获取基金支持的十大简则 王应宽 编译 2008-07-29 博主按： 基金支持是研究者研究工作得以继续深入的保障。撰写成功的基金项目计划书是获取基金支持的关键。似我等尚未获得过基金资助者在此宣讲如何争取基金支持，实在有点关公面前耍大刀，班门弄斧，自不量力。但阅读此文，觉得有很多值得学习借鉴之处，排除潜规则的影响，基金申请应注意的核心问题最值得重视。基金方略，大抵很多，但博主仍编译发布于此，以期为基金申请者抛砖引玉，投石问路，拾遗补缺。 此文是社论十大简则系列专题中，争取论文发表的十大简则（链接： http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29569 ）的续篇。前者旨在帮助学生和青年学者撰写和发表论文。此文基于作者多年撰写和申请基金成功与失败的经验，旨在帮助研究者在学术职业生涯中迈出第一步，获取基金资助，成为项目负责人。尽管撰写基金申请报告的努力主要是针对美国政府的基金机构，但笔者深信，所归纳总结出的规则是通用的、超越基金机构和跨越国界的。 规则一：有新颖性，但忌太过标新立异 好科学源于新的思想。基金撰写过程应该是一件快乐的事情，因为你可以向阅读你基金报告的同行清楚的表述你的新思想。把撰写基金计划书看作产生影响的机会。要对你所写的内容充满热情，如果你对自己的工作缺乏热情，就未必能写出好的报告，也不大可能获得资助。模仿性科学（ Me-too Science ）一般难以获得资助。另一方面，太过冥想性的科学也难以获得资助，特别当基金紧张时。尽管不合理但是真实的。 规则二：应包含恰当的背景介绍和所必需的初步数据支持 你需要说服评审者你提出的工作很需要做，而你就是最佳人选。不同基金项目要求提供不同数量的初步数据。对某些项目，可以说工作基本上已经完成了才能获得资助，所获得的资金主要用于项目的下一阶段研究。因此，只要在适当的地方，一定要提供诱人的前期成果，确保告知评审者这些成果就是你申请项目的特定目标。在叙述你的项目动机时，确保尽可能引用所有相关的成果，最糟的莫过于未恰当的引用评审者的成果！最后，要说服评审者相信你具有完成所提出工作的技术和科学背景。 规则三：找到合适的基金机构，非常仔细地阅读相关的申请要求，明确的回答其要求 大多数基金机构都有特定的职员来帮助研究者发现资助机会，而多数基金机构都在其网站提供帮助研究者找到项目的信息。记住项目需要赠与资金，这也是项目职员的工作职责。项目职员可以帮助你识别最佳的基金机会。如果你的申请不适合某些特定的项目，就节省你的时间和精力，再去别处申请，那里也许有更适合的项目。 规则四：认真遵循项目指南提交申请并遵守规定 许多基金机构会立即筛选剔出那些不遵循项目指南的申请书，以节省项目时间和资金。这会延伸到所有繁琐的支撑材料，如项目预算理由、参考书目等。妥善保管并时常更新以备将来申请之用。即使送审，表述欠妥的申请书也会使评审者气恼，即使科学价值很好也会产生负面影响。申请书的长度和格式是最常见的罪魁。 规则五：遵从 3C 原则简明、清楚和完整 基金项目书不需要填写所有的页面。你的目标是提供一份完整的材料，尽可能简要的说明要做什么。不要依靠补充材料和网页。预先明确范围，确保符合基金的要求。基金申请新手容易贪多求全，计划要做太多。这样的申请通常被判定为太过雄心勃勃而最终评价很差。 规则六：牢记评审者也是人 评审者一般在短时间内有大量基金项目要评审。如果核心内容和关键点都隐藏在过于冗长或难以读懂的文档中，评审者很容易失去注意力和错过这些关键点。也很有可能并非所有评审者都是你所在领域的专家。需要发挥技巧来抓住专家和非专家的兴趣。与一篇论文不同，基金提供很多机会使用文字技巧。历史观、人情味和幽默感都可以明智而审慎的应用于基金报告中以达到奇效。使用格式化技巧，如下划线、字体加粗等，适当重复你的关键点。每一段都可以从一段关键点概要起始。 规则七：掌握时间和内部评审很重要 给自己预留适当的交付时间。采用不同的方法满足截止期限。理想的办法是，你应该完成基金草案，留有足够的时间收集来自同事的反馈意见，然后自己再以全新的视角重读基金项目书。找一些类似于评审者的科技同行进行评审，收集他们的批评意见对基金申请书的完善很有价值。 规则八：了解基金资助机构中负责受理你的基金申请的主管 负责受理你的基金申请的主管是你最好的支持者。你们彼此相互了解的程度对结果影响很大。许多基金管理者有一些措施 / 尺度可以随意操控资助什么。他们对你和你的工作了解越多，你成功的机会就越大。不要仅仅局限于通过 email 了解您的基金管理员。不要对其有畏惧感。通过电话与之交谈，会议交流以及在他们可能帮助你的任何场合增进了解。 规则九：在职业生涯之初就成为基金评审者 参与基金评审专家组的工作有助于你写出好的基金申请。了解为何基金申请在完成评审前就被筛除，评审专家组对基金的反应，项目官员的自由量裁角色是什么，监督委员会所扮演的角色是提供有益的经验教训，有助于你自己写好基金申请和为他人提供有关此流程的建议。 规则十：坦然接受被拒，妥善处理后续 拒绝是不可避免的，当资助比率很低时，即使非常优秀的基金申请也被拒之门外。学会与被拒绝为伴，并做出恰当的答复。不要辩护，讨论答复每一条批评意见，要用事实和数据说话，而不是情绪化的辩论。当需要重复提交时，要力图让评审者清楚你已经理解为何第一次错了。正确清楚地指名你如何解决问题的。在重复提交的申请中，决不要争辩此前评审的正确性 / 有效性。如果基金项目与已经受资助的项目很近似，提醒评审者已经尽可能的包括了以前的数据，需要非常清楚地说明此种版本的申请在哪方面进行了改进。 附原文信息： Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants Philip E. Bourne * , Leo M. Chalupa Citation: Bourne PE , Chalupa LM (2006) Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): e12. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012 Published: February 24, 2006 http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020012 Copyright: 2006 Bourne and Chalupa. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bourne@sdsc.edu Philip E. Bourne is a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego , La Jolla , California , United States of America , and is Editor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology. Leo M. Chalupa is a professor and chair in the Section of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior, University of California Davis , Davis , California , United States of America . Rule 1: Be Novel, but Not Too Novel Rule 2: Include the Appropriate Background and Preliminary Data as Required Rule 3: Find the Appropriate Funding Mechanism, Read the Associated Request for Applications Very Carefully, and Respond Specifically to the Request Rule 4: Follow the Guidelines for Submission Very Carefully and Comply Rule 5: Obey the Three CsConcise, Clear, and Complete Rule 6: Remember, Reviewers Are People, Too Rule 7: Timing and Internal Review Are Important Rule 8: Know Your Grant Administrator at the Institution Funding Your Grant Rule 9: Become a Grant Reviewer Early in Your Career Rule 10: Accept Rejection and Deal with It Appropriately
指导同行评审者的十大简则 王应宽 编译 2008-07-13 博主按： 期刊论文的质量很大程度上取决于高质量的评审。对于质量低劣的稿件，同行评阅人严把质量关予以剔出，避免了垃圾文章的泛滥。而对于同意修改后发表的文章，评阅者除了对文章的创新性、重要性、广泛性、实用性等做出评价外，还对文章的缺点或不足提出建设性的修改意见或建议，作者在评审者的意见指导下，进一步改进研究，完善论文，促成了高质量论文的产出。所以，评阅人参与了论文的创作过程，是论文质量的把关人和提升者。因此，高水平的评阅人和高质量的评审对提高论文的质量至关重要。 Philip E Bourne 教授总结整理的评审者的十条简单规则，对指导评审者提高评审质量具有参考价值。博主编译整理发表在此，介绍给国内的同行评阅人，以期对提高评审质量有所裨益。 规则 1 ：如果您不能在要求的时限内完成评审工作，就不要接受评审任务学会拒绝。 迟到的评审对作者不公，对编辑也不公。将心比心，自己的文章也不喜欢被拖延。催促迟到的审稿人增加出版成本，无人从此过程中受益。 规则 2 ：避免利益冲突。 当您发现所审文章与您自己的研究只要有一丝可能存在利益冲突时，就尽可能不要评审。特别当一篇写作很差的文章可能会被退稿但其好的观点可能会应用到您的研究中，或者有人正在进行与您的下一篇文章非常相近的研究工作时，更应该拒审稿件。尽管有的是匿名评审，但不论评审方式如何都应该坚持最高的学术道德准则。 规则 3 ：写出作为论文的作者，你自己都觉得满意的评审意见。 简短而缺乏信息的评语也会给评审者留下负面影响。用有条理、合逻辑的具体理由支持你的批评或称赞。即使作者不知道你，但编辑知道你是谁，你的评审意见会被保存，还可能被出版者的稿件处理系统分析。期刊会知道你作为评阅人的表现，评审的质量和及时性应该是你自己值得自豪的东西。许多期刊都会提供给你一些已经接受或者拒绝稿件的同行评审意见，应该认真阅读并从中学习如何写好评审意见。 规则 4 ：作为审稿人，你也是创作过程的一部分。 当文稿需要修改时，你的意见或建议应该有助于产出一篇更高质量的论文。在极端的例子中，一篇处在被拒稿边缘的文章中一个崭新的发现往往是基于多位评审者的详细意见经过多次修改才被挽救，而最终发表被同行广泛引用。在论文成功发表中，你是一位未被承认的合作者。即使是要拒绝作者的文章，也始终牢记你帮助作者改进工作的使命总是有益的。 规则 5 ：确信你喜欢审稿并能从审稿过程中学习受益。 同行评审是一项重要的社会服务，你理当参与其中。不幸的是，你评审得越多，通常就越要求你评审更多。有时还要求你评审你根本不感兴趣令人厌烦的文章。当一名评阅人是很重要的，只同意接受你很感兴趣的文章，因为那些文章要么与你的研究领域很相近，要么你觉得能够从中学习有用的东西。你也许会说，作为审稿人我不应该很了解此工作吗？通常，来自稍有不同的领域的专家的见解可能对论文的完善非常有效。当你对论文有不同见解时应毫不犹豫地告诉编辑，编辑乐于看到你的评阅意见，即使你对论文不是很感兴趣。好的评审者能很明智的利用好其评审时间。 规则 6 ：建立一套适合自己的评审方法。 评审方法因人而异。行之有效的方法之一是考虑评审之前从头至尾仔细阅读稿件。通过此法，你可以对文稿的范围和新颖性有一个完整的了解。然后阅读期刊的作者指南，特别是你自己没有在该期刊发表论文，或者所评审的文稿是你不太熟悉的那一类。有了这个宽广的背景，你就可以着手分析文章的细节，提供一份你评审结果的摘要和细节的评语。采用清晰的推理来证明你的每一项批评，突出强调论文的优点和缺点。提出作者漏引用的文献通常是一个简捷而有效的方法帮助完善论文。好的评审既论及文稿的主要问题也触及次要的细节。 规则 7 ：把你宝贵的时间花费在值得好好评审的文章上。 发表或消亡综合症导致许多很差的论文没有被编辑筛选掉而送出外审。不要在拙劣的论文（当你只看看摘要时往往并不显而易见）上花太多时间，但需要非常清楚你为何要花有限的时间在评审上。如果一篇较差的文章存在积极的方面，在清楚阐明拒稿的理由后，尝试找到一些方面来鼓励作者。 规则 8 ：如果期刊要求，应保持评审过程的匿名性。 我们许多人收到评审意见就清楚地知道是谁评审的，有时因为评阅人建议你引用他们的著作成果。在小的科学群体中很难保持匿名性，如果匿名评审是期刊的政策，你需要反复阅读你的评审意见确保不要危及匿名性。如果匿名性是某期刊的规则，不要与同仁交流分享评审的稿件，除非主编给你开绿灯。匿名性作为一种期刊的政策，就如同宗教戒律人们强烈支持和反对。严格遵循要求你评审论文的期刊所做的规定的政策。 规则 9 ：评阅意见应写得清楚、简洁 , 以中立的口吻但应具决断性的。 写作很差的评审报告如同一篇写得很差的论文。尽可能确保主编和作者能够理解你提出的观点。逐点的评论很有价值，因为更易于阅读和反馈。对每一点意见，都应阐明其对论文的接受有多重要。如果英文不是你的强项，请人帮你阅读文章和评阅报告，但不要违背其他规则，特别是前述规则 2 。此外，即使你对文章的主题充满热情，也不要把你自己的观点或假设强加于此。最后，就你对发表与否的建议给主编一个明确的答案。即使要求这么做，评阅者也往往不给文稿评定等级。采取评定等级的中立政策（骑墙政策）往往不必要的延长了评审处理过程。 规则 10 ：充分利用好建言主编。 许多期刊提供机会把评语发给主编，而作者看不到这些评语。利用此机会以简短数语表达你的观点或对论文的个人见解。但是，应确保你的评阅报告明确的支持这些观点，而不能让主编利用你的评语去猜测，如你的评审报告并未明确支持如下观点此文确实不应该发表。建言主编也是一个既能放松匿名性要求，又能更清楚地表述决定原因的地方。例如，你的决定是基于你为该期刊评审的另一篇文章，这只能在给主编的评语部分说明。这也是一个表达你关于文章内容的缺点、偏见等的好地方（参见规则 5 ）。这种选择并不常用，但能为主编提供处理非一致性决定提供大量不同意见。 附原文信息： PLoS Comput Biol. 2006 September; 2(9): e110. Published online 2006 September 29. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110. PMCID: PMC1584310 Copyright : 2006 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers Philip E Bourne * and Alon Korngreen Philip E. Bourne is a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America, and is Editor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology. Alon Korngreen is a Lecturer in the Mina and Everard Faculty of Life Sciences and the Leslie and Susan Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bourne@sdsc.edu Rule 1: Do Not Accept a Review Assignment unless You Can Accomplish the Task in the Requested TimeframeLearn to Say No Rule 2: Avoid Conflict of Interest Rule 3: Write Reviews You Would Be Satisfied with as an Author Rule 4: As a Reviewer You Are Part of the Authoring Process Rule 5: Be Sure to Enjoy and to Learn from the Reviewing Process Rule 6: Develop a Method of Reviewing That Works for You Rule 7: Spend Your Precious Time on Papers Worthy of a Good Review Rule 8: Maintain the Anonymity of the Review Process if the Journal Requires It Rule 9: Write Clearly, Succinctly, and in a Neutral Tone, but Be Decisive Rule 10: Make Use of the Comments to Editors
争取论文发表的十大简则 规则一：阅读很多论文，从成功的和失败的两方面汲取经验。 规则二：对您自己的论文越客观，最终的结果越好。 规则三：优秀的编者和审者会客观对待您的论文。 规则四：如果您英文写作不佳，提早补习，将受益终身。 规则五：学会与退稿为伴。 规则六：好的科学元素显而易见新颖的研究主题，广泛的涉猎相关文献，好的数据，好的分析，包括强有力的统计学支持和发人深思讨论。好的科学报道其元素也显而易见完美的结构、恰当的使用图表、适当的篇幅长度、为目标读者而写。切勿忽视这些显而易见的元素。 规则七：当有解决问题的思想火花迸发时，就开始撰稿。 规则八：在职业生涯之初就成为评阅人。 规则九：提早决定去哪里发表论文。 规则十：质量是一切。 笔者将以上发文十律总结为十句打油诗，谨供参考，欢迎雅正。 客观为文结硕果，多读博采成败经。 优秀审编善对文，早补英文益终生。 坦然面对退稿信，广评他文益自身。 灵感迸发就动笔，动笔之前刊选定。 好科学加好写作，质量优异铸真金。 阿宽编译 2008-06-18 附原著：Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published Philip E Bourne Philip E. Bourne is Editor-in-Chief of PLoS Computational Biology . E-mail: bourne@sdsc.edu The student council of the International Society for Computational Biology asked me to present my thoughts on getting published in the field of computational biology at the Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology conference held in Detroit in late June of 2005. Close to 200 bright young souls (and a few not so young) crammed into a small room for what proved to be a wonderful interchange among a group of whom approximately one-half had yet to publish their first paper. The advice I gave that day I have modified and present as ten rules for getting published. Rule 1: Read many papers, and learn from both the good and the bad work of others. It is never too early to become a critic. Journal clubs, where you critique a paper as a group, are excellent for having this kind of dialogue. Reading at least two papers a day in detail (not just in your area of research) and thinking about their quality will also help. Being well read has another potential major benefitit facilitates a more objective view of one's own work. It is too easy after many late nights spent in front of a computer screen and/or laboratory bench to convince yourself that your work is the best invention since sliced bread. More than likely it is not, and your mentor is prone to falling into the same trap, hence rule 2. Rule 2: The more objective you can be about your work, the better that work will ultimately become. Alas, some scientists will never be objective about their own work, and will never make the best scientistslearn objectivity early, the editors and reviewers have. Rule 3: Good editors and reviewers will be objective about your work. The quality of the editorial board is an early indicator of the review process. Look at the masthead of the journal in which you plan to publish. Outstanding editors demand and get outstanding reviews. Put your energy into improving the quality of the manuscript before submission. Ideally, the reviews will improve your paper. But they will not get to imparting that advice if there are fundamental flaws. Rule 4: If you do not write well in the English language, take lessons early; it will be invaluable later. This is not just about grammar, but more importantly comprehension. The best papers are those in which complex ideas are expressed in a way that those who are less than immersed in the field can understand. Have you noticed that the most renowned scientists often give the most logical and simply stated yet stimulating lectures? This extends to their written work as well. Note that writing clearly is valuable, even if your ultimate career does not hinge on producing good scientific papers in English language journals. Submitted papers that are not clearly written in good English, unless the science is truly outstanding, are often rejected or at best slow to publish since they require extensive copyediting. Rule 5: Learn to live with rejection. A failure to be objective can make rejection harder to take, and you will be rejected. Scientific careers are full of rejection, even for the best scientists. The correct response to a paper being rejected or requiring major revision is to listen to the reviewers and respond in an objective, not subjective, manner. Reviews reflect how your paper is being judgedlearn to live with it. If reviewers are unanimous about the poor quality of the paper, move onin virtually all cases, they are right. If they request a major revision, do it and address every point they raise both in your cover letter and through obvious revisions to the text. Multiple rounds of revision are painful for all those concerned and slow the publishing process. Rule 6: The ingredients of good science are obviousnovelty of research topic, comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature, good data, good analysis including strong statistical support, and a thought-provoking discussion. The ingredients of good science reporting are obviousgood organization, the appropriate use of tables and figures, the right length, writing to the intended audiencedo not ignore the obvious. Be objective about these ingredients when you review the first draft, and do not rely on your mentor. Get a candid opinion by having the paper read by colleagues without a vested interest in the work, including those not directly involved in the topic area. Rule 7: Start writing the paper the day you have the idea of what questions to pursue. Some would argue that this places too much emphasis on publishing, but it could also be argued that it helps define scope and facilitates hypothesis-driven science. The temptation of novice authors is to try to include everything they know in a paper. Your thesis is/was your kitchen sink. Your papers should be concise, and impart as much information as possible in the least number of words. Be familiar with the guide to authors and follow it, the editors and reviewers do. Maintain a good bibliographic database as you go, and read the papers in it. Rule 8: Become a reviewer early in your career. Reviewing other papers will help you write better papers. To start, work with your mentors; have them give you papers they are reviewing and do the first cut at the review (most mentors will be happy to do this). Then, go through the final review that gets sent in by your mentor, and where allowed, as is true of this journal, look at the reviews others have written. This will provide an important perspective on the quality of your reviews and, hopefully, allow you to see your own work in a more objective way. You will also come to understand the review process and the quality of reviews, which is an important ingredient in deciding where to send your paper. Rule 9: Decide early on where to try to publish your paper. This will define the form and level of detail and assumed novelty of the work you are doing. Many journals have a presubmission enquiry system availableuse it. Even before the paper is written, get a sense of the novelty of the work, and whether a specific journal will be interested. Rule 10: Quality is everything. It is better to publish one paper in a quality journal than multiple papers in lesser journals. Increasingly, it is harder to hide the impact of your papers; tools like Google Scholar and the ISI Web of Science are being used by tenure committees and employers to define metrics for the quality of your work. It used to be that just the journal name was used as a metric. In the digital world, everyone knows if a paper has little impact. Try to publish in journals that have high impact factors; chances are your paper will have high impact, too, if accepted. When you are long gone, your scientific legacy is, in large part, the literature you left behind and the impact it represents. I hope these ten simple rules can help you leave behind something future generations of scientists will admire. Citation: Bourne PE (2005). Ten simple rules for getting published. PLoS Comput Biol 1(5): e57. Published online 2005 October 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010057. Copyright : 2005 Philip E. Bourne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
标签: 科研
