Scientific Reports 4-7577 (2014) 复杂社会网络中的双向选择 Bidirectional selection between two classes in complex social networks Bin Zhou, Zhe He, Luo-Luo Jiang, Nian-Xin Wang Bing-Hong Wang The bi-directional selection between two classes widely emerges in various social lives, such as commercial trading and mate choosing. Until now, the discussions on bidirectional selection in structured human society are quite limited. We demonstrated theoretically that the rate of successfully matching is affected greatly by individuals’ neighborhoods in social networks, regardless of the type of networks. Furthermore, it is found that the high average degree of networks contributes to increasing rates of successful matches. The matching performance in different types of networks has been quantitatively investigated ， revealing that the small-world networks reinforces the matching rate more than scale-free networks at given average degree. In addition, our analysis is consistent with the modeling result, which provides the theoretical understanding of underlying mechanisms of matching in complex networks. 双向选择在人类的日常生活中非常普遍，例如：市场贸易买卖双方的交易成功，商业合作伙伴的选择，一年一度的毕业生与招聘方之间的就业双向选择，以及城市和社区中的男女择偶双向选择相亲大会等等。我们已经给出一个初步的双向选择系统模型，并且得到82组相亲大会实证数据的检验，【见： PLoS ONE 9, e81424 (2014) A model of two-way selection system for human behavior . 】。 但是以上的研究实质上属于一个全联通网络上的双向选择机制。本文将双向选择机制拓展到任意一种网络上，包括各种网络模型（ER随机网络，WS小世界网络，BA无标度网络）以及现实世界中的各种真实网络。我们的研究结果表明：网络结构对双向选择匹配率有重要影响。可以发现：WS小世界网络的拓扑结构最有利于匹配，而BA无标度网络则最不利于匹配。这似乎表明：WS小世界网络的形成对应于现实生活中社交网络的演化形成是朝着更有利于异性个体之间匹配趋势进行的。我们通过断边重连改变WS小世界的网络结构，发现双向选择系统的匹配结果将随断边重连概率之变化而呈现丰富多样的变化。其内在原因的揭示，有待后续工作的进一步深入研究。 原文下载： SciRep 4-7577(2014) ZhouHeJiangWangWang 复杂社会网络中的双向选择.pdf
Materials Science Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China October to December 2013 Review of studies on corrosion of magnesium alloys • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 16, June 2006, Pages s763-s771 ZENG, R.c.; ZHANG, J.; HUANG, W.j.; DIETZEL, W.; KAINER, K.U.; BLAWERT, C.; KE, W. Total concentrations and different fractions of heavy metals in sewage sludge from Guangzhou, China • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 8, August 2013, Pages 2397-2407 LIU, J.y.; SUN, S.y. Effects of welding parameters and tool geometry on properties of 3003-H18 aluminum alloy to mild steel friction stir weld • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 7, July 2013, Pages 1957-1965 DEHGHANI, M.; MOUSAVI, S.A.A.A.; AMADEH, A. Materials flow and phase transformation in friction stir welding of Al 6013/Mg • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 5, May 2013, Pages 1253-1261 POURAHMAD, P.; ABBASI, M. Cited by Scopus (1) Application of EBSD technique to ultrafine grained and nanostructured materials processed by severe plastic deformation: Sample preparation, parameters optimization and analysis • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 22, Issue 8, August 2012, Pages 18 01-18 09 CHEN, Y.j.; HJELEN, J.; ROVEN, H.J. Effects of pin angle and preheating on temperature distribution during friction stir welding operation • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 27 08-27 13 KEIVANI, R.; BAGHERI, B.; SHARIFI, F.; KETABCHI, M.; ABBASI, M. Anisotropy of localized corrosion in 7050-T7451 Al alloy thick plate • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 2483-2490 SONG, F.x.; ZHANG, X.m.; LIU, S.d.; HAN, N.m.; LI, D.f. Three-point bending behavior of aluminum foam sandwich with steel panel • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 2491-2495 ZU, G.y.; LU, R.h.; LI, X.b.; ZHONG, Z.y.; MA, X.j.; HAN, M.b.; YAO, G.c. Mechanical properties, corrosion behaviors and microstructures of 7075 aluminium alloy with various aging treatments • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 18, Issue 4, August 2008, Pages 755-762 LI, J.f.; PENG, Z.w.; LI, C.x.; JIA, Z.q.; CHEN, W.j.; ZHENG, Z.q. Cited by Scopus (51) Recent development of LiNixCoyMnzO2: Impact of micro/nano structures for imparting improvements in lithium batteries • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 1 08-11 9 PAN, C.c.; BANKS, C.E.; SONG, W.x.; WANG, C.w.; CHEN, Q.y.; JI, X.b. Cited by Scopus (2) Strength and fatigue fracture behavior of Al-Zn-Mg-Cu-Zr(-Sn) alloys • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 10, October 2013, Pages 2817-2825 CHEN, L.; YAN, A.; LIU, H.s.; LI, X.q. Comparison of microstructure and mechanical properties of conventional and refilled friction stir spot welds in AA 6061-T6 using filler plate • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 10, October 2013, Pages 2833-2842 VENUKUMAR, S.; YALAGI, S.; MUTHUKUMARAN, S. Cited by Scopus (1) A review on in vitro corrosion performance test of biodegradable metallic materials • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 8, August 2013, Pages 2283-2293 ZHEN, Z.; XI, T.f.; ZHENG, Y.f. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Xiawan Port based on modified potential ecological risk index • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 22, Issue 6, June 2012, Pages 1470-1477 ZHU, H.n.; YUAN, X.z.; ZENG, G.m.; JIANG, M.; LIANG, J.; ZHANG, C.; YIN, J.; HUANG, H.j.; LIU, Z.f.; JIANG, H.w. Cited by Scopus (5) Microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar pure copper/1350 aluminum alloy butt joints by friction stir welding • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 22, Issue 6, June 2012, Pages 1298-1306 LI, X.w.; ZHANG, D.t.; QIU, C.; ZHANG, W. Cited by Scopus (2) Thermal modeling of underwater friction stir welding of high strength aluminum alloy • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 4, April 2013, Pages 1114-1122 ZHANG, H.j.; LIU, H.j.; YU, L. Recycling of automotive aluminum • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 20, Issue 11, November 2010, Pages 2057-2063 CUI, J.; ROVEN, H.J. Cited by Scopus (13) Analysis and optimization of drilling parameters for tool wear and hole dimensional accuracy in B4C reinforced Al-alloy • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 2524-2536 TASKESEN, A.; KUTUKDE, K. Adsorption behavior and adsorption mechanism of Cu(II) ions on amino-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 2657-2665 LI, H.; XIAO, D.l.; HE, H.; LIN, R.; ZUO, P.l. Environmental availability and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in zinc leaching residue • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 2 08-21 8 MIN, X.b.; XIE, X.d.; CHAI, L.y.; LIANG, Y.j.; LI, M.; KE, Y. Anodizing of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy in sulfuric-boric-phosphoric acids and its corrosion behavior • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 9, September 2013, Pages 2551-2559 SAEEDIKHANI, M.; JAVIDI, M.; YAZDANI, A. Dissimilar friction stir welding between 5052 aluminum alloy and AZ31 magnesium alloy • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 20, July 2010, Pages s619-s623 YAN, Y.; ZHANG, D.t.; QIU, C.; ZHANG, W. Heavy metals contamination characteristics in soil of different mining activity zones • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2008, Pages 2 07-21 1 LIAO, G.l.; LIAO, D.x.; LI, Q.m. Cited by Scopus (19) Development, modeling and application of piezoelectric fiber composites • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 98-107 LIN, X.j.; ZHOU, K.c.; ZHANG, X.y.; ZHANG, D. Mechanism of phosphorus removal in beneficiation of high phosphorous oolitic hematite by direct reduction roasting with dephosphorization agent • Article Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, Volume 22, Issue 11, November 2012, Pages 28 06-28 12 XU, C.y.; SUN, T.c.; KOU, J.; LI, Y.l.; MO, X.l.; TANG, L.g. Cited by Scopus (3)
去年，我们实验室在内含子进化方面做出了一些自我感觉不错的研究结果。字斟句酌地整理好论文，兴致勃勃地投到了我们这个领域最好的期刊Molecular Biology and Evolution。若干星期之后，收到审稿意见。评审人指出了一些问题，所有问题我们都是可以改的，但主编没有给修改的机会。理由是期刊稿件量太多，他们只能接受最好的论文。没办法，换了一个期刊，又换一个期刊。都不行。但每一次，我们都按审稿意见认真修改了。 最后，我们把论文投往本领域的普通期刊BMC Evolutionary Biology。这一次，两个审稿人对稿件都很满意，仅提出一些小的修改意见。在审稿意见中Level of interest 一栏，两位审稿人的一致评价是: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field（1）。很少的一点问题，我们很快就修改完成。没想到，小小的修改又审了很久。看到审稿状态显示审稿意见已经回到编辑部，主编做决定又拖了好多天。这段时间，对他们真得很不满意。 没想到，久等的编辑部来信竟然是个意外的惊喜。经过征求专业编委的意见，编辑部认为我们的论文达到了他们的旗舰期刊BMC Biology的要求。让我们选择在BMC Biology还是继续在BMC Evolutionary Biology上发表我们的论文。他们的提示是，前者读者面更广、影响更大。我们毫不犹豫地选择了BMC Biology。除了读者面广外，还有很现实的考虑，研究生评奖学金的把握大小和我的科研津贴的多少。 与BMC Evolutionary Biology相比，BMC Biology的出版费贵了225英镑。相应地，编辑部在论文上的投入明显大于该公司出版的BMC Evolutionary Biology等普通期刊。他们在编辑格式时，对论文语言做了一次全面修改，相当于一次语言公司的修改。一般期刊只要求语言上没有明显问题就算了。另外，论文发表后，编辑部为每一篇论文都写一个“Editor's summary”，从编辑的角度、用通俗的语言简单介绍一下文章的结果。个别优秀的论文，他们还会邀请专家写评论文章“Commentary”。当然，这些投入是要花费时间的，如果选择在专业期刊上发表，论文online的时间估计会快一个星期以上（根据同期我评审的他人论文的审稿发表时间估计的）。 经过这次投稿经历，对BMC系列期刊的好感明显增加。该网站上介绍说，作者还可以把论文直接投给BMC系列的两个旗舰期刊BMC Biology和BMC Medicine。这两个期刊如果退稿，审稿意见应作者要求可以直接转给BMC系列的专业期刊（2）。 简单地发几句感慨。有些内容不错的论文，因为论文组织写作不够完美，最初作者投的好期刊不接受。但作者按审稿意见认真修改好了论文，原来的期刊又不接受重投。经过反复退稿，作者也心灰意冷了。不想再受刺激了。这种情况下，BMC系列的专业期刊无疑是一个好的选择。 相关博文： 《科学》最新报道：退稿有益 1）、BMC系列期刊审稿时要求审稿人评价一下论文的意义大小。他们将学术论文的意义大小分为6个层次： An exceptional article (相当于Cell, Nature和Science等顶级期刊论文的水平) An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field (相当于各领域最好的专业期刊论文的水平) An article of importance in its field An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests An article of limited interest An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a scientific/medical journal 2）、Nature、PLoS等出版多个层次专业期刊的机构也有类似的服务，但只有向下单向传递审稿意见。如PLoS的PLoS Computational Biology等期刊退稿时，编辑会建议作者考虑将论文投往PLoS One，他们可以把审稿意见转过去。但PLoS One审稿中发现的好论文不会转到PLoS Biology等好一些的期刊发表。
Dear Mrs Liu, A year ago your article 'A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion' was published in Journal of Documentation . Since then this article has been downloaded 332 times . Emerald is interested in understanding more about how you disseminate and share your article so that we can support you better in doing so. In order to help us do this we would really appreciate it if you would take our If you would like some advice on disseminating your article more widely, please read ourhow to disseminate your worlguide, or check out some of our other how to ....guides on sharing and disseminating your research work. I'd like to thank you in advance for your help with the survey and I hope you find the above guides useful. If you have any feedback on the guides, or on your experiences with Emerald, please do contact us by replying directly to this message.
LaTeX tips: Displayed Math Note: Most of the tips below require the amslatex macros. These are automatically loaded if you use the "amsart" documentclass, but if you use other documentclasses, such as "article", put the following in the preamble, after "\documentclass{...}": " \usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb} ". For more about the amslatex macros, and as a general reference for the tips below, see Gratzer's "Math into LaTeX". Single line displays The double dollar symbol ($$). In Plaintex and Amstex displayed math was set by enclosing it between a pair of double dollar signs. In LaTeX the double dollar sign does not exist as a valid command, and most LaTeX books don't even mention it, since it is not supposed to be used. However, the dirty secret is that it works just fine in most situations, and many authors use it with impunity. Nonetheless, there are a few situations where it causes problems, and it may not work under future versions of tex. If you come from a Tex/Amstex background and are in the habit of typing $$'s, try to gradually switch over to using the backslash/bracket pair. If you are new to Tex/LaTeX, learn it right from the start (i.e., use the backslash/bracket method). The backslash/bracket pair, \ . Use this for all unnumbered displays. It's a good habit to put each of these pairs on a line by itself. Though Tex doesn't care, this makes displays stand out visually and makes editing and revising the tex file easier. \begin{equation}\label{...} ... \end{equation}. Use this if you want the equation to be automatically numbered. You can later reference the equation with "\eqref{...}", where the text inside the braces is the equation label. (Note that no parentheses are required with "\eqref".) For more on equation numbering, see below. \begin{equation*}... \tag{...}\end{equation*}. Same as the equation environment, except that automatic numbering is disabled, and the "\tag{...}" command generates an explicit equation number. For example, to get equation number (4.1a), use "\tag{4.1a}". (Again no parentheses are needed.) Multiline displays While single line displays are pretty straightforward to typeset, there are at least a dozen different constructs to generate multiline displays with the amslatex macros, and it's easy for a beginner to be overwhelmed by the multitude of options. Fortunately, you can get by knowning only two of these, namely the "align/align*" and "cases" environments. Unless you are a professional typesetter striving for 110% perfection, you don't need anything beyond that. \begin{align} ... \end{align} and \begin{align*} ... \end{align*}. Nearly all multiline displays can be typeset with the one of these two environments, which are derived from the amstex "\align ... \endalign" construct, and follow (essentially) the same syntax. The difference between "align" and "align*" is the same as between "equation" and "equation*": The starred versions don't automatically generate equation numbers. Use those versions, if you don't want equation numbers, or if you want to number equations manually. Equation numbering and labelling in align/align*. By default, every line gets numbered separately in the "align" environment. If you want just a single equation number for the entire display (which would be appropriate if the display consists of a chain of equalities or inequalities), pick a line in the middle of the display that is to get the number, and put "\notag" right before the linebreak symbol ("\\") on all other lines. On lines that are to be numbered, you can put the label command, "\label{...}", before the linebreak. With "align*", it works the other way: By default, none of the lines gets numbered, so to number a particular line you must put an explicit "\tag{...}" command at the end of that line, before the linebreak symbol. \begin{cases} ... \end{cases}. Aside from align, the only other multiline construct that you may need with any frequency is "cases". It works in much the same way as the amstex "\cases ... \endcases" construct. Note that the "cases" environment is a "subsidiary" math environement and has to be enclosed by another, top level, display math environent, such as equation or align/align*. Here is a typical example:\begin{equation*} |x|= \begin{cases} x \text{if $x≥0$,} \\ -x \text{if $x\le 0$.} \end{cases} \end{equation*} Note that the part after the alignment symbol usual contains some text and is best typeset using "\text{... }", and enclosing any math material within the braces in dollar signs. eqnarray/eqnarray* and array. Avoid these. Before the advent of amslatex, multiline displays and cases constructs had to be typeset with "eqnarray" and "array". However, the above (amslatex) environments "align/align*" and "cases" are easier too use, provide greater functionality, and generate better looking output. There is no reason whatsoever to use "eqnarray" instead of "align", and, except in very rare situations, "array" is unnecessary. Other amslatex display environements. Amslatex provides several other environments for multiline displays, such as "split, gather, gathered, multline, aligned, alignat," as well as starred version of most of these. These may do a marginally better job in some special situations, but the (mostly cosmetic) gain that these environments provide in those situations is not worth the effort of memorizing the various alternatives to the "align/align*" environments. Writing tips How to number equations. By default, LaTeX will number equations consecutively, as (1), (2), etc., assuming you use the automatic equation numbering mechanism. If the paper is very short, or if there are only a few numbered equations, this is fine, but once the numbers get into the twenties and higher, a scheme that numbers equations by section, as in (1.1), (1.2), ..., (2.1), etc., is preferable. In fact, for the vast majority of journal articles, the latter is probably the best numbering scheme. To get equations numbered by section, just put the following into the preamble: " \numberwithin{equation}{section} ". For books, theses, or very long papers, an equation numbering scheme that is three levels deep (with numbers like (4.1.1), etc.) may be appropriate. To get this, just replace "section" above by "subsection", or the corresponding innermost level. The same mechanism works for other counters, e.g., theorem counters, instead of "equation". When to number equations. It is (generally) bad style to number every displayed equation indicriminately. This is what you get if you would use "\begin{equation} ... \end{equation}" throughout. The reason for numbering an equation is to enable subsequent references to it. Thus, in general only equations that are being referred to in the paper should be numbered. However, there are situations where one might number an equation even if it is not referred to in the paper. For instance, it might be appropriate to number all equations inside theorems, for consistency of style, and to make it easy to refer to these equations in subsequent work. Similarly, if a reference to an equation occurs right after that equation, a number may not be necessary; one could get by saying something like "Since f(x) is positive, the last linequality implies that ...". When to display a mathematical formula or equation. Formulas set inline are harder to spot, may cause problems with bad linebreaks (which one has to fix by inserting explicit linebreaks), and they may look poor, especially if they involve fractions, sums, integrals, or other "large" objects. On the other hand, one should not indiscriminately display every equation or formula. A judicious choice of what to display can make a a significant difference in the overall appearance and readability of a paper. Here are some guidelines. You should display formulas/equations in the following cases: A numbered equation. This is a no-brainer. A formula that is excessively long. If a formula takes up more than about half of a line of space, it would probably be good to display it. Formulas set inline should never be longer than one line (even though tex would accept multiline inline displays and probably do a reasonably good job in splitting the formula). A formula that takes up excessive vertical space. Formulas that involves complicated sums or integrals with multiple subscripts or superscripts, or stacked fractions, take up a lot of vertical space and cause subsequent lines to be moved down, if set as inline formulas. In these situations, it may be appriopriate to display the formula. Simple sums, integrals, or fractions, are usually not a problem; for example, an expression like "\sum_{k=1}^nk=n(n+1)/2" doesn't need to be displayed. A formula that you want to give special emphasis. Even if a formula would look fine inline from a typesetting point of view, it may be appropriate to display it for emphasis. This could be the case, for example, with an important definition, or a crucial condition/hypothesis in a theorem. How to break up long formulas. Breaking up overlong lines in displays can be very tricky, and requires a good knowledge of the underlying mathematics as well as a feel for good mathematical typesetting. For that reason, TeX doesn't break formulas, as it does with ordinary text. However, there are some general guidelines. Here are possible breaking points, in decreasing order of desirability: Right before an equal sign or equivalent (e.g., a "less than" sign) . In this case, place the alignment symbol (ampersand) placed before the equal sign, i.e., " ... + x \\ = ". The equal signs (or equivalent) should be aligned. Before a plus or minus sign. In that case, the continuation line should be shifted to the right by a \qquad. If the continuation line is very short, two \qquad's might be better. Between two large "chunks" that are multiplied. The chunks could be large parenthesized expression, sums or integrals. This should be used only as a last resort, and in that case the preceding line should end with an explicit multiplication symbol ("\times"), the continuation line should begin with "\times" symbol and be shifted as far to the right (by preceding it with a few "\qquad"'s after the alignment symbol). Punctuation in displays. Displayed mathematics should be properly punctuated. For example, if a displayed formula occurs at the end of a sentence, the display should be terminated by a period. No additional spacing (such as "\," or "\ ") is needed to separate the formula from the punctuation sign. A good way to get the punctuation right is to replace the display by a place holder, such as " " and punctuate accordingly. Thus, for example, if the sentence surrounding the display is "Since f is monotonic, we have , where ...", then no punctuation symbol is needed before the display, but the display should be terminated by a comma, since the phrase introduced by "where" following the display calls for a comma. A comma before the display would be wrong in this case (as would any other punctuation sign, such as a colon), since it would interrupt the continuity of the sentence. Here are additional hints for some special situations: Punctuation in cases constructs. If a formula is set via a "cases" construct, each case ( = line) should be terminated with a comma; if the display occurs at the end of the sentence, the final comma should be changed to a period. Puntuation for "parenthetical" matter. Expressions indicating the range of validaty of a formula, or a limiting process can be set either in parenthesis with no punctuation separating the expression from the formula, or separated from the formula by a comma. The following examples illustrate the two options:f(x) = \sqrt{1+x} \quad (x \ge -1) f(x) = \sqrt{1+x}, \quad x \ge -1 f(x) \sim x^2 \quad (x\to\infty) f(x) \sim x^2, \quad x\to\infty It would be wrong to use both a comma and parentheses. (Note that, depending on the context, a punctuation sign at the end of the display may also be called for.) Additional hints Spacing in displays. Usually it's best to leave the spacing up to TeX. However, if explicit horizontal spacing is needed (for example, to set an expression like "(n \to \infty)" apart from the rest of the display, or to separate two equations on the same line), "\quad" in most cases generates the right amount of space. Don't try to create spacing with a bunch of explicit spaces ("\ "); the spacing generated in this way is usually not optimal, and the explicit spaces will likely have to be removed (and possibly replaced by "\quad") when the paper is typeset at the publisher's end. Avoid blank lines before or after a display, unless you really want to start a new paragraph: It is tempting to surround displayed math material by blank lines in the source file, to make them stand out and easier to locate. However, this is usually wrong, since blank lines are interpreted as paragraph breaks, may generate some additional vertical spacing and cause the next line of text to be indented - something you usually don't want. If you want to set off displays in your source file, do so by inserting a line with comment symbols, such as%%%%% equation 3.1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%% before and/or after the display. Correcting underful vboxes and bad page breaks. By default, TeX does not break pages inside display environments such as align. If a paper has many multiline formulas, this may cause "underful vboxes", which can look very poor if the badness (reported by tex in the log file) is a few thousand. One way to remedy this is to put the command "\allowdisplaybreaks" in the preamble. However, this may cause some poor pagebreaks which may have to be fixed. A compromise solution is to use "\allowdisplaybreaks" locally, on the individual displays that cause problems: "{\allowdisplaybreaks \begin{align} ... \end{align} }." The best solution is to prevent this problem by avoiding excessively long displays (say, with five or more lines). It is often not hard to break up a very long display into two, for example by inserting a phrase like "By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the last expression is at most" in the middle of the overlong display, followed by the remaining lines of the display. Multiline subscripts on sums or integrals. Use the "\substack{...}" command, which works much like the "\sb ... \endsb" pair in amstex. It is much easier to use, and produces better looking output than an array environment or a construct using "\atop" (derived from plain tex). Back to the LaTeX Tips Page Last modified: Sat 08 Sep 2007 06:43:24 PM CDT A.J. Hildebrand
一个是最重要的粮食作物； 一个是集粮食、饲料和啤酒原料于一身的谷类作物； 而它们的共同点是都是基因组庞大的禾本科作物。 如今，它们的基因组也公布于世，为作物遗传和育种研究者带来新的资源和工具。 2012年11月29日NATURE当期2篇文章以ARTICLE的形式报道了大小麦基组测序结果。其中，来自英国利物浦大学和加州大学戴维斯分校等研究者报道了小麦的全基因组测序结果。小麦的基因组非常复杂和庞大，拥有17G碱基对，包含约9.6万个基因，是水稻基因组的43倍，成为禾本科作物中最重要粮食作物基因组测序的里程碑。 小麦基因组测序（17 Gb）： http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11650.html Analysis of the bread wheat genome using whole-genome shotgun sequencing Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is a globally important crop, accounting for 20 per cent of the calories consumed by humans. Major efforts are underway worldwide to increase wheat production by extending genetic diversity and analysing key traits, and genomic resources can accelerate progress. But so far the very large size and polyploid complexity of the bread wheat genome have been substantial barriers to genome analysis. Here we report the sequencing of its large, 17-gigabase-pair, hexaploid genome using 454 pyrosequencing, and comparison of this with the sequences of diploid ancestral and progenitor genomes. We identified between 94,000 and 96,000 genes, and assigned two-thirds to the three component genomes (A, B and D) of hexaploid wheat. High-resolution synteny maps identified many small disruptions to conserved gene order. We show that the hexaploid genome is highly dynamic, with significant loss of gene family members on polyploidization and domestication, and an abundance of gene fragments. Several classes of genes involved in energy harvesting, metabolism and growth are among expanded gene families that could be associated with crop productivity. Our analyses, coupled with the identification of extensive genetic variation, provide a resource for accelerating gene discovery and improving this major crop. 同时，德国莱布尼茨植物遗传学与农作物研究所Nils Stein教授领衔的一个国际大麦测序联盟公布了大麦基因组测序结果。大麦的基因组也非常庞大，拥有5.1G碱基对，是水稻基因组的13倍。大麦基因组测序的完成，将为大麦遗传育种研究和啤酒工业带来新的动力。 大麦基因组测序(5.1Gb)： http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11543.html A physical, genetic and functional sequence assembly of the barley genome Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is among the world’s earliest domesticated and most important crop plants. It is diploid with a large haploid genome of 5.1 gigabases (Gb). Here we present an integrated and ordered physical, genetic and functional sequence resource that describes the barley gene-space in a structured whole-genome context. We developed a physical map of 4.98Gb, with more than 3.90Gb anchored to a high-resolution genetic map. Projecting a deep whole-genome shotgun assembly, complementary DNA and deep RNA sequence data onto this framework supports 79,379 transcript clusters, including 26,159 ‘high-confidence’ genes with homology support from other plant genomes. Abundant alternative splicing, premature termination codons and novel transcriptionally active regions suggest that post-transcriptional processing forms an important regulatory layer. Survey sequences from diverse accessions reveal a landscape of extensive single-nucleotide variation. Our data provide a platform for both genome-assisted research and enabling contemporary crop improvement.
转座子是在基因组中具有“moving”能力的DNA序列，大量的全基因组测序都表明其基因组中的含量丰富，但是他们在基因组中的功能仍然是个迷，本文就动植物中的各种具有活性的转座子做了综述。 Active Transposition in Genomes. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2012. 46:651–75 The Annual Review of Genetics is online at genet.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-110711-155616 Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0066-4197/12/1201-0651$20.00
Here enclosed an article dealing with the language family tree. The title is "The Indo-European Language Family Tree", and it comes from the following website: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html The Indo-European Language Family Tree By Jack Lynch , Rutgers — Newark The chart below shows the relations among some of the languages in the Indo-European family. Though you wouldn't think to look at the tangle of lines and arrows, the chart is very much simplified: many languages and even whole language families are left out. Use it, therefore, with caution. The coverage is most thorough, but still far from complete, in the Germanic branch, which includes English. The dotted line from French to Middle English suggests not direct descent, but the influx of French vocabulary in the centuries after the Norman Invasion. Some caveats. In the interest of making this readable, I've left out dozens of languages. I've even omitted the entire Anatolian, Albanian, and Tocharian families; I've included no languages from the Baltic branch or the Continental Celtic branch; I've grossly oversimplified the Indo-Iranian family; and so on. The historical phases of some languages — Old Swedish, Middle Swedish, Modern Swedish; Vedic Sanskrit, Middle Indic — have been left out. I've made no attempt to distinguish living languages from dead ones. I'm not trying to make the definitive statement of the relationships among all the Indo-European languages, only to give my students some idea of the origins of the English language, and its relations to other familiar languages — along with a few less familiar ones. here enclosed the pdf version of the chart. language.pdf PS. More information about the Indo-European Language Family: http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum.htm The section below provides an outline listing of all the languages described in this chart. For a complete listing of all Indo-European languages, see the Indo-European Language Family . Another beautiful language family tree: (source: http://srhabay.wikispaces.com/19+INDO-EUROPEAN+LANGUAGE+FAMILY )
大多数动物，包括人类，在其一生中都不断经历进食和饥饿的周期循环。进食后以葡萄糖为主的血糖急速上升，而血糖得不到及时的控制则是糖尿病最主要的特征，同时餐后的高血糖也是糖尿病病人罹患心血管并发症的主要原因。机体有多种机制参与了餐后血糖的调控，其中最主要的途径是通过胰岛细胞分泌胰岛素，增加机体外周组织对血糖的吸收，从而降低血糖。 肝脏是机体最重要的代谢器官，同时也是一个血糖的感受器官。多年前的动物实验表明，进食后约三分之一的血糖能够转化为肝糖原，从而储备过多的葡萄糖。但目前尚不清楚肝脏的糖原合成如何与进食和饥饿的循环周期相协调，以维持餐后血糖的稳定。 中科院上海生命科学研究院营养科学研究所陈雁课题组博士生罗小琳等人发现，饥饿能在小鼠肝脏中诱导一个基因的表达，名为PPP1R3G，而进食后该基因表达则下降。进一步的研究表明，PPP1R3G是一个蛋白磷酸酶的调节亚基，PPP1R3G的功能是把该蛋白磷酸酶锚定在糖原上，增加糖原合成酶的活性，进而增加糖原合成。在小鼠实验中，罗小琳等人发现过度表达PPP1R3G后，进食后血糖清除率明显提高。若在小鼠中降低PPP1R3G的表达，进食后的血糖清除速度则显著延迟。因此，这一研究发现了肝脏PPP1R3G在餐后血糖的调控中发挥了至关重要的功能，而尤其有意义的是，这一功能与机体的进食和饥饿周期紧密相关。机体在饥饿时PPP1R3G增加，进食后的短时间内，PPP1R3G可以介导肝糖原的快速合成，从而快速降低血糖。 该工作近日在国际糖尿病研究领域权威杂志《糖尿病》（ Diabetes ）在线发表。血糖调控异常是糖尿病的一个最根本因素，而糖尿病的发病率在我国以及世界范围内呈现急剧上升的趋势。该研究揭示了一个全新的调控餐后血糖的新机制，对于糖尿病血糖失衡的理解和未来控制血糖的策略提供了一个全新的思路。 该工作得到了中科院、国家自然科学基金委和科技部的资助。（来源：中科院上海生命科学研究院） 更多阅读 《糖尿病》发表论文摘要（英文） Fasting-Induced Protein Phosphatase 1 Regulatory Subunit Contributes to Postprandial Blood Glucose Homeostasis via Regulation on Hepatic Glycogenesis Xiaolin Luo , Yongxian Zhang , Xiangbo Ruan , Xiaomeng Jiang , Lu Zhu , Xiao Wang , Qiurong Ding , Weizhong Liu , Yi Pan , Zhenzhen Wang and Yan Chen + Author Affiliations Key Laboratory of Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Nutritional Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China Corresponding author: Yan Chen, ychen3@sibs.ac.cn . Abstract OBJECTIVE Most animals experience fasting–feeding cycles throughout their lives. It is well known that the liver plays a central role in regulating glycogen metabolism. However, how hepatic glycogenesis is coordinated with the fasting–feeding cycle to control postprandial glucose homeostasis remains largely unknown. This study determines the molecular mechanism underlying the coupling of hepatic glycogenesis with the fasting–feeding cycle. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Through a series of molecular, cellular, and animal studies, we investigated how PPP1R3G, a glycogen-targeting regulatory subunit of protein phosphatase 1 (PP1), is implicated in regulating hepatic glycogenesis and glucose homeostasis in a manner tightly orchestrated with the fasting–feeding cycle. RESULTS PPP1R3G in the liver is upregulated during fasting and downregulated after feeding. PPP1R3G associates with glycogen pellet, interacts with the catalytic subunit of PP1, and regulates glycogen synthase (GS) activity. Fasting glucose level is reduced when PPP1R3G is overexpressed in the liver. Hepatic knockdown of PPP1R3G reduces postprandial elevation of GS activity, decreases postprandial accumulation of liver glycogen, and decelerates postprandial clearance of blood glucose. Other glycogen-targeting regulatory subunits of PP1, such as PPP1R3B, PPP1R3C, and PPP1R3D, are downregulated by fasting and increased by feeding in the liver. CONCLUSIONS We propose that the opposite expression pattern of PPP1R3G versus other PP1 regulatory subunits comprise an intricate regulatory machinery to control hepatic glycogenesis during the fasting–feeding cycle. Because of its unique expression pattern, PPP1R3G plays a major role to control postprandial glucose homeostasis during the fasting–feeding transition via its regulation on liver glycogenesis. Received November 30, 2010. Accepted February 25, 2011. 2011 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details. CiteULike Delicious Digg Facebook Google+ Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this? Articles citing this article Identification of RIFL, a novel adipocyte-enriched insulin target gene with a role in lipid metabolism American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology And Metabolism August 1, 2012 303 : E334 - E351 Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Research Advances at the Institute for Nutritional Sciences at Shanghai, China Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal September 1, 2011 2 : 428 - 439 Full Text (PDF)
Highly Cited Articles from Nucleic Acids Research In recognition of Nucleic Acids Research 's new, improved Impact Factor of 8.026 , we've created a free collection of highly-cited articles contributing to the new Impact Factor. The Pfam protein families database Robert D. Finn, Jaina Mistry, John Tate, et al. KEGG for representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs Minoru Kanehisa, Susumu Goto, Miho Furumichi, et al. The UCSC Genome Browser database: update 2010 Brooke Rhead, Donna Karolchik, Robert M. Kuhn, et al. Dali server: conservation mapping in 3D Liisa Holm, Paivi Rosenstrom MEROPS: the peptidase database Neil D. Rawlings, Alan J. Barrett, Alex Bateman The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2010 B. Aranda, P. Achuthan, Y. Alam-Faruque, et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information Eric W. Sayers, Tanya Barrett, Dennis A. Benson, et al. The Genomes On Line Database (GOLD) in 2009: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata Konstantinos Liolios, I-Min A. Chen, Konstantinos Mavromatis, et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes and the BioCyc collection of pathway/genome databases Ron Caspi, Tomer Altman, Joseph M. Dale, et al. Ensembl's 10th year Paul Flicek, Bronwen L. Aken, Benoit Ballester, et al. 来源于 http://www.seq.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthreadtid=2969extra=page%3D1
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109 FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context, which they blatantly failed to do. First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in 2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010 . This leads to an improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to be treated as 7 s. Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters. An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous” based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound. Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature ). Ye, on the other hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93 s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM, Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works. Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible: other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be? Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release , drug testing for Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or reporting should be done. Ewen Callaway 原文： Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions 01 August 2012 Corrected: 03 August 2012 Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen broke the world record for the women's 400-metre individual medley event at the Olympic Games on 28 July. L. Neal /AFP / Getty Images See also Editors’ note | Letter from Lai Jiang | Editors’ note (continued) At the Olympics, how fast is too fast? That question has dogged Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen after the 16-year-old shattered the world record in the women's 400-metre individual medley (400 IM) on Saturday. In the wake of that race, some swimming experts wondered whether Ye’s win was aided by performance-enhancing drugs. She has never tested positive for a banned substance and the International Olympic Committee on Tuesday declared that her post-race test was clean. The resulting debate has been tinged with racial and political undertones, but little science. Nature examines whether and how an athlete's performance history and the limits of human physiology could be used to catch dopers. Was Ye’s performance anomalous? Yes. Her time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than her time in the same event at a major meet in July 2011. But what really raised eyebrows was her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men’s 400 IM on Saturday, with the second-fastest time ever for that event. Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping? No, says Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Athletes are much more likely to dope while in training, when drug testing tends to be less rigorous. “Everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing,” Tucker says. Related stories Performance enhancement: Superhuman athletes Science at the Olympics: Team science Racing just to keep up More related stories Out-of-competition tests are more likely to catch dopers, he says, but it is not feasible to test every elite athlete regularly year-round. Tracking an athlete over time and flagging anomalous performances would help anti-doping authorities to make better use of resources, says Yorck Olaf Schumacher, an exercise physiologist at the Medical University of Freiburg in Germany, who co-authored a 2009 paper proposing that performance profiling be used as an anti-doping tool 1 . “I think it’s a good way and a cheap way to narrow down a large group of athletes to suspicious ones, because after all, the result of any doping is higher performance,” Schumacher says. The ‘biological passport’, which measures characteristics of an athlete’s blood to look for physiological evidence of doping, works in a similar way to performance profiling (see ' Racing just to keep up '). After it was introduced in 2008, cycling authorities flagged irregularities in the blood characteristics of Antonio Colom, a Spanish cyclist, and targeted drug tests turned up evidence of the banned blood-boosting hormone erythropoietin (EPO) in 2009. How would performance be used to nab dopers? Anti-doping authorities need a better way of flagging anomalous performances or patterns of results, says Schumacher. To do this, sports scientists need to create databases that — sport by sport and event by event — record how athletes improve with age and experience. Longitudinal records of athletes’ performances would then be fed into statistical models to determine the likelihood that they ran or swam too fast, given their past results and the limits of human physiology. The Olympic biathlon, a winter sport that combines cross-country skiing and target shooting, has dabbled in performance profiling. In a pilot project, scientists at the International Biathlon Union in Salzburg, Austria, and the University of Ferrara in Italy, developed a software program that retroactively analysed blood and performance data from 180 biathletes over six years to identify those most likely to have doped 2 . The biathlon federation now uses the software to target its athletes for drug testing. Could an athlete then be disciplined simply for performing too well? “That would be unfair,” says Tucker. “The final verdict is only ever going to be reached by testing. It has to be.” In recent years, cycling authorities have successfully prosecuted athletes for having anomalous blood profiles, even when banned substances such as EPO could not be found. But performance is too far removed from taking a banned substance and influenced by too many outside factors to convict someone of doping, Tucker says. “When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or two.” EDITORS’ NOTE (updated 6 August 2012) This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response. The volume of comments has been so great that our online commenting system is unable to cope: it deletes earlier posts as new ones arrive. We much regret this ongoing problem. The disappearance of some cogent responses to the story has fuelled suspicions that Nature is deliberately censoring the strongest criticisms. This is absolutely not the case: Nature welcomes critically minded discussion of our content. (We intentionally removed only a few comments that violated our Community Guidelines by being abusive or defamatory, including several that offensively stereotyped the many Chinese readers who commented on the story.) Many of the commenters have questioned why we changed the original subtitle of the story from “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”. The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place. We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012. We have corrected the error. We apologize to our readers for these errors, and for the unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system. Below we reproduce one of the most thorough and thoughtful of the hundreds of responses we received. Beneath it, we continue with our response.
Nature的“道歉”发表后，科学网可说是“举网欢腾”。但是读了原文之后，不禁心生疑惑，Nature 的“道歉”究竟说了些什么？下面是Nature的原文，我的翻译和评论。 EDITORS’ NOTE (updated 6 August 2012) This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response. The volume of comments has been so great that our online commenting system is unable to cope: it deletes earlier posts as new ones arrive. We much regret this ongoing problem. The disappearance of some cogent responses to the story has fuelled suspicions that Nature is deliberately censoring the strongest criticisms. This is absolutely not the case: Nature welcomes critically minded discussion of our content. (We intentionally removed only a few comments that violated our Community Guidelines by being abusive or defamatory, including several that offensively stereotyped the many Chinese readers who commented on the story.) 本文引来了异乎寻常之多的义愤填膺的回应。评论的数量是如此之大以至于我们的在线评论系统难以承受，在新的评论涌入时删除了旧的评论。对这个仍然存在的问题我们非常抱歉。一些很有说服力的对原文的批评的消失引起了怀疑：Nature有意删除了最强烈的批评意见。这绝对不是事实：Nature 欢迎对我们文章内容的批判性讨论。（我们有意删除了一些辱骂和诽谤性的评论，包括几个令人厌恶的对中国读者怀有偏见的评论） *** 博主评论： Nature 对于一个技术问题表示了歉意，顺便表扬了一下自己的公正性,同时澄清了对Nature公正性的怀疑。 *** Many of the commenters have questioned why we changed the original subtitle of the story from “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”. The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place. We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012. We have corrected the error. 许多评论者问我们为什么把原来的新闻标题“‘成绩曲线’能够帮助我们发现体育运动中的欺骗行为”改成了“‘成绩曲线’能够帮助我们驱散怀疑”。原来的标题对游泳选手叶诗文是不公平的，也没有反映新闻的实质内容。首先，我们为原来的标题表示道歉。我们也为原来的新闻中包含的一个错误about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012表示道歉。我们已经改正了这个错误。 *** 博主评论： Nature承认新闻中有一个数据错误，并为此表示道歉；除此之外，Nature暗示新闻的实质内容并不错，只是原始的标题有不公正的地方，也为此道歉。Nature的道歉就这么多了。 *** We apologize to our readers for these errors, and for the unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system. Below we reproduce one of the most thorough and thoughtful of the hundreds of responses we received. Beneath it, we continue with our response. 。。。。。。（无需翻译）。。。。 EDITORS’ NOTE (continued) The news story was triggered by a debate that was already active, concerning the scale of Ye Shiwen’s victory. Such debates have arisen over many outstanding feats in the past, by athletes from many countries, and it is wrong to suggest, as many of the critics do, that we singled her out because of her nationality. 关于叶诗文的胜利的争论早已非常活跃，此新闻的灵感就是由此来的。来自许多国家的表现特别突出的许多运动员早就引起了这样的争论。许多批评者认为我们单单选择了叶诗文是因为她的民族，这种观点是错误的。 *** Nature说，虽然我们提到叶诗文，但并不是因为她是中国人，所以这篇新闻与种族和政治无关，请不要对号入座。 *** The story’s intention as an Explainer was to examine how science can help resolve debates over extraordinary performances, not to examine those performance statistics in detail. Several analyses done by others convinced us that it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual. But we acknowledge that the combination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discussion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphatically not our intention. For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shiwen. 本新闻的意图是考察科学怎样能帮助解决关于非同寻常的运动成绩的争论，而不是详细考察这些成绩的统计学。其他人做的几个分析使我们确信，用“反常”-统计上非同寻常-来描述叶诗文的表现是公正的。但是我们认识到，由于上面提到的几个错误的组合，以及缺少统计学上更加详细的讨论（事后我们很抱歉），此事给了大家我们支持指控叶诗文的印象，虽然这绝不是我们的本意。对此我们向读者和叶诗文表示道歉。 *** Nature说，本新闻在科学上是正确的，叶诗文的表现就是科学上的“反常”。不过“反常”不等于“兴奋剂指控”，你们理解错了。无论如何，我向你们表示道歉。 *** 博主后记： 我没有读过Nature那篇令国人如此激动的原文，不敢妄评。 这次风波唯一能够证明的，就是Nature在许多国人特别是科学网的许多博主的心目中，有很崇高的地位。国内外媒体上天天都有成千上万篇大骂中国人的文章，从来没有引起科学网的签名抗议。
have identified the following article(s) as being of interest: Article Title Discipline Rele- vance News- worthiness Three postpartum antiretroviral regimens to prevent intrapartum HIV infection. N Engl J Med Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 GLUTAMICS-a randomized clinical trial on glutamate infusion in 861 patients undergoing surgery for acute coronary syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Surgery - Cardiac 5 4 Performance of HbA1c as an Early Diagnostic Indicator of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Youth. Diabetes Care Pediatrics (General) 6 5 Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists 5 6 Internal Medicine 5 6 Cardiology 5 3 Safety and long-term humoral immune response in adults after vaccination with an H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine with or without AS03 adjuvant. J Infect Dis Public Health 6 5 Effect of mindfulness training on asthma quality of life and lung function: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 4 Interventions for treating isolated diaphyseal fractures of the ulna in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Emergency Medicine 6 4 Surgery - Orthopaedics 5 5 Intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 5 Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Gynecology 5 4 A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 7 5 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 7 5 Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. J Adv Nurs GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 6
Novel Strategies Halt Cardiovascular-Diabetes-Cancer Strips Chun-Song Hu, M.D., Qing-Hua Wu, M.D., Jun-Yan Hong, Ph.D., Douglas W. Losordo, M.D., Sheng-Shou Hu, M.D. and Dayi Hu, M.D. Summary We found that there were cardiovascular-diabetes-cancers(CDC) strips and w e’ve already developed new strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular events and healthcare. These novel strategies, which including SEED interference(SEEDi), E(e)SEED interference(E(e)SEEDi) and even Hu’s healthy lifestyles interference(HHLi), also called “Chinese vaccine”, as the core elements of “Grade 210 prevention”, play an important role in the prevention and management of human chronic diseases when combined with RT-ABCDEF strategy, for example, OOH syndrome, especially in halting CDC strips we discovered. Evidences of cardiovascular-diabetes-cancers (CDC) strips From SEED and E(e)SEED strategies to Hu’s healthy lifestyles Novel strategies for the early evaluation of risk factors RT-ABCDEF strategy and Grade 210 prevention for chronic diseases SEEDi, E(e)SEEDi and HHLi for CDC strips. Our practice in OOH syndrome ---- Hi, Dear Professors and Editors, Our new manuscript(summary) for NEJM( www.nejm.org )? Happy Birthday to Prof. Dayi Hu. Best regards! Sincerely yours, Chun-Song ---- HU Chun-Song, M.D. （胡春松 在职博士） Associate Professor of Medicine Associate Physician-in-chief Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Nanchang University Hospital Out-patient Department Medical College of Nanchang University No. 461 Bayi Rd , Nanchang 330006 P.R. China Tel: (0)18970816800 (mobile) Email: chunsong_hu@yahoo.com.cn 科学网博客： http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/hucs.htm
Title: Design, Growth, and Characterization of Morphology-Tunable CdxZn1-xS Nanostructures Generated by a One-step Thermal Evaporation Process 还没有正式的期刊号，不过已经有幸被选为 Hot Article! 论文主要讲述的是利用热蒸发法一步合成形貌可控的 Cd x Zn 1-x S 合金纳米材料，并且从其光致发光以及电致发光性质可以看出， Cd x Zn 1-x S 合金纳米材料的带隙连续可调。 如果感兴趣，可以下载阅读。下附编辑发过来的一封信。 Paper Ref.: C2CE25181G Title: Design, Growth, and Characterization of Morphology-Tunable CdxZn1-xS Nanostructures Generated by a One-step Thermal Evaporation Process Congratulations, your above paper has been selected as a CrystEngComm Hot Article! It is currently featured on our CrystEngComm Blog at http://blogs.rsc.org/ce/2012/04/26/nanoswords-nanobelts-and-nanocombs-an-expanding-wardrobe-for-the-nanopeople/ and will be free to access for the next 4 weeks. This is a great opportunity for your work to reach a wider audience, as our blog will be publicised on the journal homepage, in the CrystEngComm table-of-contents e-alerts , and on Twitter . I invite you (or your co-workers) to tell our readers more about your Hot Article by posting a comment on the CrystEngComm Blog story. In addition to this I would like to offer you the opportunity to circulate your paper to a number of colleagues and researchers in your field. If you haven’t already done so, please may you provide me with up to 10 names and e-mail addresses of people who you would like to read your article. I will arrange for them to be sent a link to your manuscript, highlighting its publication in CrystEngComm . Please also consider linking to our article on your own website, and mention this to your department or university media team. CrystEngComm is published by RSC Publishing, a not-for-profit publisher wholly owned by the Royal Society of Chemistry, UK. One way we support and promote chemistry is via RSC funded journal grants for international authors, visit the website to find out more. Thank you for choosing to publish this work in CrystEngComm . I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to submit your next research article for publication in CrystEngComm. Please may you let me know if you are interested in this? We look forward to receiving your next paper soon. High-quality morphology-tunable CdxZn1-xS nanostructures were synthesized through a one-step thermal evaporation process. They are in the forms of (a) nanoswords, (b) super-long nanowires, (c) cubic n ...
Why Is Science Conservative? - 科学为何是保守的（一）（原文及译文） 精选 已有 6658 次阅读 2008-6-14 01:07 |个人分类:学术教育|系统分类:科研笔记 (NOTES added 6/18/08) I thank all the readers for their comments and remarks. I am traveling and have no access to Chinese writing hardware. Consequently, I cannot answer in Chinese or correct some minor inaccuracies in the Chinese translation of my article below for now. I intend to supplement this note upon my return. Conventional wisdom portrays science as innovative (創新) and liberal in thinking in the sense that it is willing to consider all kinds of ideas. But in another sense, science is very conservative. Truly new ideas comes only once in a long while and often after a great deal of struggle for acceptance. This is actually not bad and the way it should be. The world is full of people with or without scientific training who believe they have discovered the truth or invented something remarkable, such as the perpetual motion machine. As a professor at Harvard, I have often received or have letters referred to me written by a person who either 1. Feels that s/he discovered some new truth but received no support. S/he wants Harvard to look into this injustice, or 2. S/he has invented a new device that will change the world in revolutionary ways. Would Harvard endorse this device? Let me say that in my 46 years I have encountered many letters of the above type that are not worth the paper on which they were written. Even well educated people can sometimes delude themselves. As a result science often looks upon any claim of new discovery or breakthrough with a jaundiced eye particularly if such claims come from people one does not know. Consequently really NEW results often have to face a considerable struggle for acceptance. The history of science has many of such incidents both positive and negative (e.g. the discovery of the pseudo planet PLUTO, and cold fusion results in the 1990s). And if science is under the supervision of politics and too closely tied to economics, then even more abuses can result. I don’t need to repeat well known historical examples. But even if science is free from politics and commerce, new ideas still must struggle to get accepted. I shall relate a personal experience a generation ago that may be of some value to scholars who are facing similar situations. First a bit of background. The successes of aerospace control including the moon landing in the 60s are based on modeling dynamic system by nonlinear differential equations and developing a class of control strategies using linearized (perturbed) equations of motion. During the 70s myself and others began to study non differential equation based dynamic systems, e.g. discrete manufacturing processes, communication networks, airport operations, et al. These systems, denoted as discrete event dynamic systems (DEDS), are governed by man-made rules of operation and traditionally belong in the domain of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (IEOR). But for me coming from control theory, the natural impulse is to see if we can duplicated our successes in differential equation based dynamic systems for these new DEDS. I also viewed this as an opportunity since researchers in IEOR up to that time have not emphasized the dynamic aspects of these systems. Lastly, demand for my consulting expertise from industry also were coming from these areas. Anyhow, my first thought was to see if it was possible to develop some sort of perturbation analysis for the motion of these discrete, nonlinear, discontinuous dynamic systems. The rationale behind this is to develop answer to the question “what will happen to the behavior and hence performance of these DEDS if I make a small perturbation in some design or control parameter of the system.” The significances of such question/answers are obvious. However, strangely enough traditional OR never bothered to ask such a question perhaps thinking that the obvious discontinuous nature of the system behavior renders such question meaningless at the time. The accepted practice is to make two separate experiments or simulations where everything is kept the same except for a small perturbation in the control or design parameter. The difference in observed performances in these two experiments when divided by the small parameter change gives the sensitivity (gradient) of the system performance with respect to the parameter perturbed. If sensitivity for n parameters are desired then n+1 experiments must be performed. The gradient thus calculated is also prone to numerical error and instability due to the fact that you are dividing a generally small and noisy difference by another small number. This is the state of the art when I first announced in 1981 that we have an entirely new way of computing this sensitivity using only ONE simulation experiment regardless how many sensitivities are required. Furthermore, the calculated sensitivity are numerically stable and much more accurate then those computed by differencing method traditionally. The basis of such a claim came from 1. A real life consulting job starting in 1976 in connection with the manufacturing operations of a well known automobile company 2. Through extensive simulations, experimental verifications, and intuitive commonsense ideas we found we could actually accomplish the above claim for this particular manufacturing problem. 3. I gradually realized that the idea embodied in the solution #2 above can be in fact be generalized to other simulation experiments. During travel in China in the summer of 1981, one afternoon in Wuhan I had an epiphany and came up with a “proof” (rather an intuitive but at the same time analytical understanding) as to why this scheme works in general. Of course by strict mathematical standards, my “proof” was far from rigorous. But it was back up by extensive amount of experimental evidence and is conceptually correct. Of course to arrive at this point, we already had solved a real problem, accumulated a large amount of experimental evidence, and published a couple of engineering papers in our own field. Given #3 above, I felt I was ready to announce the “breakthrough” to the IEOR world. The immediate reactions of the IEOR field was 1. Who is this person we have not heard of before ? (although I was established in my own field, I have not published in the IEOR field nor have I attended their conferences) 2. This new result cannot possibly be true. Otherwise we would have discovered it long ago. My paper submitted for publication in OR journals was summarily rejected 3. When I appealed about the rejection, one editor in OR in fact took the trouble of writing to the editor of the control journal where I first published my early results telling the control journal editor that my results were wrong. 4. Another person in OR took the trouble writing to the National Science Foundation complaining that the government was wasting taxpayers’ money in supporting my research. If I was not already established and have credibility in my own field, imagine what #3 and #4 above would have done to me even in an environment where no politics nor commerce were involved. Actually, these struggles were a blessing in disguise. Myself and others who believed in this were forced to come up with a more rigorous proof of the result and actually sharpened the conditions under which the result is mathematically correct and true. Eventually three books and over 1000 published paper came out of this struggle and the sub-discipline of Perturbation Analysis (PA) became established. Professor Xiren Cao of the Science and Technology University of HongKong is the leading expert on PA and his new book on the subject just came out 2007. I bear no ill feelings towards the field of IEOR and in fact became an accepted member of the field if only grudgingly. I mention this in detail only to illustrate that the conservative nature of science is necessary and not a bad thing in general. At the same time, my own opinions is to recommend researchers in general look far and wide in neighboring fields and not spend ones whole career in one sub-discipline. There is much to be said for learning about a new field. 传统的认识将科学描绘为思想上的创新和自由，这主要是因为科学乐于考虑所有的想法和观点。但在另一种意义上，科学是非常保守的。真正新颖的认识只会偶尔出现，而要被人们接受往往还要经过大量的努力和斗争。事实上，这并不是坏事，而是科学应有的方式。 世界上到处都有这样的人，不论是否受过科学训练，他们都认为自己发现了真理或者做出了非凡的发明，比如永动机。作为哈佛大学的教授，我经常能收到或者得到别人转来的这种信，写这些信的人： 1. 感到他/她们发现的新的真理不被支持，希望哈佛大学能够关注这种不公正。 2. 表示他/她发明了一种新的、能以革命性方式改变世界的设备，希望得到哈佛大学的认可。 我要说的是，在我46年的学术生涯中，我收到许多这样的信，来信的内容还没有写这些内容的信纸有价值。即使是受到良好教育的人，有时也会自我蒙蔽、自我迷惑。结果就是，科学往往以带有偏见、敌视的眼光看待任何所谓的新发现、新进展，尤其是当它们来自于默默无名的小人物的时候。相应地，真正的新结果往往必须经过相当大的努力和斗争，才能为人接受。科学史上不乏这样的例子，正面和负面的都有，（比如发现冥王星是伪行星以及20世纪90年代的冷聚变理论等。）同时，如果科学被置于政治的监管之下，并与经济的关系过于紧密，那么就会产生更多的问题。我无需重提那些历史上著名的例子了，但需要强调的是，即使科学免于政治和商业的影响，新的认识要想被人接受必须经过不懈的努力。 接下来，我将讲述几十年前的一段个人经历，这或许对处在类似情形的学者们有些价值。我先介绍一下当时的背景。航天控制的成功包括7060年代的月球着陆等，都是基于利用非线性微分方程建模动态系统，并利用运动的线性化（扰动）方程发展出一类控制策略。在20世纪80年代，我和其他一些人开始研究基于非微分方程的动态系统，比如离散制造过程、通讯网络、机场操作等。这些被称为“离散事件动态系统”（DEDS）的系统由人为的操作规则控制，传统上属于工业工程和作业运筹学研究（IEOR）领域。但由于我的出身是控制论，自然就是想看看我们在基于微分方程的动态系统上的成功能否应用于这些新的DEDS。我也将这看作一次机遇，因为IEOR方面的研究人员那时仍未重点开展这些系统的动态方面的研究。此外，工业界也开始要求我提供这些领域的咨询意见。 总之，我最初的想法就是要看看有没有可能就离散、非线性、不连续的动态系统，发展出某种扰动（摄动）分析。其中的基本原理就是要找到下述问题的答案，即如果我在DEDS的参量设计或控制做一个小的干扰，那么这些系统的行为和表现将会发生什么变化？这个问题的重要性是不言而喻的。然而，奇怪的是传统的作业运筹学研究（OR）从未提出这样问题，或许是考虑到当时系统明显的不连续性会让这种问题毫无意义。通行的做法是进行两次单独的试验或者模拟，其他一切条件都是相同的，只有控制或设计参量上的微扰不同。用两次试验观察到的系统表现差异除以微小的参量变化，就得出了系统表现对于干扰参量的敏感度（斜率）。如果要得到系统对于n个参量的敏感度，就需要进行n+1次试验。而且由于用一个很小的数字去除另一个通常较小且伴有噪声的数字，计算出的斜率容易产生数值误差，而且不太稳定。这就是我在1981年首次宣称发现了一种全新方法时的情况。使用我的新方法，不管干扰参量有多少，需要计算多少个敏感度，敏感度的计算均可在一次模拟试验中完成。此外，新方法计算出的敏感度在数值上是稳定的，而且比传统的差分方法精确得多。我的这种理论基础是： 1． 我从1976年开始就给一家著名汽车公司提供有关制造方面的咨询工作。 2． 通过广泛模拟、试验证实，再加上直觉和常识，我们发现我们其实可以满足上述特殊制造问题的需求。 3． 我逐渐认识到包含在第2点中的想法可以推而广之到其它模拟试验中去。1981年夏天我在中国旅行的时候，有一天下午在武汉我突然恍然大悟，想明白了怎么能证明这种想法具有普遍性（这其实更像是一种既像直觉又很理性的理解）。当然，如果按照严格的数学标准，我的“证据”远称不上严格。但广泛的试验证据支持了我的想法，它在概念上是正确的。 当然在到达这一步之前，我们已经解决了一个现实中的问题，积累了大量的试验证据，并且发表了数篇这个领域的工程学论文。有了上述第3点作为前提，我觉得我准备好向IEOR界宣布这一“突破”了。 IEOR领域马上就做出了反应： 1． 这个人是谁？我们从没听说过他。（尽管我在自身领域立足已久，但并未在IEOR领域发表过论文，也没有参加过他们的会议。） 2． 这一新结果不可能正确，否则应该早就被发现了。我投到作业研究领域期刊上的论文被草草拒绝了。 3． 当我对论文被拒提出上诉时，作业研究领域的一位期刊编辑还费尽心机地给那份最终早发表我论文的控制论杂志的编辑写了封信，告诉他我的结论是错的。 4． 另一位作业运筹学研究领域的者(可能是审稿人之一)编辑也煞费苦心地写信给NSF，抱怨政府支持我的研究根本就是浪费纳税人的钱。 要不是我在自己的领域里已经有了一定的名气和公信力，想象一下上述第3点和第4点会对我造成什么影响，即使是在没有政治或者商业介入的环境中。 事实上，这些困难和斗争是因祸得福，因为我自己和其他坚信这一结果的人都不得不寻求更加严格的证明，并且不断提炼在什么样的条件下该结论在数学上既合理又正确。最终，在这番斗争中诞生了3本书和1000多篇论文，扰动分析（PA）的一个学科分支诞生了。香港科技大学的曹希仁教授是PA领域的顶尖专家，他在这一学科上的新书于2007年面世。而我再也不讨厌IEOR领域了，事实上我终于被该领域接纳，成为了其中一员，尽管他们对我还有些不太情愿。 我说了这么多细节，只是为了举例说明科学上的保守是必需的，这通常并不是一件坏事。同时，我个人的意见是希望研究人员能够把眼光放得远一点，广一点，不妨把目光投向相关的研究领域，而不要把整个研究生涯都花费在某一个学科分支上。关于如何学习和认识一个新领域的问题，我以后要说的还很多。（科学网 任霄鹏译 何姣校 minor revision by YCHo in RED 6.24/08） 何老师：您好！ 我能理解您的善意，但却不能同意您的观点。 科学的确是保守的，这是一个不容争辩的事实，它代表了思想与传统的惯性！ 现在的“相对论”是路人皆知，可当年却由于受到一些人的打压，总不能授予诺贝尔奖。后来由于爱因斯坦支持者的成功公关，策略地借助于光电效应才授予爱因斯坦诺贝尔奖。“宇称守恒定律”的突破也是一样，因为人们相信：宇称守恒是天经地义的事情。当杨振宁、李政道提出“宇称可能不守恒”时，有多位诺贝尔物理学奖得主表示反对：1945年获奖者泡利表示“我不相信上帝是个弱的左撇子”，并准备投入很多赌注；1965年的得奖人费曼提出了五十对一的赔率，赌宇称必定守恒；1951年得奖人布洛赫则说，如果真的宇称不守恒，他会把自己的帽子吃掉。就是在这种情况下，吴健雄以她的远见卓识，历经艰辛，终于证实了弱相互作用中的宇称不守恒！ 澳大利亚科学家巴里?马歇尔和罗宾?沃伦的成果由于受保守势力的打压而让数以千万计的胃病患者得不到及时治疗、忍受病痛的折磨能让我们更真切地理解“我们为科学的保守所付出的代价(其中很可能包括你我的亲戚和朋友)”。虽然沃伦早在1979年就获得了对幽门螺杆菌的初步发现，但因为有悖于当时的医学认识(当时的医学界认为，健康的胃是无菌的，因为胃酸会将人吞入的细菌迅速杀灭）而在相当长的时间里不为人所承认，但同行的质疑并没有动摇沃伦的决心。为了证明致病机理，沃伦年轻的合作者马歇尔甚至喝下了含有病菌的溶液，结果是大病一场。这种不向保守势力低头的“固执己见”的创新精神和为科学献身的精神，为他们赢得了世人的尊重并最终荣获2005年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 这些科学的保守片段与近代科学萌芽前后相比还是一个不小的进步。想当年，伽利略就是因为追求科学真理、挑战传统而被判处终身监禁，布鲁诺更是被活活烧死在罗马的百花广场。从历史的长远角度来看，随着人类的文明和进步，科学与思想的保守固然存在，但其程度却会愈来愈小，这是历史发展的必然，是大势所趋，谁也无法扭转。 保守让科学的发展付出了更大的代价，必须加以改善！ 博主回复：Your remarks are completely consistent with what I said and in my added note in particular. I cannot see any disagreement. "Principle" and "practice" are two diferent things. 本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-29014.html Why is Science Conservative (II) - 科学为何是保守的（二）（原文及译文） 精选 已有 4646 次阅读 2008-7-12 22:26 |个人分类:学术教育|系统分类:科研笔记|关键词:科学原则 同行评议 什么是科学 科学管理 My earlier article on “why is science conservative?” http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29014 produced a large number of well meaning and legitimate comments and responses. So I decided to write a follow-on piece to further clarify what I had in mind. In the abstract, I believe there is general agreement on the following scientific principles 1. For an established scientific fact to be overturned or revised, there must first be a large body of contradicting evidence (see for example, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) T. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962) 2. For a new theory and procedure to be accepted as better or to replace the old, it must scale a higher standard (for example not only it must fit previously known results but also explain away all the contradicting evidence or difficulties in #1 above. If it is a new methodology, the new method must overcome some difficulties of the old.). These are principles of scientific exploration and discovery accepted universally. My use of the word “conservative” is primarily in this sense. We do not usually overturn an established theory on a single piece of evidence nor do we accept any new idea just on the say so of one authoritative figure. Problem comes in because science is practice by human beings who often let other matters, politics, commerce, human weakness, and even philosophy intrude in the “ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE” of science. This is distinct from the principles of scientific discovery as listed in #1 and #2 above. When politic and science administration mix, the former often dominates the latter. The unfortunate examples of Lysenko in USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko ) or Elena Ceausescu of Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu ) are well known. But the influence of commerce on science can be equally corrosive. Consider the cases of tobacco industry on the health effect of smoking and the oil companies’ opposition to global warming. Both industries stubbornly resisted the obvious long past the scientific conclusions were established. Finally, even without such interference, human errors of judgment, bias, prejudice , and philosophy (门户之見) can distort the development of scientific truth. Thus, abuses in the administration due to these considerations should also be considered separately from the “principles”. I mentioned earlier. The saying “peer review is the worst form of scientific judgment except for all others”. Yes, many unfair and bad things happen with peer review. But we do not abandon it because it is still sound in principle and even workable in practice if administered correctly. The point is that we do not condemn the “principles” just because of bad “practice”. Similarly, if something “bad” happens to have some unintended “good” results, it is not a license for “bad” practice. (one reader disagree with me by using precisely such a false analogy). I am sorry I did not make this distinction and separation carefully in a blog article. With this clarification, I trust the meaning of my article is clear. 我之前的一篇博文《科学为何是保守的？》（http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29014）得到了许多有意义的、值得思考的评论和回应。因此我决定再写一篇博文，进一步澄清我的观点。 抽象地说，我相信大家普遍认同下面几条科学原则： 1． 要推翻或修改已经确立的科学事实，首先必须要有大量相反的证据。（大家可以参考这本书，The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) T. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962） 2． 一项新的理论或程序要想被公认为比旧的更好或者要取代旧的，就必须带来更高的标准。（比如，它不仅必须要符合此前已知的结论，而且要能解释上述#1中那些相反的证据或难点。如果是一种新的方法论，那么这种新方法一定要能解决老方法难以克服的问题。） 这些都是公认的科学探索与发现的原则。我所谓的“保守”也主要是在这种意义上来说的。我们通常不会根据一个单独的证据就颠覆一项确立已久的理论，我们也不会仅仅因为一位权威如此如此说就接受任何新的观点。 之所以会出现问题，主要是因为科学研究到底是由人来践行的，而人往往会让其他因素如政治、商业利益、人性弱点乃至门户之见“闯入”科学的“管理和实践”中来。这与上述的科学发现原则#1和#2是不同的。一旦政治和科学管理搅在一起，前者往往会主宰后者。例如前苏联的Lysenko（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko）和罗马尼亚的Elena Ceausescu（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu）等，都是众所周知的例子是非常令人遗憾的。但是，商业利益对科学具有同样的腐蚀性。想想烟草业是怎么干扰有关吸烟与健康关系的研究的吧，还有石油公司一直反对全球变暖的说法。科学界已经就这两个问题达成一致意见以后很久了，这两大产业还在顽固地抵抗。最后，即使排除这两种因素的干扰，人类的判断、偏见和门户之见等错误也会扭曲科学真相的发展。因此，由这些原因导致的管理中的问题也应该和我说的那些科学原则分开考虑。我以前曾经说过。有种说法说“除了所有其他（形式）外，同行评议是最糟糕的科学评价形式。”的确，同行评议总是伴随着许多不公正和糟糕的事情。但是我们并没有抛弃它，因为它在原则上仍然很合理，而且如果运用得当，在实践中也是行得通的。关键是我们不会仅仅因为“实践”中出现了问题就批判“原则”。同样，我们也不能因为一些原则上的“坏事”无意中地起到一些“好”的作用，就说这种“坏事”是可以做的。（有位读者就运用了这种错误的类比来和我争论。）很抱歉我以前没有在博文中仔细地区分和划分这二者。通过此次的澄清，我相信我文章的意思应该很清楚了。 （科学网 任霄鹏译 何姣校） 本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-32022.html
Abstract: hort-term earthquake prediction has always been a very difficult problem in geology, 15 this article pre-displacement, pre-established short-term break for the earthquake prediction based on the theory becomes completely abandoned to form the basis of earthquake prediction method, short-term earthquake prediction is a theoretical breakthrough. Key words: Mechanics; earthquake,;short-term forecasting,;pre-displacement; pre-fracture 摘要： 地震短期预报历来是一个十分困难的地质学问题，本文以预位移预断裂为依据对于短期地震预报进行了理论思考，一旦该理论被实践所证明，将会是地震短期预报的一次理论突破。 关键词 ：固体力学；地震；短期预报；预位移；预断裂 预位移预断裂短期地震预报数学方法探析.pdf
我成功的第一个latex，激动!激动!激动！ \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \title{my paper} \maketitle \tableofcontents \section{WinEdt} Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees, Cambridge University Press \end{document}
Networking--Smoothly Does It Svante Janson DOI: 10.1126/science.1208712 Science 333, 298 (2011); If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your following the guidelines here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by www.sciencemag.org (this infomation is current as of July 17, 2011 ): The following resources related to this article are available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html version of this article at: Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html#related found at: A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 8 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/comp_math Computers,
之所以写这个题目的帖子，是由于近日偶然看到任胜利的博文，标题为 “ 同行评议的是是非非：简议 The Scientist 的相关文章 ” （网址： http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=395016 ），其中有一句是这样写的： “ 阐述给生物信息学带来变革的 BLAST 软件的文章 1990 年发表在影响因子为 3.9 的 J Mol Biol (1990, 215: 403-410) 上，该文的引用次数近 30000 次，远大于 Nature (34.5) 和 Science (29.7) 中文章的最高引用次数。 ” 我看到这句话，就有点怀疑，难道真的 Nature 和 Science 上的文章被引次数一篇都没有超过 30000 次的？ 我们知道 Nature 和 Science 都是创刊上百年的牛刊 ( 分别创刊于 1869 和 1880 年） ，做科研的几乎是无人不知，无人不晓，我想当然的认为两刊都会至少有一篇引次数超过 30000 次的论文，然而，让我们用事实说话，对于上文提到的有关 BLAST 的文章， Web of Science 上基本信息如下： Title: BASIC LOCAL ALIGNMENT SEARCH TOOL Author(s): ALTSCHUL, SF; GISH, W; MILLER, W, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Volume: 215 Issue: 3 Pages: 403-410 Published: OCT 5 1990 Times Cited: 29,271 也就是说这篇经典牛文，迄今（ 2011 年 2 月 10 日）被引次数尚未超过 30000 次，然而该记录，尚未被 Science 上的文章打破，下面是 Science 上的被引次数冠军文章： Title: PRIMER-DIRECTED ENZYMATIC AMPLIFICATION OF DNA WITH A THERMOSTABLE DNA-POLYMERASE Author(s): SAIKI, RK; GELFAND, DH; STOFFEL, S, et al. Source: SCIENCE Volume: 239 Issue: 4839 Pages: 487-491 Published: JAN 29 1988 Times Cited: 14,650 也就是说该 Science 文章迄今被引次数为 14650 次，仅是那篇 BLAST 文章的 29,271 次的一半。 下面再来看 Nature , 该刊创刊上百年来发表的被引次数最高的文章如下： Title: CLEAVAGE OF STRUCTURAL PROTEINS DURING ASSEMBLY OF HEAD OF BACTERIOPHAGE-T4 Author(s): LAEMMLI, UK Source: NATURE Volume: 227 Issue: 5259 Pages: 680- Published: 1970 Times Cited: 65,535 大概是由于发表的年代过于久远了一些，或者引用次数太高， Web of Science 上居然都没有精确的被引次数，用 google/scholar 查了一下，被引次数是非常惊人的 170788 次，此前我曾经分析过所谓的 “ 史上引用次数最多的论文 ！！ （ 参见博文： http://www.dxyer.cn/loveinmichigan/article/i74638.htm ）， 这篇 1951 年发表在 JBC 上的论文，已被引用 275,669 次（截至到 2004 年一月）， google/scholar 上显示迄今已被引用 193888 次，所以 Nature 上这篇论文尽管远远超过 JMB 上的那篇 BLAST 的近 30000 次，但是和这篇 JBC 相比仍然稍逊一筹， JBC 的这篇文章仍然堪称 史上 引用次数最多的科学论文。 上面的两篇发表在 Science 和 Nature 上两篇文章，都是生物医学领域内的，所以适合园子里的战友讨论，可以说都是突破性、革 / 命性的文章，不夸张的说，尤其是 Science 上那篇文章几乎影响了全世界，甚至是普通老百姓的生活，这不是忽悠，且听分解，权当抛个烂砖以期引来大玉，期待高手讨论 Nature 上那篇文章。 Science 上 文章的摘要内容如下： Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science. 1988 Jan 29;239(4839):487-91 ， Saiki RK , Gelfand DH , Stoffel S , Scharf SJ , Higuchi R , Horn GT , Mullis KB , Erlich HA . Cetus Corporation, Department of Human Genetics, Emeryville, CA 94608. Abstract A thermostable DNA polymerase was used in an in vitro DNA amplification procedure, the polymerase chain reaction. The enzyme, isolated from Thermus aquaticus, greatly simplifies the procedure and, by enabling the amplification reaction to be performed at higher temperatures, significantly improves the specificity, yield, sensitivity, and length of products that can be amplified. Single-copy genomic sequences were amplified by a factor of more than 10 million with very high specificity, and DNA segments up to 2000 base pairs were readily amplified. In addition, the method was used to amplify and detect a target DNA molecule present only once in a sample of 10(5) cells. 这篇发表于 1988 年的文章的主要贡献是发现了热稳定性高的 DNA 聚合酶， PCR 技术发明于上世纪８０年代初，当时的一个最大的技术瓶颈是当时使用的 DNA 聚合酶热稳定性差， PCR 几个循环下来， DNA 聚合酶就死翘翘啦，不得不人工不断添加 DNA 聚合酶，这增加了成本不说，还使 PCR 无法完全自动化，这严重阻碍了 PCR 技术的推广使用， 1988 年 Science 的这个重大发现，无疑扫清了 PCR 技术的最后一个障碍，使得该技术迅速在全球得以广泛使用，也极大的促进了生物技术在上世纪 90 年代的飞速发展，现在 PCR 技术已经非常广泛运用与许多领域，普通医院都用来做基因疾病的诊断。 另外值得一提的是：文章的作者是 Cetus Corporation ，该公司 1971 年成立于加州伯克利，是全世界最早成立的生物公司之一，更重要的是，该公司的 Kary Mullis 是ＰＣＲ技术的发明人，曾与 1993 年由于此发明而与 Michael Smith 分享了诺贝尔化学奖，是迄今唯一源于生物公司研究的诺贝尔奖（ the only one awarded for research performed at a biotechnology company ，参见： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetus_Corporation ） 我觉得这篇文章或者说这个故事至少有几点启示： 这一典型事例有力的打破了 “ 基础研究无用论 ” ，美国对于生物医学研究这一最 “ 烧钱 ” 的领域已经连续多年每年有几百亿美元的投资（仅 NIH 一家），很多钱无疑打了水漂，但是仅仅 PCR 技术这一个专利就不知为美国带来了多少亿的收入，另外，美国在生物医学领域的长期的巨额投资不仅成就了像 Genentech 、 Amgen 这样世界顶尖的生物公司，也使得美国在生物的技术几乎各个领域都处于在全球绝对垄断的地位，亚洲的中、印、韩三国近年来在生物医学领域投资每年超过 20% 的高速增长（参见我的博文： 2011 年全球各国资助生物医学经费展望：西方不亮东方亮 ） ，事实上某种程度上是在为美国打工，大量投资在拉动美国经济的发展，因为发展中国家在生物医学领域的研发，所需的从高端耗材到先进仪器几乎都要从美国进口，尤其是我们国家这方面的依赖程度更高。可以说，现在美国在生物医学领域的长期投资，现在到了收获期。 （ 作者王守业，引文地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=563591do=blogid=431805 ）
标签: Article
![[转载]The Indo-European Language Family Tree](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201211/14/1822188f7bdzfsbtyea7qs.jpg.thumb.jpg)
