根据关键词不完全共现，下面绘制了《情报学报》 2012 年上半年发文关键词的共现图。 笔者将其归纳为七个方面： A 计量学文献（文献计量、科学计量及信息计量）。这个版块发文数量最多。即有利用传统文献计量方法对某个领域研究（如信息行为研究的文献计量），也有利用知识图谱、引文分析、共词分析等对某领域研究热点（如情报学）或某主题研究热点（如基因工程、人民币汇率）的分析。 B 本体。本体是近年来情报学领域一直关注的一个研究热点。有几篇文章将语义分析、大众标注等相结合，尝试了本体的应用研究。 C 竞争情报。竞争情报是情报学领域又一个倍受关注的话题。在一篇文献是竞争情报领域的文献综述，另两篇探讨了动态竞争情报、竞争情报系统。 D 用户研究与信息推荐。用户是情报学研究过程中，一直会关注和研究对象。有几篇文章对用户的心智模型、用户体验、认知网格等进行了研究；还有几篇探讨了个性化信息推荐。 E 信息检索与信息查询。有几篇文献探讨了查询优化、查询扩展、专家检索、跨语言信息检索；还有几篇文章将信息检索与网络学习、信息服务相关问题进行了研究。 F 文本与文档相似度、语义学习等。 这个版块是情报学领域利用计算机科学等相关知识对词汇、文档及网页为研究对象进行的相关研究。 G 最后一个版块的内容较为分散，涉及到电子政务、搜索引擎、信息经济、网络事件、信息采集等方面。 另外，从图中还可以看出情报学领域目前使用较多的研究方法，如聚类、社会网络分析、共词分析，共现分析、多维尺度分析等。还有值得注意的是语义层面的研究引起了不少研究者的注意。如 B 、 E 、 F 中都有包含语义的词汇。 利用这种方法绘制的“关键词共现图”受到作者关键选择的影响较大。如有的作者使用“科学知识图谱”，有的使用“知识图谱”。这就会导致两个词相关的词无法形成一个连通的网络，而实际上它们是连通的。在以后数据处理过程中，笔者将在这方法进行一些先期的处理，以绘制更加“语义化”的图形。
文章的摘要十分关键，因为很多研究人员只读摘要而不读全文。因此，摘要提供准确 而详尽的研究总结十分重要：它可以帮助研究人员了解你所开展的工作、你的研究目的和研究发现以及研究结果的益处和重要性。摘要必须能够独立成文，具备研究 概要的功能，使人不看全文就能读懂。在阅读摘要后对文章细节感兴趣的读者自然会继续阅读全文。因此摘要不必太面面俱到，例如，可不必列举方法细节。 尽 管摘要是论文的第一部分，但事实上应最后撰写。在完成其他部分后应尽快写摘要，因为这些内容依然清晰地印在你的脑海中，使你能够对自己的工作进行简明而全 面的总结，而不至于忽略任何重要的内容。不同期刊对摘要的撰写要求有所不同，因此应参照目标杂志的《稿约》了解具体要求。尽管杂志要求不同，但依然存在一 些普遍应遵守的惯例： • 应注意对字数的限制。通常来讲摘要的字数限制平均为250个词，但许多杂志要求更短些(如《Nature》和《BBRC》对摘要的篇幅限制为150个 字)，而许多杂志(如《BioMed Central》)允许摘要篇幅稍长些。这充分说明了为什么应在写文章之前确定目标杂志。 • 应避免使用技术行话，从而使摘要更易懂，更具可读性。不同目标期刊的“技术行话”取决于杂志的读者情况(可以通过期刊网站查询)。例如：“焦虑测试”一词 通常比“高架十字迷宫实验”更容易理解，除非该杂志专门针对行为研究人员。通常摘要因受篇幅所限不能对技术术语进行定义和解释。如果术语使用不可避免，应 在首次提到时用简单的措辞加以定义。 • 如同技术术语一样，应尽量不使用缩略语，其可用性也取决于不同的目标期刊。例如，大多数杂志接受HIV的使用。相比之下，RT-PCR对于分子生物学技术 的杂志是可以接受的，但绝大多数杂志要求在首次使用时给出完整拼写(reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction)。许多杂志在网页上列出可使用的缩略语。反复使用三次或以上的必要的缩略语应在首次使用时给出完整拼写。只使用一次或两次的缩略语应使 用全称，除非这样做超出了字数要求。摘要中已给出全称的缩略语在正文中首次使用时也应给出全称。 • 尽管一些杂志允许在摘要中引用文献，但绝大多数杂志不允许引用文献。因此，除非你要投稿的杂志允许这样做，否则不应在摘要中引用文献。 以下是BBRC杂志作者须知给出的指导性意见： • 摘要应放在第2页，即标题页之后 • 摘要应采用一段式，总结文章的主要发现，篇幅不超过150字 • 摘要后应列出10个用于收录和检索的关键词 一些杂志要求采用结构式摘要，分为背景、目的、方法、结果和结论。临床期刊可能要求额外或不同段落，如“patients”。因此，再次强调，在动笔之前应查阅目标杂志的《稿约》，确定杂志的具体版式或格式要求。 摘 要后经常需要列出由作者选择的关键词。《稿约》会指出要求列出多少个关键词，甚至提供可供参考的关键词清单。选择合适的关键词很重要，因为他们可作检索之 用。选择合适的关键词可以使你的文章更容易被发现和引用。因此，关键词越切合你的文章内容越好，应避免选择多数研究所适用的一般性术语。 实例：让为这个题目选择合适的关键词： “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration” 好的关键词：okadoic acid、hippocampus、neuronal degeneration、MAP kinase signaling以及mouse (或是rat或其他实验动物)。 差的关键词：neuron、brain、OA (简写)、regional-specific neuronal degeneration以及signaling。这些词过于笼统。 英文原文 The snapshot: abstract and keywords Your paper’s abstract is critical because many researchers will read that part only, rather than reading the entire paper. Therefore, it is critical that it provides an accurate and sufficiently detailed summary of your work so that those researchers can understand what you did, why you did it, what your findings are, and why your findings are useful and important. Your abstract must be able to stand alone, that is, to function as an overview of your study that can be understood without reading the entire text. Readers who become interested in learning more details than can be included in the abstract will inevitably proceed to the full text. Therefore, the abstract does not need to be overly detailed; for example, it does not need to include a detailed methods section. Even though the abstract is one of the first parts of your paper, it should actually be written last. You should write it soon after finishing the other sections, while the rest of the manuscript is fresh in your mind, enabling you to write a concise but comprehensive summary of your study without overlooking anything important. Requirements for abstracts differ among journals, so the target journal’s instructions for authors should be consulted for specific details. Despite differences among journals, there are a few general rules that should be obeyed when writing an abstract: • The word limit should be observed; 250 words is probably about average and commonly adopted as a word limit for the abstract, but many journals request shorter abstracts (for example, Nature Articles and BBRC both have a 150-word limit) while many others (for example, BioMed Central journals) allow longer ones. This is one good reason why the target journal should be identified before you write your paper. • Technical jargon should be avoided so that the abstract is understandable for a broad readership, although what is considered “technical” may vary depending on the target journal’s audience (check the journal’s website for details of their readership). For example, “a test of anxiety” would generally be clearer than “elevated plus-maze test” in an abstract unless the journal was specifically targeted to behavioral researchers. Usually, there simply isn’t enough space in the abstract to define and explain technical terminology. If such terminology is unavoidable, it should be defined in simple terms where it is first used. • Like technical jargon, abbreviations should be limited as much as possible, although their acceptability may again depend on the target journal. For example, HIV is likely to be acceptable in abbreviated form by most journals. By contrast, RT-PCR might be considered acceptable by a journal reporting molecular biology techniques, but would it need to be spelt in full (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction) in most journals at first use. Many journals provide a list of acceptable abbreviations on their websites. Necessary abbreviations used three or more times should be defined at first use; however, abbreviations used only once or twice should be spelled out in full unless doing so causes the word limit to be exceeded. Abbreviations that are defined in the abstract will need to be defined again at first use in the main text. • Although some journals do allow references to be cited in the abstract, the vast majority do not. Therefore, unless you plan to submit to a journal that allows it, you should not cite references in your abstract. If we look at the instructions to authors for BBRC, we can see the following guidelines: • The Abstract should be on page 2, i.e., after the title page • The Abstract must be a single paragraph that summarizes the main findings of the paper in fewer than 150 words. • A list of up to 10 keywords useful for indexing or searching should be included after the Abstract. Some journals request structured abstracts divided into sections such as background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Clinical journals may require additional or alternative sections, such as ‘patients’. Therefore, it is again necessary to check the target journal’s instructions for authors to determine the particular formatting/outline requirements prior to writing. Abstracts are frequently followed by a list of keywords selected by the authors. The instructions for authors will state how many keywords are required and may even provide a list of recommended keywords. Choosing appropriate keywords is important, because these are used for indexing purposes. Well chosen keywords enable your manuscript to be more easily identified and cited. Thus, the keywords should be as specific to your manuscript as possible, and general terms, which could apply to an enormous number of studies, should be avoided. Examples: Let’s consider some appropriate keywords for the following title: “Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration”. Good keywords would be: okadaic acid, hippocampus, neuronal degeneration, MAP kinase signaling, and possibly mouse (or rat or whatever experimental animal was used). Poor keywords would be: neuron, brain, OA (as an abbreviation), regional-specific neuronal degeneration, and signaling. These terms are simply too general. Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监
讨论：你的研究有何意义？ 已有 349 次阅读 2012-5-15 10:22 | 系统分类: 科研笔记 | 关键词:讨论 意义 英语国家 影响力 资料 “ 讨论”部分非常重要。在这部分，你要把“结果”中展示的证据线索和“引言”中的背景资料关联起来。遗憾的是，许多作者(特别是来自非英语国家的作者)常常不够重视“讨论”部分，认为只需把结果罗列出来，然后让读者自行去得出结论即可。但是，给出结果而不说明其意义只会造成随意解读，从而影响研究获得应有的影响力。而期刊编辑往往希望论文能推进该研究领域，并形成影响；所以有必要善用“讨论”部分来尽可能增强论文的影响力。 好的“讨论”可以在开头先重申一下“引言”中提出的研究问题和假设，接着总结一下你的主要研究结果。这样一来，读者对于你是否推进了该领域的研究就一目了然了。从最重要或最相关的结果写起，然后再转向相对次要的内容。此刻暂不要讨论有争议或者难以解释的结果。这个阶段，你只须描述那些能直接回答“引言”中提出的问题或与假设直接相关的主要结果。不要用那些数据不支持的“大而空”的语言，也不要夸大结果的重要性。用“suggests” 比用“shows”更好，切忌使用 “proves”。此外，要尽量不要重复结果”部分的内容，而只需简要说明主要结果然后再谈其含意。这部分需要变换时态，叙述你的结果以及文献结果时用过去时，论述其意义时用现在时。 “讨论”的第二部分常被忽视，并往往造成拒稿。重申问题和结果之后，还需要陈述其相关性和重要性。你需要把你的结果放在文献研究背景中加以比较，并讨论其意义。这部分构成了“讨论”主体；他告诉读者(当然还有编辑)：从已有文献的基础上来评价，你的结果到底有什么意义？它们与其他研究者的工作之间存在什么关联。你的研究可能存在备择解释，对此应予提及并尽可能排除(或者至少论证它们的可能性很低)。如果仍有备择解释无法排除，你的研究就属于“尚未完成”，或者至少是“尚在进行中”；在这种情况下，你需要在“讨论”的结尾部分，提出将开展哪些实验来进一步排除备择解释或确认哪种解释才是正确的。 主要结果和背景的关系理清之后，就可以提及有争议或难以解释的发现，并提出可能的解释。没问题，这里你可以猜测，只要不要太过分。关键的问题是，你讨论和阐述了这些问题，而不是置之不理。“讨论”部分不能出现新术语或新结果；所有结果都该在“结果”部分叙述完整；所有术语也应在“引言”中就提出。最后，“讨论”部分要解释一下此研究的局限性。与其等审稿人指出，不如自己提出；这样也许反而会增加正面审稿意见从而缩短发表周期。一个研究存在局限性本身并不是问题，大多数研究都有这样那样的局限性。所以重要的是要承认它并提出在进一步研究中如何克服。在阐述完局限性之后往往紧接着就是描述未来的研究。 有些期刊有单独的“结论”部分；就算没有，也要在“讨论”的最后一段点明研究的结论。最后一段 (或最后一部分)应简要复述一下主要研究结果及其重要性，陈述该研究如何推进了本领域的研究，但不要用完全相同的语言。要提及结果的新颖性和重要性，但再说一次，不要夸大其词。如有必要可以提出进一步研究，如果本工作是初步研究则进一步研究可放在最后一句。若不是初步研究，就可以用明确的措施来总结本研究的影响，但仍要注意不要夸大其词。。 示例 下图节选自《The Journal of Clinical Investigation》上一论文的讨论部分(doi:10.1172/JCI37622； 经同意转载)。其中显示了讨论部分的一些要素，其末尾是一个结论段落。 核对清单 1. 开始先复述研究问题，然后陈述主要结果。 2. 过去时叙述结果，现在时谈意义。 3. 将研究结果同现有文献作比较，陈述其意义。 4. 陈述所有结果的意义，不要忽略那些“不便提及”的内容。 5. 不要在“结果”部分简单重复其他部分已有的内容，不得引入新术语/报告新结果，或夸大其词。 6. 给出本研究的局限性和将来研究方向。 7. 结尾用明确的措辞陈述本研究的相关性和重要性。 英文原文 Discussion: what does it all mean? The discussion section of your manuscript is critically important. It is where you pull together all the ‘threads’ of evidence you have presented in the results in the context of the background you presented in the introduction. Unfortunately, many authors, particularly those from non-English-speaking countries, overlook the importance of this section considering it sufficient to merely present their results and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, presenting your results without describing their implications leaves them open to interpretation and reduces the impact they could have. Journal editors want papers that will advance the field and generate an impact; therefore, use the discussion wisely to maximize the impact of your findings. A good discussion will begin by restating the study question and any hypotheses presented in the introduction. This should be followed by a summary of the major findings of your study so that it is immediately clear how you have advanced the field. Start with the most important or relevant finding and then move to progressively less important ones. However, do not yet discuss results that are perhaps controversial or difficult to explain. At this stage you only want to describe the major findings that directly answer the research question you set out in the introduction and/or those that directly relate to your hypotheses. Avoid making grand statements that are not supported by your data and/or overstating the importance of your findings. The word “suggests” is preferable to “shows”, and the word “proves” should never be used. Also, there should be minimal repetition with the results section, with only brief descriptions of the main findings required before launching into their implications. A mixture of tenses is required, with the past tense used to describe individual results and the results of previous studies, and the present tense used to describe their implications. The next part is the component of a discussion that is often overlooked and a frequent cause of rejection from journals. Having reiterated your initial question and major findings, you need to describe their relevance and significance. This is where you put your findings into the context of previously published literature and discuss their implications. This part forms the bulk of the discussion section, showing the reader (and importantly, the journal editor) what your findings actually mean in the light of the existing literature and how they relate to the efforts of others. All possible alternative interpretations of your study should be described and excluded (or at least shown to be unlikely) wherever possible. If alternative interpretations remain viable, the study is considered ‘incomplete’, or at least ongoing, and experiments to rule out the alternatives or determine which of the alternatives is correct should be described at the end of the discussion section as future research. Once the major findings have been put into context, any controversial or difficult to explain findings should be mentioned along with plausible explanations for them. It is perfectly OK to speculate here (but not too wildly), but it is absolutely essential that these findings, and any inconsistencies, are discussed and addressed rather than ignored. No new results or terms should be introduced in the discussion section; all findings should be described in the results section and relevant terms will all have been introduced in the introduction section. Finally, any limitations of the current study should be explained. Peer reviewers are likely to comment on such limitations anyway, so it is best to be ‘up front’ about them and state what they were; doing so might even improve your chances of a positive peer review and thereby shorten the time to publication. The fact that your study has certain limitations is not a problem in itself, and most studies have limitations of some sort. It is therefore important to acknowledge these and describe how they can be addressed in future research. For this reason, the description of limitations is usually followed by a description of future research. Some journals have a separate conclusions section, but even in those that don’t, the same content should be merged with the discussion and contained in the last paragraph. This final section/paragraph should briefly restate the key findings and their significance, describing how your study represents an advance in the field, but avoiding direct repetition. The novelty and significance of these findings should be mentioned, but again, it is important not to over-emphasize either of these. Future studies should be mentioned where relevant, and can be the subject of the final sentence if the current study is preliminary. If your study is not preliminary, end with a strong statement that summarizes the impact of the study without over-stating its importance. Example The figure below, showing excerpts from the discussion section of paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation (doi:10.1172/JCI37622; reproduced with permission), shows some of the important components of a discussion section and the concluding paragraph at the end. Checklist 1. Start by restating the problem/research question and then state the main findings of your study 2. Describe results in the past tense, but implications in the present tense 3. Put findings in the context of the existing literature to describe their implications 4. Describe the implications of all results obtained; do not ignore ‘inconvenient’ ones 5. Avoid repetition, introducing new terms or results, and making grand statements about the importance of your findings 6. Describe the limitations of your study and future directions for research in the field 7. End with a strong statement describing the relevance and significance of your study Dr Daniel McGowan 分子神经学博士 理文编辑学术总监 本文引用地址： http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/blog-288924-571089.html
今天无意中发现一篇包含27个关键词的论文，不知是不是包含关键词最多的论文。该论文的相关信息如下： @ARTICLE{MR95, author = {Morgan, Byron J. T. and Ray, Andrew P. G.}, title = {Non-uniqueness and Inversions in Cluster Clustering}, journal = {Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Applied Statistics)}, year = {1995}, volume = {44}, pages = {117--134}, number = {1}, abstract = {Care must be exercised when hierarchical methods of cluster analysis are used. Dendrograms may not be unique, and certain methods are prone to producing inversions. The nature and extend of these features are examined through two case-studies, and by applying seven methods to 20 data sets. Insufficient emphasis on the problems of non-uniqueness and of inversion is made in many text-books and also in computer packages and their manuals.}, file = {:E\:\\Clustering\\Non-uniqueness and Inversions in Cluster Analysis.pdf:PDF}, keywords = {Anorexia Nervosa; BMDP; Centroid Method; Cluster Analysis; Complete Link Analysis; Dendrograms; Genstat; Group Average Analysis; Hierarchical Methods; Inversion; Median Method; Non-uniqueness; NTSYS-pc; Phenograms; Pruned Trees; Reversals; SAS; Single-Link Analysis; S-PLUS; SPSS; STATGRAPHICS; UPGMA; UPGMC; Ward's Method; Weighted Average Analysis; WPGMA; WPGMC}, }
标签: 关键词
