural heritages in China, to provide an opportunity to share research issues and discuss the future of culture and computing. To get more information about this series conference and understand the proceedings at the previous conference, please visit http://www.ai.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/culture2011/. The third conference (Culture Computing 2012) will be organized with an exhibition on the integration of state of the art cultural computing technologies and Chinese traditional culture, along with a number of co-located events. Papers are solicited on any aspect on the intersection of culture and computing, but all papers are expected to be suitable for a multidisciplinary audience. We have a single session Main Track and a few parallel session Special Tracks. The Main Track will present a collection of scientific or engineering research results. Examples of suitable paper topics for the Main Track include: ? Archiving cultural heritages ? Information environments for humanity studies ? Art and design by information technologies ? Digital storytelling ? Intercultural communication and collaboration ? Culturally situated agents and simulations ? Game and culture ? Analysis of new culture in the Internet and Web ? Culture and brain science Special Tracks: "Virtual Human and Robotics," "Asian Culture based Media Art", “Digital (Art) Museum”, "Computing for Calligraphy, Poem and Couplet" "Computing and Music" Co-located Workshops: DMDCM’2012: Digital Media and Digital Content Management GameVReHealth’2012: Game Abilitation and Virtual Reality Healthcare In 2012, the proceedings will be published by IEEE and some special issues in journals such as International Journal of Advanced Robotics Systems (SCI), Transactions on Edutainment (EI), Entertainment Computing (EI) and International Journal on VR will be arranged. Important Date: Paper Submission: June 1, 2012 Authors Notification: July 20, 2012 Final Paper Submission and Registration: August 1, 2012 Conference: October, 22-24, 2012 Sponsors: Kyoto University, Japan Hangzhou Normal University, China VR Committee, China Society of Image and Graphics Co-Sponsors: ACM SIGCHI China Chapter Zhejiang University, China Xiamen University, China Organizers: Hangzhou Normal University, China Huzhou Teachers College, China General Chairs Toru Ishida (Kyoto University, Japan) Zhigeng Pan (Hangzhou Normal University, China) G.W.M Rauterberg (Technical University Eindhoven,The Netherlands)
和夏威夷大学王玉清教授合作的探讨热带气旋外螺旋雨带形成和准周期活动动力机制的文章，经过一年的审稿和修改终于前两天被大气科学领域顶级杂志之一的Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences接受，要感谢王玉清教授给予的悉心指导。三位审稿人提出了很好的审稿意见，其中一位审稿人提供了三轮的细致的审稿，使得文章更严谨。同时，审稿人也对文章本身给予了良好的评价，认为“will be a nice contribution to the literature on the outer spiralrainbands of tropical cyclones”。力争再接再厉，更上一层楼！
One author from one University listed nearly 30 items of literature.One funny thing is that he adds the word "Journal" before all journal names no matter whether the journal names contain the word "Journal"! For example, for a literature from the journal Environmental Geology , the authors write the journal name as Journal of Environmental Geology ; for a literature from Engineering Geology , they autors write the journal name as Journal of Engineering Geology ; anduse JournalofLandscape and Urban Planning when it should be Landscape and Urban Planning , anduse Journal ofSoil Technology when it should be Soil Technology ! I don't know why! Just because they arejournal names, so a word "Journal" should be added before each of them? I wonder whether the authors have ever really refer to or read the literatrue listed in the reference, andhowthey got the literature listed in the reference!
身为科研工作者的你，一定有许多文献需要查找和调研，你是否为你关注的期刊或科研组的更新而烦恼，因为那意味着你要重来一次烦复的搜索； 身为网络大人的你，怎么能不知道RSS的妙用，因为它能够在这个信息爆炸的时代给你带来方便快捷的信息获取和处理方式； 那么如何系统有效的将这两者结合起来，让RSS提醒你，你关注的期刊的最新发表文献信息，或者是你关注的科研组最新科研进展，又或者是你关心的某一篇文献的最新引用情况，那么你需要看看这个ppt了，他会教你怎么去做的。 Link: How to use RSS track literature 本资源来自于： www.chemj.cn
As time flies, the cycling period that science and technology refreshes is becoming shorter and shorter, as poses a critical challenge to all researchers. Under the atmosphere of competing for innovation, a research group must trace the frontier of its research field in order to keep its level in line with other groups. This requires all members of the group have a good command of tracing the frontier, and here I introduce a small technique. Of course, throng the tip4 can you receive the latest retrieval result based your set for retrieval word by email every week. You know, however, your peer always publish their latest research articles or communication on a rang of academic journals. It means that you may trace the refreshing papers to know what your peer are doing or to which extent their research are conducted. First you need to be familiar with a certain range of journals which focus on your research field and always issued the research articles that your peers publish. For example, Environment Science and Technology, Environmental Pollution, Chemosphere and so on. Second, only through registering a ID on the database of corresponding academic journal and creating a e-alert will you receive the latest online article publication or current content by email every day/week, or month. I take the journal EST for example and demonstrated the specific procedure as following: 1. Register an ID on ACS homage. 2. Set your e-alert and choose the journal EST. 3. You will receive the latest article list as soon as publishable every day.
As the saying goes, history is a mirror. Literature retrieval history itself reflects our studying procedure. If we take notice to save our literature retrieval history, at least the repeated retrieval could be avoided to the greatest extent. In my opinion, culturing our habits to save retrieval history in time is efficient for our research. The other advantageous feature of saving our retrieval history lies in our convenient looking back. Maybe when we browse our retrieval history after a whole day of busy work, a innovative idea comes up with us, as is usually the case of distinguished scientist. Here I introduce how to save our retrieval history in ISI Web of Knowledge platform. Firstly you need to register an ID in ISI Web of Knowledge platform. When your enter ISI Web of Knowledge platform, click sign in, choose register and type your necessary individual information and submit your registration. NOTE: The password must include at least 8 characters. After finished, click continue and you enter the interface displaying your sign in. Secondly, you may start to your search and then save your retrieval history. Here I take a example using retrieval word: Pb immobilization or Pb stabilization and soil contamination or soil pollution for column topic in database ESCI. Click search and we see the retrieval results. Thirdly, save your retrieval history.Click search history in results interface and you will see the corresponding search history interface. You only click save history/create alert, and set your history name and alert choice, finally save , confirm it and you complete the creation of retrieval history. When you enter ISI Web of Knowledge interface next time, you will see the My saved searches column. You may open it and browse the content of your saved retrieval last time.
Sometimes we need to pick a required literature record from our created library in Endnote platform, but we cannot find it quickly, due possible to too many literature records in our library. Of course, we have no time to browse one by one, because it wastes us a lot of time. How should we do it?Perhaps when you read the article the other days, but now you cannot find it in the library comprised of tens of hundreds of records. Here I share a technique with everyone. When we add one or several literature records to our library, we had better mark the core content for us in the column Research notes in order that we may identify it. Especially for those topped articles, we almost have to mark it, for we might refer it from time to time in the whole process of our study. We may mark the literature record just as following: Then we may set our preference in Endnote platform as following: Choose the column field display and modify the column figure as research notes and fill Res. Note in the corresponding heading column, then click the button confirmation and return to the main interface. You will find a new column named Res note displayed on the right. So you can find your required literature record according your mark in the column Reserch notes.
In our retrieving practice, we often need to search the literature published by some well-known scientist in our orientation. This is very important, because those sci-giants have done much wonderful work, having paved a road for our sequential, advanced study. Therefore, referring those literature published by sci-giants are of great significance, meaningful, and valuable, for we are always standing on the shoulder of sci-giants. However, we only process one or several pieces of paper created by the certain giants. And what we need is to search all the literature published by the author. Generally, we use the authors name as a retrieval word to initiate our search in ISI platform. For example, when we type Ma LQ in the column author, and click button search, thereafter we obtain a large number of records with respect to Ma LQ, many of which are not what really want. You know, there are several reasons as following: 1) phenomenon of the same name; 2) L Q has different expressing forms, such as Lanqin, Leqi, Leqin, Lengqing and so on; and 3) other possibilities. How do we refine what we want from so many records? Here I introduce a small technique to share with everyone. When we know the name of the sci-giant, we can search in ISI platform as described above. Now we see so many records present, and then we need to select a record which is what we want to seek, based on the knowledge of your research orientation, and check the specific information. The key point is we need to obtain the information regarding the authors address, which is a critical retrieval word for our successive retrieval. Then we copy the address information. Now we return to the interface of search, and initiate our precious retrieval. This time we type two typical retrieval words including the column author and the column address to optimize our search. Here what I want to supplement is that we need to modify the address information after we paste the address information, since we cannot guarantee the author always write the correct address information, and I mean that the author may change the specific form of address information. In this situation, we have to modify the address information to encompass relatively critical words, e.g. the name of the university or institute, deleting the specific lab information. Then we tale the retrieval, and we can achieve a success.
SomeTipsforSci-Tech Literature Retrieval: 1. Three steps to export literature and then import them to new library based on Endnote XI Having been engaged in research for several months, I also accumulated some tips for Sci-tech literature retrieval. Here I share some tips with research workers. How to export some literature in your existing library from Endnote andaddthem to another library created newly? In our retrieving practice, we always come across these situations: we import a large variety of literature from web database (e.g. Web of knowledge) to our created library, however, when we write a paper or for other purposes, we only need to extract some literature from the existing library to a newly created library, since it is convenient for our witting, and we don't need to look for so many records from the big library. In the following, i will demonstrate a specific example for you. The existing library in my example is phytoremediation.enl in literature management software Endnote XI; The newly created library is As phytoremediation.enl saved in F disk. My objective is to summarize the literature with respect to As phytoremediation; The task is to extract regarding literature existed in phytoremediation.enl and export them to As phytoremediation.enl. First, select the regarding literature in phytoremediation.enl. Second, click the file and choose export, and save as As phytoremediation.xml Third, open the newly created library As phytoremediation.enl; click file and choose import; Then click choose file and choose As phytoremediation.xml from F disk. Click Open ,and select Endnote generated XML from import option,then click import, you will make a success.
Some Tips for Sci-Tech Literature Retrieval: 1. Three steps to export literature and then import them to new library based on Endnote XI Having been engaged in research for several months, I also accumulated some tips for Sci-tech literature retrieval. Here I share some tips with research workers. How to export some literature in your existing library from Endnote and add them to another library created newly? In our retrieving practice, we always come across these situations: we import a large variety of literature from web database (e.g. Web of knowledge) to our created library, however, when we write a paper or for other purposes, we only need to extract some literature from the existing library to a newly created library, since it is convenient for our witting, and we don't need to look for so many records from the big library. In the following, i will demonstrate a specific example for you. The existing library in my example is phytoremediation.enl in literature management software Endnote XI; The newly created library is As phytoremediation.enl saved in F disk. My objective is to summarize the literature with respect to As phytoremediation; The task is to extract regarding literature existed in phytoremediation.enl and export them to As phytoremediation.enl. First, select the regarding literature in phytoremediation.enl. Second, click the file and choose export, and save as As phytoremediation.xml. Third, open the newly created library As phytoremediation.enl; click file and choose import; Then click choose file and choose As phytoremediation.xml from F disk. Click Open and then click import, you will make a success.
标签: literature
