行文简洁、节约审稿人和读者的时间 · 不要在导言部分罗列与本研究课题无关的信息。 · 请勿直接复制本人既往出版物、忌一稿多投。 否则、一旦出现重复发表现象、你应为此承担责任 (见COPE flowcharts) 。不过、这一条不适用于初步文献、如会议摘要 (O’Connor 1991, 参见BioMed Central policy) 。此外、如果二次发表或再次发表(secondary publication) 面向的是不同的读者群 (如、 以另外一种语言发表；或、一种版本面向的是专业人士、另一版本面向的是普通公众）、且同时征得两种目标期刊的编辑的同意、则是可以接受的 (ICMJE 2015) 。必须在二次文献的标题页脚注中列出对一次文献的引用。 · 在论文某一部分已给出的信息不应在另一部分重复。 当然、这一条不适用于摘要、图注和结论性段落。 · 应考虑是否所有的图表都是必要的。 表中已呈现的资料不应在图中重复、反之亦然。图表中已用较长篇幅列举过的资料不得再在正文中重复。 · 图表的说明性文字 (caption) 应能提供具体信息、但不要过于冗长。 如果类似的信息在数个表或者数个图中分别提供、则其说明性文字的格式应尽量统一。 · 尽量删除众所周知的空话套话 (如、“森林是非常重要的生态系统。”）和其他冗言赘句 (如、“It is well known that …”) 。 · 如果文中重复出现某个较长的科学术语、则在正文首次使用时可定义其缩略语、然后持续一致地使 用该缩略语。 · 必要时可语带保留、但切忌过度地模棱两可 ( 如、可使用“are potential” 、而不要使用“may possibly be potential”)。但结论部分切忌泛泛而谈。 · 除非目标期刊的编辑另有要求、对所有数字均使用阿拉伯数字 ；这一条适用于一位整数、例外情况包括：零；一 (如后面未跟计量单位）；其他可能引发歧义的情况、如在句子的开头或者在含数字的缩略语前 (CSE 2014) 。 写作时尽量做到清晰、使之便于理解——提高文章的可读性 学术内容 · 应将你的原始数据和观点与他人及你既往发表过的论文中所提出的数据和观点作出明确区分；必要时可提供引文。 最好对其他来源的内容进行总结或意译。这同样适用于翻译文章。直接复制的文本 (如，整个句子或较长的文本） 要放在引号中 ( 如， Roig 2011，Kerans de Jager 2010） 。否则、你可能会有剽窃 (见COPE flowcharts) 或者自我剽窃之嫌。 · 确保你使用了正确的英文术语、最好是参考一下由英语为母语者撰写的文章。 直译往往有很大问题 (如、所谓的“假朋友”、即译文和原文中两个形式相似但实际意义不同的一对词、或由译者自行发明的根本不存在的单词）。如果不是很肯定、检查单词在英语字典中的定义，因为很多词都使用不当 (见Appendix mbiguity) 。你还可以通过Wikipedia (维基百科）等查阅一下某个单词或词组。然后、把由你自己的母语和英语撰写的结果进行比较、看两者之间的意思是否真的相同。然而，维基百科并不总是可靠的信息来源。 · 如果某一单词主要见于译文中、且很少在英语国家使用、则应考虑采用其他意思相近、更为人所知的英文术语 (如、使用“plant community”而不要使用“phytocoenosis”。如果某一术语在英 文中无对应术语、可对其进行精确定义后、提出一个可接受的英语译文。 · 对于每一个不常用的或含义不明的术语、在首次使用时应予以定义。 你可以列举多个同义词 (如有的话）、以便于检索；但随后在行文中应仅使用其中的一个、以避免混淆。一旦某个名词术语已由学术组织认定、在学术交流中应优先使用该名词术语 (如，EASE 2013) 。 · 避免陈述不清、以免读者不知所云。 (见Appendix Ambiguity) · 在撰写百分比时、应明确其基数是多少。 在叙述相关性、相互关系时、应明确彼此比较的是哪些数值。 · 通常应优先采用国际单位制 (SI）单位和摄氏度。 · 与其他语言不同、英文有一个小数点 (不是逗号）。 除非目标期刊的编辑另有要求、对于小数点左侧或右侧超过4 位的数字、每隔3 位用窄空格 (thin space) (而不用逗号) 空开 (EASE 2013) 。 · 在表示世纪、月时、不要使用大写罗马数字、因为英文中罕有这种用法。 由于英国和美国的日期表示法不同 (见下文），一般宜用月份的完整拼写方式或者前3 个字母来表示“月” (CSE 2014) 。 · 在翻译知名度较低的地名时、如果可能的话应加注原名 、如 “in the Kampinos Forest (Puszcza Kampinoska)”。有些相关的信息 (如位置、气候等）、对读者可能也有一定帮助。 · 切记、英文论文主要供国外读者阅读、他们一般并不了解本国读者所熟知的特定情况、分类或者概念；因此、有时需要增加一些必要的解释 (Ufnalska 2008) 。例如、一种常见的杂草 “一年蓬 ”Erigeron annuus 在部分国家也称 Stenactis annua、 因此、在用英文写作时、 应使用国际公认的名称、同时以加括注的形式列出其同义词。 文章结构 · 句子通常不应写得太长、其结构应相对简单、主谓语间距离不应太远 (Gopen Swan 1990) 。 例如、避免使用抽象名词；宜写成“ X was measured…” 、而不宜写成“Measurements of X were carried out…”。 (见Appendix: Simplicity) 忌滥用被动结构 (如，Norris 2011) 。在翻译过程中、 必要时需要调整句子结构、以更准确或更清晰地传递信息 (Burrough-Boenisch 2013)。 · 行文应前后一致、组织严密、易于阅读。 (见Appendix Cohesion) · 每个段落最好以主题句开头、下一句则全面阐述主题。 · 与其他语种不同、英文中是允许并列结构的、因这种结构有利于读者更好地理解文章内容。 例如、在对类似资料进行比较时、你可以这么写：“It was high in A, medium in B, and low in C”、但不要写成：“It was high in A, medium for B, and low in the case of C”。 · 图表应具有自明性、即在不参阅正文的情况下也能读懂。 避免使用不传递实质性信息的资料 (例如、如果某一列中的数值在所有行都是相同的、应予以删除、必要时可以加脚注说明)。缩略语的使用应符合以下两个条件之一：为保持一致性；没有足够的空间使用完整用语。所有非显而易见的缩略语和符号均应在图说明或者脚注中进行定义 (如、误差条可能是指标准差、标准误或者可信区间）。应使用小数点 (而不是小数撇）、必要时应提供轴标签和计量单位。 · 在展示一小批数据时、可考虑使用文本-表格相结合的方式 (Kozak 2009) 。 ( 见Appendix: Text-tables) · 对于较长的列表 (如、缩略语）、最好是把各单项用分号 (;) 进行分隔；分号是居于逗号和句号之间的间隔号。 语言问题 · 如不必使用科学术语、尽量使用通俗易懂的单词。 不过、应避免使用口语和俚语、也不要使用短语动词 (如、find out, pay off)、因其很难为英 语为非母语的人士所理解 (Geercken 2006) 。 · 在正文中首词出现缩略语时应对其进行定义 (如果读者对其并不熟悉)。切忌滥用缩略语、否则文章会变得不易读懂。不要对文稿中偶尔出现的术语使用缩略语。避免在摘要中使用缩略语。 · 一般地、在描述你是如何开展研究时、你发现了什么以及其他研究者所开展的工作时、使用过去时。 在作一般性陈述或者解读、或在描述本文章的内容 (尤其是图表时）、宜用现在时 (Day Gastel 2006) 。 · 除非目标期刊的编辑另有要求、在提及本人或本研究组时不要使用 “the author(s)”一词、因其含义较模糊。 如有必要、 可使用 “we”或者 “I” 、或使用 “in this study”、“our results” 或者 “in our opinion”等表达方式 ( 如， Hartley 2010, Norris 2011) 。请注意、 如果你想提及你 (们）的新发现时、应使用 “this study”。如果你所指的 是上一句中提及的一篇文献、请使用“that study” 。如果你指提是的某篇引文的作者、请使用 “those authors”。 · 切记、在科研论文中、“which”一词应用于非限定性从句、而 “that” 用于限定性从句(即、指的是 “only those that”)。 · 如使用有所保留的表达方式 (equivocal words) 、 请确保其含义从上下文来看是明确 的。 请核对所有动词的单复数形式是否与主语一致、并核对所有代词的指代对象是否明确 (这在译文中尤其重要）。请注意、部分名词有不规则复数。 (见Appendix Plurals) · 可朗读文本、以核对标点符号的使用是否存在问题。 如果在朗读过程中、为正确地理解某一处、语调需要停顿时、则意味着需要在此处使用逗号或者其他标点符号 (如、由于标点符号的位置不同、以下两个句子迥异：“no more data are needed”和“no, more data are needed”) 。 · 应保持拼写的一致性。 参照英式或美式的拼写规则和日期格式 (如、英式的日期格式为“21 Jan 2009”、美式的日期格式为 “Jan 21, 2009”; 见Appendix Spelling ) 核对目标期刊使用的是美式或英式拼写方式、然后对你的拼写和语法检查软件作出相应的调整。 · 邀请一位有见地的同事阅读文稿全文、以发现其中是否存在含义模糊的片断。 翻译/ Translation: Gu Liangjun, Edanz Group China (理文编辑, http://www.liwenbianji.cn/) , thanks to Anianet, updated by Yue Wang ( wangyue81@gmail.com ) 草案撰稿人 (按时间顺序) ：Sylwia Ufnalska (initiator and editor, sylwia.ufnalska@gmail.com) , Paola De Castro, Liz Wager, Carol Norris, James Hartley, Franccedil;oise Salager-Meyer, Marcin Kozak, Ed Hull, Angela Turner, Will Hughes, Peter Hovenkamp, Thomas Babor, Eric Lichtfouse, Richard Hurley, Mercè Piqueras, Maria Persson, Elisabetta Poltronieri, Suzanne Lapstun, Mare-Anne Laane, David Vaux, Arjan Polderman, Ana Marusic, Elisabeth Heseltine, Joy Burrough-Boenisch, Eva Baranyiová, Tom Lang, Arie Manten, Pippa Smart, Armen Gasparyan, John Miescher, Shirin Heidari, Ksenija Baždarić 参考文献和推荐读物 AuthorAID Resource Library. http://www.authoraid.info/resource-library Baranyiová E. 2013. Correct terminology in science: the role of editors. Science Editor 36 (2): 63. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v36n2p63.pdf Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, Bridges D, Cairns A, Carswell CI, et al 2015. Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPP3. Annals of Internal Medicine 163(6):461-464. doi:10.7326/M15-0288 Beverley P. 2015. Word macros for writers and editors. http://www.archivepub.co.uk/TheBook BioMed Central policy on duplicate publication.http://www.biomedcentral.com/submissions/editorialpolicies#duplicate+publication Bless A, Hull E. 2008. Reader-friendly biomedical articles: how to write them! 3rd ed. Alphen a/d Rijn: Van Zuiden Communication. Bravo E, Calzolari A, De Castro P, Mabile L, Napolitani F, Rossi AM, Cambon-Thomsen A. 2015. Developing a guideline to standardize the citation of bioresources in journal articles (CoBRA). BMC Medicine 13:33.doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0266-y Burrough-Boenisch J. 2013. Editing texts by non-native speakers of English. In: European Association of Science Editors. Science editors’ handbook. Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A, editors.http://www.ease.org.uk/handbook/index.shtml Cerejo C. 2013. How to make your paper more accessible through self-archiving. Editage Insights. http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-make-your-paper-more-accessiblethrough-self-archiving Chipperfield L, Citrome L, Clark J, David FS, Enck R, Evangelista M, et al 2010. Authors’ Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published. Current Medical Research Opinion 26(8):1967-1982. doi:10.1185/03007995.2010.499344 Committee on Publication Ethics flowcharts.http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts Council of Science Editors, Style Manual Committee. 2014. Scientific style and format: the CSE manual for authors, editors, and publishers. 8th ed. Univeristy of Chicago Press.http://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Home.html Day RA, Gastel B. 2006. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment.2013. http://www.ascb.org/dora/ European Association of Science Editors. 2012. EASE Toolkit for Authors. http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-authors European Association of Science Editors. 2013. Science editors’ handbook. 2nd ed. Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A, editors. http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/science-editors-handbook/ EQUATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org/ Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. 2011. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International 31(11):1409-1417. doi: 10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3 Geercken S. 2006. Challenges of (medical) writing for the multilingual audience. Write Stuff 15(2):45-46. http://www.emwa.org/documents/journal/TWS/TWS%202006%202%2015.pdf Goozner M, Caplan A, Moreno J, Kramer BS, Babor TF, Husser WC. 2009. A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals. Addiction 104:1779-1784.doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02594.x Gopen GD, Swan JA. 1990. The science of scientific writing: if the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs. American Scientist 78(6):550–558. http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~buja/sci.html Hartley J. 2010. Citing oneself. European Science Editing 36(2):35-37. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/may_2010_362.pdf Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P, Tort S, Curno M. 2016. Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1:2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 Hengl T, Gould M, Gerritsma W. 2012. The unofficial guide for authors: from research design to publication. Wageningen, Arnhem. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/t_hengl Hull E. 2015. Health-related scientific articles in the 21st century: give readers nuggets! Vught, Netherlands: Professional English.http://www.professionalenglish.nl/giveemnuggets.html International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2015. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html Inderscience Publishers. 2013. Keyword requirements. http://www.inderscience.com/info/insitemap.php Kerans ME, de Jager M. 2010. Handling plagiarism at the editor’s desk. European Science Editing 36(3): 62-66. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/ese_aug10.pdf Kozak M. 2009. Text-table: an underused and undervalued tool for communicating information. European Science Editing 35(4):103. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/november_2009_354.pdf Lang T. 2004. Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. Croatian Medical Journal 45(4):361-370. http://www.cmj.hr/2004/45/4/15311405.htm Marusic M. 2014. Gender and sex in medical research. European Science Editing 40(2):56. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/corresp_2.pdf Medical Subject Headings Browser. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html Norris CB. 2009. Academic writing in English. Helsinki:University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/kksc/language.services/AcadWrit.pdf Norris C. 2011. The passive voice revisited. European Science Editing 37(1):6-7. http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/february_2011_371.pdf O’Connor M. 1991. Writing successfully in science. London:Chapman Hall. Research Methods Supercourse. http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/ResearchMethods/index.htm Research Information Network. 2008. Acknowledgement of funders in journal articles. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/research-funding-policy-and-guidance/acknowledgement-funders-journal-articles Roig M. 2011. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/0.shtml Seifert KA, Crous PW, Frisvad JC. 2008. Correcting the impact factors of taxonomic journals by Appropriate Citation of Taxonomy (ACT). Persoonia 20:105. doi:10.3767/003158508X324236 Strunk WJr, White EB. 2000. The elements of style. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan. Tufte ER. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Ufnalska S. 2008. Abstracts of research articles: readers’ expectations and guidelines for authors. European Science Editing 34(3):63-65.http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/august_2008343.pdf World Medical Association. 2013. Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ World Conference on Research Integrity. 2010. Singapore Statement. http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html EASE英文科研论文写作和翻译指南Part1 优惠活动： 100 / 200 / 300元优惠券等你拿 脑力劳动节 多劳多得 分享光荣
Flesch Reading Ease （ 弗莱士易读度 ） 不仅广泛用于美国政府单位，学术界亦用来做为评量文本难易度的指标。 Flesch Reading Ease 是根据美国 Rudolf Flesch 博士的统计方法计算的，计算根据是句子的字数和句子中含的音节数等，数值在 0 和 100 之间，数目越大，文章越容易读。这里看看英文的阐释。 The Flesch/FleschKincaid readability tests are readability tests designed to indicate comprehension difficulty when reading a passage of contemporary academic English . There are two tests, the Flesch Reading Ease, and the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level. Although they use the same core measures (word length and sentence length), they have different weighting factors. The results of the two tests correlate approximately inversely: a text with a comparatively high score on the Reading Ease test should have a lower score on the Grade Level test. Rudolf Flesch devised both systems while J. Peter Kincaid developed the latter for the United States Navy . Such readability tests suggest that many Wikipedia articles may be too sophisticated for their readers. History: The Flesch–Kincaid (F-K) Reading grade level was developed under contract to the United States Navy in 1975 by J. Peter Kincaid and his team. Other related United States Navy research directed by Kincaid delved into high tech education (for example, the electronic authoring and delivery of technical information); usefulness of the Flesch–Kincaid readability formula; computer aids for editing tests; illustrated formats to teach procedures; and the Computer Readability Editing System (CRES). The F-K formula was first used by the United States Army for assessing the difficulty of technical manuals in 1978 and soon after became the Department of Defense military standard . The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the first state in the United States to require that automobile insurance policies be written at no higher than a ninth grade level (14 to 15 years of age) of reading difficulty, as measured by the F-K formula. This is now a common requirement in many other states and for other legal documents such as insurance policies. Flesch Reading Ease In the Flesch Reading Ease test, higher scores indicate material that is easier to read; lower numbers mark passages that are more difficult to read. The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) test is Scores can be interpreted as shown in the table below. Score Notes 90.0–100.0 easily understood by an average 11-year-old student 60.0–70.0 easily understood by 13- to 15-year-old students 0.0–30.0 best understood by university graduates Reader's Digest magazine has a readability index of about 65, Time magazine scores about 52, an average 6th grade student's (a 12-year-old) written assignment has a readability test of 60–70 (and a reading grade level of 6–7), and the Harvard Law Review has a general readability score in the low 30s. The highest (easiest) readability score possible is around 120 (e.g. every sentence consisting of only two one-syllable words). The score does not have a theoretical lower bound. It is possible to make the score as low as wanted by arbitrarily including words with many syllables. This sentence, for example, taken as a reading passage unto itself, has a readability score of about thirty. The sentence The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature. scores 24.4 as it has 26 syllables and 13 words. While Amazon calculates the text of Moby-Dick as 57.9, one particularly long sentence about sharks in chapter 64 has a readability score of −146.77. One sentence in the beginning of Swann's Way , by Marcel Proust, has a score of -515.1. The U.S. Department of Defense uses the Reading Ease test as the standard test of readability for its documents and forms. Florida requires that life insurance policies have a Flesch Reading Ease score of 45 or greater. Use of this scale is so ubiquitous that it is bundled with popular word processing programs and services such as KWord , IBM Lotus Symphony , Microsoft Office Word , WordPerfect , and WordPro . Polysyllabic words affect this score significantly more than they do the grade level score. Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level These readability tests are used extensively in the field of education . The Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Formula translates the 0–100 score to a U.S. grade level , making it easier for teachers, parents, librarians, and others to judge the readability level of various books and texts. It can also mean the number of years of education generally required to understand this text, relevant when the formula results in a number greater than 10. The grade level is calculated with the following formula: The result is a number that corresponds with a U.S. grade level. The sentence, The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature is a 13.1 as it has 26 syllables and 13 words. The lowest grade level score in theory is −3.40, but there are few real passages in which every sentence consists of a single one-syllable word. Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss comes close, averaging 5.7 words per sentence and 1.02 syllables per word, with a grade level of −1.3. (Most of the 50 used words are monosyllabic ; anywhere, which occurs 8 times, is the only exception.) b.png a.png source: wikipedia
标签: EASE
