Beijing, 2:30pm, Institute of Zoology. I have been swampted by writing a new manuscript and got stucked this afternoon, partly due to fatigue and partly due to the terrible weather of Beijing. Anyway, I would like to share you guys an old figure that a lot of people might have seen. I hope this figure would make you feel happy and have a nice afternoon. Definitely, every guy will have his own understanding to this funny figure. However, it really means something. Finally, can I ask you a question? Who you are? The genius, the gossipy girls, the slaves, the Donald Duck or the great hero?
http://obasic.net/how-to-make-magnifier-plot-in-matlab For many reasons, you would like to make a plot inside another to show the detail area of your data curve, just like a magnifier. This is the final plot in MATLAB. Function With Detail Infos First let’s make a function with some details in it, which are now represented as noises. % Create a dummy function x = 0 : 0.01 : pi ; y = 5 * sin ( x ) .* cos ( 10 *x ) + rand ( size ( x ) ) ; figure ; hold on; plot ( x, y ) ; xlabel ( 'X' ) ; ylabel ( 'Y' ) ; Original function plotted in MATLAB: Details can hardly be seen. Next we need to add a rectangle to the position where some detail we are interested in. % Specify the position and the size of the rectangle x_r = 0.95 ; y_r = - 3.3 ; w_r = 0.2 ; h_r = 0.7 ; rectangle ( 'Position' , , ... 'EdgeColor' , ) ; Original function with rectangle on the interested position. Trick For The 2. Plot Finally we can add the magifier into the diagram. The secret is to add a second axis with proper position specified to it, this is how it’s done: % Specify the position and the size of the 2. axis x_a = 0.58 ; y_a = 0.18 ; w_a = 0.3 ; h_a = 0.3 ; ax = axes ( 'Units' , 'Normalized' , ... 'Position' , , ... 'XTick' , , ... 'YTick' , , ... 'Box' , 'on' , ... 'LineWidth' , 2 , ... 'Color' , ) ; hold on; plot ( x, y ) ; xlabel ( 'Detail at X==0.95' ) ; axis ( ) ; Final plot in MATLAB: The detail is magnified and well shown in a second plot diagram. Note that the X Y positions, the width and the height ( x_a, y_a, w_a, h_a ) of the 2. plot are all described as proportion to the plot figure , NOT to the main axis.
An important part of critical thinking is being able to give reasons, whether it is to support or to criticize a certain idea. To be able to do that, one should know how to identify, analyze, and evaluate argument. What is an argument? In everyday life, people often use “argument” to mean a quarrel between people. But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements , Monty Python said: “ An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. ” There are three stages to an argument: Premises , Inference , and Conclusion . To give an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion through a gradual inference process. Stage one: Premises One or more propositions will be necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions. Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as “because”, “since”, “due to” and so on. Stage two: Inference The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inferences. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as “implies that” or “therefore”. Stage three: Conclusion Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as “Therefore”, “It follows that”, “We conclude” and so on. Type of argument There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive . What is deductive argument? A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. Here is an example of a deductive argument: Every event has a cause ( premise ). The universe has a beginning ( premise ). All beginnings involve an event ( premise ). This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event ( inference ). Therefore , the universe has a cause ( inference and conclusion ). What is inductive argument? An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example of an inductive argument: The last ten times I’ve played poker, I’ve won money ( premise ). I’m playing poker tonight ( premise ). I’ll win money tonight ( conclusion ). In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe I’ll lose money tonight, for example). Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive – and hence probabilistic rather than necessary – include “probably”, “likely”, “possibly” and “reasonably”. Deductive arguments vs. Inductive arguments It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don’t arrive at new information. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used mot often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of inductive arguments. References: 1. http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html 2. http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthinking/a/deductivearg.htm
When Cindy Ballagh's 10-year-old son Kaden lost his portable videogame recently, she asked him where he last put it. His answer: on his dresser. After they spent several minutes searching on, under and all around the dresser, she happened to spot the game -- buried in his bed. He had been playing with it there the night before and broke a rule by falling asleep with it, says Ms. Ballagh, of Clarksville, Tenn. Frustrated, she told Kaden he would get in less trouble if he would 'just be honest and tell the truth.' It's a tense moment -- one almost all parents experience: You look in your child's eyes and realize: 'He's lying.' Lying is, in truth, a milestone of normal child development and starts as early as age 2. More than one-third of 3-year-olds will lie to keep from getting in trouble, based on research led by Victoria Talwar, an associate professor of developmental psychology at McGill University in Montreal. By ages 4 to 7, more than half of children will lie to avoid punishment, as Ms. Ballagh believes Kaden did, or to gain attention or approval; the same pattern appears in studies in Britain, West Africa and China. Researchers are taking a new interest in children's lying, using experimental techniques to explore its role in cognitive and moral development and applying the knowledge to court cases and investigations of bullying and other problems. Even though lying is an expected behavior among children, parents influence whether it tapers off or escalates by serving as both police and models of desirable behavior. The challenge with preschoolers is helping them distinguish between making up a fairy tale and telling a harmful lie. When Krista Hein found a bowl of cereal on the floor, her 4-year-old daughter Syra had an explanation: Monkey, the family's Chinese pug, did it. Another time, Syra grabbed a cookie from the kitchen, telling her mom that Daddy gave her permission. Ms. Hein loves Syra's lively imagination and doesn't want her to stop telling stories about princesses and magic kingdoms. To teach her that lying to cover up a misdeed is bad, she talks about potential consequences, such as losing friends or hurting others' feelings. If Syra honestly admits she broke a rule, Ms. Hein, who lives in Albuquerque, N.M., expresses her approval. Parents are remarkably bad at detecting their children's lies. In experimental studies of preschoolers, parents were able to detect accurately when their children were lying only 53% of the time -- a little better than chance, according to a 2010 study led by Dr. Talwar. That falls to 33% by the time their kids are 6 to 8 years old. And parents of 9- to 11-year-olds have only about a 1 in 4 chance of knowing when their kids are lying. Moms and dads have what researchers call 'a truthfulness bias.' They want and need to believe their kids are telling the truth. And 'there's no Pinocchio's nose' to serve as a reliable signal that a child is lying, Dr. Talwar says. Sometimes kids will glance away uneasily, shift from one foot to the other or cross arms in front of the body -- but not always. Also, kids get better at concealing lies as they grow older, says researcher Angela Crossman, an associate professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at City University of New York. And the cleverest lies are often told by the most focused and socially savvy kids. To tell a plausible lie, children must be able to understand how others see things. They also have to be able to maintain an alibi in the face of parental questioning and scrutiny. Children with good 'executive function' skills, including self-control and the ability to focus on tasks, tend to be more skillful liars, Dr. Talwar says. Adults set a confusing example by lying once a day, on average, based on a 1996 study led by researchers at the University of Virginia. Daily diaries of 147 participants' interactions with others showed that about 1 in 4 of the instances were white lies. Most of the others were attempts by study participants to appear kinder or smarter to others, or to avoid embarrassment. Parents who lie for convenience's sake, by calling in 'sick' at work to attend a sporting event, for example, suggest truthfulness doesn't matter. Or they might give mixed signals, such as, 'Get A's at all costs,' but 'Don't cheat,' fostering the kind of stress that can lead to cheating. As children get older, they typically tell more white lies and fewer harmful ones. In a 2010 study of 120 children ages 7, 9 and 11, researchers at Beijing Normal University in China found kids increasingly told altruistic lies to avoid hurting others' feelings. By the teen years, some kids lie to pull away from their parents and gain privacy, but often lack the skills to handle the resulting challenges. On CafeMom.com, where lying generates numerous posts from parents, one mother wrote that her teen lied to cover up that he was being bullied at school because he wanted to handle it himself. When the mom realized why her son was struggling, she arranged counseling to help him cope. More than half of parents have been troubled by a child who lies regularly, usually between the ages of 2 and 7, according to a recent poll of 125 parents by the parenting website BabyCenter.com. Harsh punishments don't work very well, research shows. Instead, psychologists say parents should get professional help if a child's lying becomes a habit or disrupts normal activities, such as friendships or school. Lying can be one sign of a what mental-health professionals call conduct disorder if children also have other problems, such as aggression, truancy from school or drug abuse, the American Academy of Pediatrics says. Creating an environment where truth is valued can help clear the fog. Kelly Gorski's 3-year-old daughter Lucidia was confused at a recent dinner gathering when she saw a guest compliment the host on her cooking, just minutes after they had overheard the same guest say privately that she disliked the meal. Ms. Gorski explained that the guest was trying to avoid hurting the host's feelings. Then she gave Lucidia an alternative: 'You can tell the truth without hurting someone' by finding something else to praise -- saying, for example, that she appreciated the effort in preparing the meal, says Ms. Gorski, of Allentown, Pa. The lesson, Ms. Gorski says: It's important 'to be an honest person, but there are many ways to communicate the truth without being blunt or forceful or harsh.' Sue Shellenbarger 辛 迪•巴拉夫(Cindy Ballagh)家住田纳西州的克拉克斯维尔(Clarksville)，最近，她10岁的儿子卡登(Kaden)把他的便携式游戏机弄丢了。当她询问儿子还记不记得最后把游戏机放在哪儿了时，儿子说：衣柜里。 于是他们在衣柜里里外外找了好几分钟，最后巴拉夫竟在儿子床上的被子里意外发现了游戏机。巴拉夫说，“他头天玩了一晚上的游戏机，违反了不得玩着游戏机睡觉的规矩。”这位母亲感到很恼火，她跟儿子说，要是一开始他能够“诚实，讲真话”，问题就不会这么严重。 气氛很紧张──为人父母者几乎都经历过这种时刻：看着孩子的眼睛，发觉“他/她在撒谎”。 Getty Images 事实上，撒谎是孩子正常成长阶段的一个重要里程碑，最早可能在两岁就会出现。 事实上，撒谎是孩子正常成长阶段的一个重要里程碑，最早可能在两岁就会出现。蒙特利尔麦吉尔大学(McGill University)发展心理学副教授维多利亚•塔尔瓦(Victoria Talwar)领导的一项研究显示，三分之一以上的三岁小孩都会撒谎以免惹上麻烦。到了四至七岁，一半以上的小孩都会这么干，要么是为了逃避责罚，巴拉夫认为她儿子就是这样的；要么是为了吸引注意力，或者得到赞成。在英国、西非和中国进行的研究也都显示出类似的结果。 研究人员对儿童的撒谎行为产生了新的兴趣，他们利用实证方法来研究撒谎在认知和道德发展过程中所起的作用，并将研究成果应用到法院讼案和对欺凌等问题的调查当中。虽然说撒谎行为在孩童中很常见，但家长或严厉责罚或以身作则的应对方式，都可能会减少或加重这种撒谎行为。 对于学龄前儿童，尤其需要帮助他们明白编故事和说谎话之间的区别。克里斯塔•海因(Krista Hein) 家住新墨西哥州阿尔布开克市(Albuquerque)，有一次，她在家里的地板上发现了一碗麦片，她四岁的女儿西拉(Syra)解释说：是家里养的巴哥犬“猴子”干的。又有一次，西拉从厨房拿了片饼干，并对妈妈说她已经得到了爸爸的准许。 海因很喜欢女儿丰富的想象力，不希望阻止她说一些关于公主和奇幻王国的故事。为了让女儿认识到用撒谎来掩饰错误行为的坏处，海因告诉她这样做可能会产生的后果，比如失去朋友或者伤害别人的感情。如果西拉坦白承认自己做错了，海因就会原谅她。 总体来看，家长们似乎不太擅长发觉孩子的撒谎行为。塔尔瓦博士2010年领导的一项研究发现，针对学龄前儿童的实证研究显示，父母能够准确察觉出孩子在撒谎的几率只有53%，比掷硬币好不到哪儿去。而当孩子长到六至八岁时，父母对其撒谎的判断能力降到了33%，当孩子有九到11岁大时，父母还能不上当的机会就只剩下25%左右了。 这是因为家长们带有被研究人员称之为“诚实偏向”的立场。他们更愿意也更需要相信自己的孩子在讲真话。 而且，塔尔瓦博士称，也没有像“匹诺曹的鼻子”这样可以准确判断孩子说谎的信号。有时候孩子在说谎时会目光闪烁游离，双脚不停变换重心，或者双臂交叉于胸前。但有时候又并非如此。况且，纽约城市大学(City University of New York)约翰杰伊刑事司法学院(John Jay College of Criminal Justice)心理学副教授、研究员安吉拉•克罗斯曼(Angela Crossman)也指出，孩子越大就越擅于掩饰谎言。 此外，无懈可击的谎话往往出自最专注、最精明的孩子之口。要把谎话说到家，就必须清楚别人是怎么看问题的。这样的孩子还必须能够备妥一套说辞，过得了父母的询问关和审查关。塔尔瓦博士称，“执行功能”类技能强的孩子往往更精于说谎，这类技能包括自控能力、做事专注的能力等等。 弗吉尼亚大学(University of Virginia)研究人员1996年组织的一项研究显示，成年人平均每天要撒一次谎，本身就没有给孩子树好榜样。对147名研究对象与他人互动的逐日跟踪记录显示，大约四分之一的说谎属于善意的谎言。其他大部分谎言也是因为研究对象希望自己显得对他人更友好或比他人更聪明，或者是为了避免出现尴尬。 父母有时不经意地撒谎，例如为了观看某项体育赛事而故意向单位请病假，会让孩子以为诚实并不重要。有时候父母还会发出令人困惑的信号，例如，让孩子“不惜任何代价考到A”，但又“不能作弊”，由此形成的高压氛围可能令孩子不自觉地想要撒谎。 随着孩子年龄渐长，他们一般会更多说善意的谎言，更少说一些有害的谎话。北京师范大学(Beijing Normal University)的研究人员在2010年针对七岁、九岁和11岁的120位儿童的研究发现，孩子会越来越多地说一些不伤害他人感情的利他主义谎言。在青少年时期，一些孩子撒谎是为了与父母保持距离，保护自己的隐私。但他们往往不善于应对父母的质疑。在妈妈社交网站CafeMom.com上，家长们关于孩子撒谎所发布的帖子不计其数。一位母亲写道，她十几岁大的儿子对她撒谎，只为掩盖自己在学校遭到欺凌的事实，因为儿子想独自解决这个问题。这位母亲意识到儿子的困扰后，为他安排了心理咨询，帮助他度过难关。 根据育儿网站BabyCenter.com最近对125位家长所做的调查，超过一半的家长被孩子经常撒谎的问题困扰过，这样的孩子通常处于二至七岁这个年龄段。研究显示，严厉责罚的效果并不好。相反，心理学家表示，如果孩子说谎成习，已经严重到影响交友、上学等日常活动，那么家长就应该寻求专业的帮助。美国儿科学会(American Academy of Pediatrics)表示，倘若孩子还存在其他一些问题，如喜欢挑衅、旷课、嗑药等，说谎就可能是一种被专家称之为“品行障碍”的精神疾病的征兆。 营造“诚实可贵”的氛围可以帮助孩子树立正确的价值观。凯莉•戈尔斯基(Kelly Gorski) 家住宾夕法尼亚州阿伦敦(Allentown)，她三岁的女儿路西蒂亚(Lucidia)在最近一次晚宴上就看到了令其困惑的一幕。她和女儿先是见到一位客人夸赞女主人厨艺精湛，几分钟后她们无意中又听到这位宾客私下里说自己不喜欢这顿晚餐。 戈尔斯基跟女儿解释道，那位客人开始撒谎是不想伤了女主人的感情。但她接着跟女儿说了这种情况下的另一种处理方法：其实可以换个角度，“既说真话又不伤人感情”，例如赞扬主人为准备晚餐所付出的辛劳。 戈尔斯基表示，女儿从这件事中学到的就是，“做一个诚实的人”很重要，但同时又有多种说真话的方式，可以避免说出来的话过于唐突、直接或者难听。 Sue Shellenbarger
小结: How to read a paper 1）花5min看懂标题（一些定义可在前言中找），and在看正文之前， a）设想如何做该实验（写成list），实验会有些什么数据，根据这些数据如何得到 结论，从而可发现： 1. did you miss a critical point, or (this happens) did they? 2. Did they mislead you with their title? 记住：having a list that varies from the list of actual experiments done by th e authors is perfectly OK. b）如果看文献是为了解决自己的问题： Skip/ignore anything that doesn’t answer your questions. Then, generate your list of experiments. 2）看摘要： 一般有目的，方法，结论三部分。注意：找到 a）how and why the experiments were performed. You can then tell how c lose your list is to theirs. b）get a sense for the order in which experiments are going to be pres ented. Ignore everything else. 3）仔细阅读正文的结论部分 a） Let them tell you why they did the experiments, and what they thi nk happened as a result. Assume everything they tell you is the absolute truth. b）compare your list with theirs： Write down what differences there are, and note why you think the lists are d ifferent: are the authors leaving things out you’d like to see, or are they o n a different track than you? The key here is to fully understand their train of thought. If you can ’t figure it out, write that down, too, specifying exactly where you fell off the train. Then move on. From here on, focus on the material you understand f rom the Results, and ignore what you don’t understand. c）仔细看图及图的说明 BE CRITICAL: Assume they are trying to pull a fast one on you. Make sure that when they say something, the data actually show it. d）问两个问题：（在“材料和方法”中寻找，别在MM中耗时间） 1. what are the controls for that experiment? 2. How do you know that this result isn’t due to something else? e）找出隐藏结论（一般是限于篇幅而未能发表） Challenge yourself to find alternate explanations for the results: 1. what do you think they chose to omit? 2. Why did they omit it? （在继续读下去之前，列一个阅读所得的list） 4）looking for a clear justification for why the authors chose to do their exp eriments. What is the main question that they claim to be answering? 5）Compare the authors’ main question, their data, and their conclusio ns. 1. did they answer their question? 2. Did they do the right experiments to address their question? 3. If your list of experiments differs from theirs, is their line of expe rimentation better? 4. If you had to answer this research question, knowing all that you know now, how would you do it? Maybe borrow some of their experiments? Or do exact ly what they did? 6） Read the discussion The discussion should tell you why their work is important, and how it advances the field. 评价该文很重要的一点：文中是否预料到并很好的回答了你的问题 7）Project into the future. 如果是你，下一步能做什么？有什么可提高的？有什么缺陷要弥补？如何与下一步工作衔接？ 8）回顾整体风格 1. What phrases do they use to introduce their ideas? 2. How are the figures labeled? 3. Is this a well-constructed paper? 4. Is there anything in the paper you'd like to emulate? -- 谨以此文作为5~~~~年文献阅读的开始 ※ 来源:．瀚海星云 bbs.ustc.edu.cn
近日我写了一篇标题为 好论文的标准：“两性”兼备 的博文，赚了不少点击，也有不少网友参与评论，其中有一位半开玩笑的说我的这篇博文也是“两性”兼备，这便引出了本文的话题：好博文，尤其是科学网的好博文也要“两性”兼备！ 在上述博文中，我提到：好论文的标准中的 “两性”兼备是指 新颖性、有趣性 / 可读性。当然，不可否认，正如有的网友指出，这所谓的“两性”，应该是指“三性”，这个涉嫌玩标题党的标题当初也是为了吸引眼球。说 “两性”兼备，可能有许多人感兴趣，但是如果换成“三性” 兼备，我估计许多人就兴（性）趣寡淡了。我个人认为：上述博文似乎可以作为一个很好的例子可佐证本文我的主要观点：科学网的好博文也要“两性”兼备。下面会进一步分析，但是首先需要强调的是：我所认为的好博文的“两性”兼备和好论文的“两性”兼备不尽相同。 好博文的“两性”，我认为最重要的是要 ： 科学性 + 有趣性 ，和好论文对 新颖性（创新性）的要求不同，写博文毕竟不是发表论文，对于新颖性要求不高。下面就具体谈谈为何科学性和有趣性是科学网好博文的 缺一不可的必要条件，并且这两点几乎又是好博文的充分条件。 “科学性” ：毫无疑问，只要是真正的好论文，“科学性”那是必须的，对于“科学”网上的好博文而言，我觉得也需要有“科学性”，因为对于科学网上的网友，我相信大多数都有看具有科学性的文章的心理预期，热衷于八卦、情色、掐架、明星新闻的网友估计不会想着要来科学网搜搜、看看。为了迎合这种心理预期（这种“迎合”，似乎比一般的曲意迎合还是上了点档次），科学网的博文也有必要多少有点“科学性”。当然这个科学性的涵义，我个人认为需要适当外延，因为有些看起来和“科学”不大沾边的博文，比如有些摄影类的博文，似乎和科学有点距离，但是有些摄影高手，比如以科学网博主李学宽和孟津等老师为代表的一批高手，尽管他们不是职业摄影家，但是照片拍的却很有专业水准，所配图片的介绍和解释也往往妙趣横生，可以说和图片相得益彰，真正是图文并茂，在我看来，这类的博文的科学性同样很强，可以说是“很猛、很强大”。反之，有些看起来很有科学性的博文，但是文章本身笔误很多，或者文章有学术性的硬伤，再加上写的又无趣，自然算不上好博文。但是，如果一篇博文，只是为了有趣而有趣，插科打诨，而没有任何科学性可言，则同样算不上好博文，至少应该算不上科学网的好博文，毕竟科学网不是小品、相声的集中营。 有趣性 ：在博文有科学性的前提下，好博文要写的有趣，有趣并不意味着简单地搞笑，但是幽默风趣无疑会为博文增色，当然，我所理解的有趣性，还在于博主能够以引人入胜的方式表达自己的观点或者讲述自己的故事，所以博文要能吸引读者读下去，除了和文章本身内容有关，也更与作者如何写自己的博文有关。科学性再高的博文，如果读者压根就没有兴趣读下去，也是枉然。我觉得一个好的博文，首先要有一个好的吸引人眼球的标题，不谦虚的说，我自认为我的大多数博文的标题还算比较吸引人，我在写每一篇博文时，我的博文题目都会仔细考虑一下，以尽可能在反映文章内容的前提下，尽量更有趣。在现在这个几乎人人是博客写手的今天，要想有更多的读者点击阅读自己的博文，扩大影响，首先要有一个好的标题。 在科学网，科学性与有趣性兼备的博文有很多，这方面难捏的很好的博主也有不少，我个人认为这其中的出色代表之一为李福洋老师，他的一系列有关科普的博文大都堪称科学性与有趣性的完美结合，可以说是科学网博文中的精品中的精品。另外，我不知道科学网编辑的精选、置顶博文的标准具体是什么，但从过去近两个月的经验来看，科学网编辑们认为的好博文似乎也基本符合上述的“两性”标准。 另外，顺便谈点题外话，有些网友在我的博客留言或评论说我的博文篇篇被精选，这实在是抬举我了，我在科学网开博近两个月来，已写（包括以前在别的博客写的）博文 40 余篇，尽管大多数蒙科学网编辑抬爱被精选（其中一些甚至被置顶推荐），但是还有一些未被精选，在此澄清一下。还需要说明的是，尽管我的大多数博文被精选，但是我一没有给科学网编辑 MM 送过花，二没有给科学网编辑 GG 喝过酒。另外，我更想强调的是：我写博文并非是为了被精选（尽管被精选是令人高兴的事），如果只是为了被精选，写博文估计就没有多少乐趣了，我写博文最大原因或者因素是兴趣，写自己感兴趣的话题，写作过程本身就是一件愉快的事情，看到自己写的博文，尤其是关于英文论文写作方面的博文，对于年轻研究生们有点帮助，自然觉得很欣慰，从而也觉得自己是有福气之人，因为正如圣经所言：“给比受更有福”。 写博文最令我感到高兴，或者说最有收获的地方是：当自己写的博文贴出后， 有网友有精彩评论（这样的评论往往比我写的博文本身好的多）或者指出我的博文中学术上／科学上的硬伤／错误，从而自己得以学习和提高。这样的例子，对于我而言可以说是不胜枚举，其中一个例子：比如我在一篇涉及诺贝尔奖的博文中（点击参见： 全球史上被引用次数最多的论文—兼议诺贝儿奖 ） ，曾提到 田中耕一 ，在我的博文原文中曾有一句话“ 田中耕一 只有本科学历，这是诺贝儿奖百年历史上首次也是迄今唯一一次颁发给一个是只有本科文凭的科学家”，有位网友就质疑这句话，提出“ Please check Guglielmo Marconi, 1909 laureate for physics ”， Marconi 即为发明电报的马可尼， 1909 年获诺贝尔物理奖，我在网上一查（包括诺贝尔基金会官方网站），果然马可尼基本就没有接受过多少正规的学校教育，主要靠家庭（尤其是其母亲）教育。当然，我原文中那句对 田中耕一 的表述并非是自己的猜测，也是有根据的，在英文维基百科上关于 田中耕一 的介绍中有这么一句：“ As of 2008, he is the only person without a post-bachelor's degree to have won a Nobel Prize in a scientific field ”。而我的那篇博文对 诺贝尔奖的讨论只限科学类奖项，并且 2009, 2010 年 诺贝尔科学类三大奖的得主，都读过研究生，所以我才得出上述对 田中耕一 的错误论述，这件事，也看出维基百科的不靠谱之处，不过，瑕不掩瑜，维基百科的好处和优点还是要远远大于其不足之处。 当然，在这位网友质疑后，我根据自己的进一步网上查询结果，确定自己是错误之后，就立刻更正自己的博文，并致歉，我和那位网友也互相加为好友。但是在科学网上，我也看到有些博主，在别人对自己的博文提出质疑之后，或者死不认帐，或者对指出错误的网友冷嘲热讽，我觉得这样，一是表现出对自己、对自己博文没有足够的自信，也使自己丧失了非常好的学习、进步的机会。这一段，我这样说，并非想表明自己是多么的 NB 或者境界高 , 而是认为科学网的博客也可以（也应该）成为大家相互切磋、学习提高的平台。事实上，我最近就斗胆对一位博主的英文博文指出一些明显的错误，该博主不但不没有表现出反感，还对我的评论意见表示感谢，并对博文做了相应修改，还主动加我为好友，这种经历我是第一次，因为我即使看到别人的博文有错误，也不愿指出，怕别人不高兴，但我相信：像上述这位虚心的博主应该是科学网的主流和大多数。 当然，我写博文，并非都是上述愉快的经历，不爽的事情也发生过，科学网有位大侠级的博主曾提到，赞扬型的博文可称为“献花”，批评性博文可称为“放炮”，我就曾经写过一篇多少有点“放炮”性质的有关大学排名的博文，这篇博文，我尽管只是用数据说话，这通“放炮”还是炸着了自己，如同捅了马蜂窝，引来了不少谩骂和人身攻击，我当然没有对这些人以牙还牙，我觉得骂人不但伤害了别人还伤害了自己，甚至还会累及自己的母校或者工作单位（即使是匿名评论，留下的 IP 地址也大致暴露了自己的身份） 。最后，由于这些人坚持不懈地谩骂和攻击，该博文不得不被迫关闭了评论功能，这也是迄今为止，我的博文中唯一关闭了评论功能的。然而，这个不爽的经历也让我至少有两点收获：１）更加容易知足：现在写博文，只要不挨骂，我就很知足了；２）人人都喜欢别人“献花”，不喜欢被别人“放炮”，所以，我决定：以后多“献花”，少、乃至不“放炮”，“放炮”多了，是否炸了别人倒不一定，受伤的首先是自己。毕竟，正如一位博主所言，写博文，博的就是“心情”！有人将谩骂和人身攻击型的评论比喻为自己后花园的一坨 shi ，如果天天出门看到这玩意，还有心情写博文？！ 对上述 “两性”兼备话题之外的跑题，深表歉意！ （ 王守业写于 2011 年 6 月 3 日，图片来自网络，感谢作者。未经允许，请勿转载）
在写此文前，偶然看到徐罡博士的博文： “ 英文论文撰写的 3C 原则，并感谢导师的教诲 ” （现在有的博文还提出 5C 原则），这 3C 分别是 Clear, Concise, and Critical ，有兴趣的网友可 点击查看看其博文 。我觉得这 3C 中 Clear 尤为重要，下面就详述原因（主要表现在两个方面）。 许多（如果不是绝大多数）科学家喜欢在实验室做实验，但是却讨厌写论文，其实事实上，写论文至少和做实验同样重要。撰写一篇清楚明了 (clear) 的论文对你的读者和你自己都是重要的。 “Write clearly” 是为了确保你的读者明白你的信息。作为作者，在写论文之前，最好先换位思考，作为一个读者，你想读到什么样的论文呢？很可能是短小、精悍、清楚明了的论文！事实上这样的文章才最有可能为读者所理解。你可以设想一下你的文章的可能的读者，当然最可能的是你的研究领域内的同行，但也不限于此，潜在的读者可能从刚从事科研的研究生到诺贝尔奖获得者，并且还要注意，读者还很有可能像你我一样来自非英语国家。所以你的文章要保证不但使英语国家的你研究领域内的同行可以很容易理解，还要使领域外的外行能够理解。另外，读者们也不会都在精神百倍的时候读你的文章，他／她可能是飞机上、公交车上、或在昏昏欲睡的深夜。因此，可以想象，使上述的读者都能在他们半清醒的状态下读你的文章时，还不至于不理解或误解你的文章，对作为作者的你显然是个挑战，但是你如果想让你的读者清楚无误的明白你的文章信息，你不得不使你的文章足够的让人明白。 但是， clarity 的标准是什么呢？套用公元一世纪的罗马修辞学家昆体良（ Quintilian ）的一句话： “ Clear writing is writing that is incapable of being misunderstood ” 。 也就是说 ”clear writing” 就是要不能被误解，这显然比能被理解是更高的标准。另一方面， “write clearly” 不仅仅是为了确保你的读者明白你的信息，同时也可以使你自己更加理清你的思路和想法。很多人认为，只要自己知道自己想说什么，将其写下来即可，但事实往往并非如此。写作可以帮助你发现你到底想表达什么。当你写论文时，你会经常发现你的思路方向变了，你可能最终回答了一个和你当初提出的有些不同的一个问题。这种思路的变化是写论文的一个很大的益处（事实上这也是写科学性很高的博文的一个好处）。另外一个好处就是，在你写论文时，可以发现错误的推理，因为当你读了你所写的，你将会发现一些问题，比如逻辑上前后不一致等等。这些问题迫使你重新考虑到底想表达什么。 因此，至少有两个很好的理由使你想 write clearly ，第一：确保你自己知道想表达什么；第二：使你的文章信息能使多种背景的读者都明白。所以 write clearly 确实很重要，如果说许多写论文的技巧都是像云雾一样令人捉摸不定，那么写的 “ 明白的 ” （请注意：此处采用东北话发音）才是真谛，正如那句名言所云： “ 明明白白才是真 ” 。 ［注：以上部分编译自一本专著 (1) ］ 那么到底如何才能 write clearly ，有个网站 ( 点击参考： How to Write Clearly - The 10 Most Important Principles ) 提出了十项原则（够多的！我党也才只是提出了四项基本原则） , 个人觉得非常好，实录如下，并补充一下自己的一点体会： 1. Use Short Sentences . 我们中国作者在英语的一个很大优势就是语法很强，所以往往句子写的很长，还没有语法错误，我最长就曾写过长达四、五行的一个句子。这种句子，读者和审稿人读起来会非常费劲，一定要避免，尽量使一句话只有 10-20 个单词。我们写论文的目的只是为了让审稿人和读者明白自己文章本身的内容，不是为了显摆自己的英语如何的 NB, 就算牛，作为来自非英语国家的老中，还能玩得过人家老美、老英？！ 2. Prefer the Simple to the Complex . 就是尽量用一些简单的词，别玩一些偏僻词，整得自己很有学问似的，其实老美，尤其是平常说话，用的基本都是非常简单的常用的词，但是很有沟通效果，也很生动。 3.Prefer the Familiar Word . 这个就无需多说了，当然用自己熟悉的词，不熟悉，我们也搞不定啊。 4. Avoid Unnecessary Words. 避免不必要的词，这一点很有必要，因为有的期刊是按字数收出版费的，另外文章的总字数，许多 SCI 国际期刊都有具体的不同规定和限制。 5. Use Action Verbs . 即尽量用动词，比较： "He drove very fast down the road." 和 “He sped down the road". 为何后者更好？！ 6. Write as you Talk . 就是说写论文要像平常说话一样让人通俗易懂，别故弄玄虚（参见文后11楼的评论） 。 7. Use Terms your Reader Can Picture . 别用太抽象的词 . 8. Connect with your Reader's Experience . 换位思考，上面已经详述。 9. Use Variety . 同一个意思，变换说法，别太单调。 10 .Write to Express not Impress . It is still all too often the case that people resort to unfamiliar, long words and meandering prose, especially when making formal announcements. Policemen say, "the thief was apprehended", not, "We caught the thief". Notices say, "Please refrain from smoking", rather than, "Please do not smoke". Nobody actually uses the word 'refrain' in normal conversation so why use it in a notice? It is done to sound important, make the notice sound official, done to impress, not express. 根据我的理解，简单的说，就是作者写论文要直接表达（Express)自己的意思，而不是拐弯抹角的给读者某种印象(Impress)或含蓄简洁地表达自己的观点或结果/意思，读者没有时间也没有耐心来猜哑谜，套用一句歌词：你的“意思”，我永远不懂！对于写论文，这绝对是要避免的（参见文后8楼的评论）。 参考文献 1. Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers ， 2 nd version, Mcgraw-Hill, 2000. 后记：感谢科学网编辑将本文置顶推荐，尤其是感谢将标题中的那点洋文改为 “ 如何让学术论文清楚明了？ ” 我当初采用又土又洋的标题，只是由于当时看到的英文专著是那麽说的，没有编辑的文采整成合适的中文标题，即：并非是为何显摆（再说也根本没有资本）。 （王守业草于 2010 年 11 月，修改于 2011 年 5 月 26 日，初稿曾贴于丁香园。必须得承认：本文的原创性不高，很多内容参考了上述的参考文献和网站内容。文中图片来自网络，感谢作者。引文地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=563591do=blogquickforward=1id=448316 ）
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57738/ Misconduct in science is increasing at an alarming rate, and is an issue that needs to be addressed. The constantly evolving technology, the arrival of online-only journals, and other significant scientific developments warrant a reconsideration of the existing procedures in place to prevent fraud and the development of novel verification techniques. Here, I propose four compelling approaches to nip this problem in the bud and limit the repercussions of scientific misconduct. I: Funding for all ages The number of PhDs in biology has increased exponentially over the past several years. Concurrently, the average age of principal investigators (PIs) when they obtain their first R01 research grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been rising, likely a result of the fact that all the PIs, regardless of stature, are competing for the same funding source. But established investigators have a clear advantage. Indeed, the NIH has identified this issue, and just last year instituted a policy to give Early Stage Investigators (those applicants within less than 10 years of experience) special consideration during grant review. Wikimedia commons, Smithsonian Institution Archives Despite this distinct advantage provided to junior PIs, no such effort has been made for mid-stage investigators, who are at a similar disadvantage to more senior researchers. Furthermore, even for junior PIs, I believe the NIH's effort is offset by the dramatic rise in applicants in this pool and the lack of a parallel increase in the total number of R01 grants. This increasingly competitive funding environment can result in undue pressure on less established PIs to publish in high impact journals, which can encourage falsification. A more effective way to counter the inherent unfairness in the funding process might be to divide funding into three groups according to career stage, such that PIs will be competing for funding against other scientists with similar experience levels. Such leveling of the competition could help reduce the pressure on younger PIs to falsify data. II: Third party data verification Experimental design, performance and analysis are getting more sophisticated, leading to an increasing pace of scientific discovery. However, those achievements are not matched by advancements in data-verification processes. It takes a long time to conclude a misconduct investigation, which minimizes the roles of agencies such as the Research Integrity Office at individual institutions and the Office of Research Integrity at the NIH. Furthermore, irrevocable damage has been already done before the dawn of a formal investigation. Invoking an independent agency for data verification during the preliminary stages of a project could aid in generating stronger manuscripts, grant applications, and clinical trials while minimizing the occurrence of research misconduct. I propose that a third party facility, funded by groups such as the NIH, could provide such a service in an efficient and effective manner. Reagents could be submitted to the agency in a blinded fashion, and time spent on this process can be minimized by encouraging simplicity in experimental designs. For more complex experiments, such as those involving special animal models and biophysical studies, laboratories approved by their institutional Research Integrity Office can provide support, either by verifying the data themselves, or hosting a scientist from the central facility. To ensure the integrity of funded research, funding agencies should insist upon the verification of preliminary data included in the grant to be completed before funding but after positive review. Journals can similarly choose to conditionally accept manuscripts prior to data verification, but withhold publication until the results have been validated. III: Strong postdoctoral forums Despite the rise in NIH applicants, the number of postdoctoral organizations has not increased significantly over the past decade. As a result, the supply-to-demand ratio of postdoctoral fellows is skewed against fellows, thereby making them dispensable for a laboratory. This can lead to self-inflicted pressure on the fellows for data delivery to help the lab obtain funding, as well as hesitancy to report any suspected unethical actions of their PIs. To address these and other issues, National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) was founded in 2003. Despite their strong commitment to the welfare of the fellows, consistently addressing grassroot issues at an institutional level can be a major challenge. Moreover, awareness about NPA among new fellows arriving at an institution is very low. (I discovered NPA's existence just last year, despite having been a fellow for the past decade.) Invoking stronger institutional postdoc associations can directly increase the overall awareness of new fellows about NPA and provide additional support within the institution. Socialization events hosted by institutional postdoc organizations, for example, can help relieve postdocs of prevailing undue stressors, and promote laboratory discussions, resulting in the prevention of data falsification either by the fellow (by increasing confidence and awareness of ethical science) or by the PI (by creating a whistleblower from an otherwise reluctant fellow). Furthermore, postdoc organizations could play a larger role in mediating cases of misconduct, granting fellows anonymity when they report such an occurrence, and relaying that information to the institutional Research Integrity Office for appropriate measures. IV: Objective manuscript review As the success of scientists depends largely on the number of manuscripts they publish, it can be extremely frustrating to have one's journal submissions rejected, particularly when the rejection does not appear to be scientifically justified -- an occurrence that is unfortunately not uncommon with the current peer review system. This, along with the enormous strain on researchers to publish the data rapidly, can potentially lead to compromises in the integrity of their research. Recently, commendable novel approaches have been adopted by some journals, including revealing the names of the reviewers or blinding the names of the authors, to increase objectivity in scientific publishing (see The Scientist's recent feature for a review). These approaches minimize prejudices while encouraging constructive criticism, which shall serve to increase the quality of the work and reduce the occurrence of research misconduct. Suresh Radhakrishnan worked at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., as a senior research associate until he was fired for misconduct in May 2010. Related stories: Opinion: Erase science's blacklist 10 retractions and counting Are we training too many scientists? Read more: Opinion: How to prevent fraud - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57738/#ixzz11iZDPWvE
At the end of my two lectures on scientific writing, I am sometimes asked: How should I deal with reviews that are critical? Well, I am prepared for such a question, in two ppt slides. 1. Allow yourself a break, and come back (to deal with the reviews) when you are no longer as upset; 2. Go over the comments carefully, and ask yourself if the reviewers indeed have valid points; 3. Assume the reviewers intend to make your paper better, which is true most of the time; 4. Answer honestly what you could and could not do --that's right, you don't have to do everything asked ; 5. Summarize the main points in the cover letter to the journal editor . What I do not include in those ppt slides are: 1. Do draft your responses as emotionally as you would like, using f-word, s-word, etc.; 2. Revise the draft many times to make sure the writing is clear; 3. After you get tired of seeing those colorful words, delete them and tune down your emotion; 4. Produce a final version of your reply as professional as you can. Good luck to you!
This Second Edition of How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper will help both first-time writers and more experienced authors, in all biological and medical disciplines, to present their results effectively. Whilst retaining the easy-to-read and well-structured approach of the previous edition, it has been broadened to include comprehensive advice on writing compilation theses for doctoral degrees, and a detailed description of preparing case reports. Illustrations, particularly graphs, are discussed in detail, with poor examples redrawn for comparison. The reader is offered advice on how to present the paper, where and how to submit the manuscript, and finally, how to correct the proofs. Examples of both good and bad writing, selected from actual journal articles, illustrate the authors advice which has been developed through his extensive teaching experience in this accessible and informative guide. BJORN GUSTAVII has been teaching courses in scientific writing for doctoral (Ph.D.) students in medicine for 25 years.He brings his personal experience to this book, both from writing more than 100 of his own research papers and from his work as a journal editor. Published date: 2008 Pages: 180 Free Download: Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper.part1 Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper.part2
标签: how
![[转载]像爱因斯坦一样思考 (How to Think Like Einstein)](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201206/09/1406195m41pm4pktz2ct2k.png.thumb.jpg)
