SCI杂志主编的回信——怎么写SCI文章！（转载）
个人日记
Here are some general notes on writing:
The abstract should provide a good summary of what you did and what you found; it should be valuable in the absence of the rest of the paper (it may be the only source of your work that a reader is able to access). It should begin with a clear statement of objectives and end with a clear conclusion. Where possible, state what you found and allow the reader to infer what you did; this enables you to communicate considerable specific information (including means and P values), without exceeding word limits.
The introduction should provide a brief context and justification regarding what is known and what you plan to do; it should not be an exhaustive review of the literature. It should end with a clear statement of the objectives. As a general rule, it should not exceed 2 pages (double spaced).
In materials and methods, you must describe what you did in sufficient detail that a competent investigator could repeat your work. Also, this section and the results section should be 'mirror images' of one another; if you said that you did it, you must report the results, and if you report the results, you must have said you did it. I find it very helpful to write materials and methods and results at the same time, going back and forth between the two sections to ensure agreement.
In the text of the results section, you should refer to and highlight the information that you have presented in tables and figures; however, you should not repeat all the data you have presented in tables and figures (you simply refer the reader to the tables and figures and give a brief summary of what is there). Furthermore, the results section is for presentation of your findings, NOT for discussion and interpretation of your findings; that belongs in the discussion. Furthermore, you are not supposed to report data or findings in the discussion that you have not already presented in the results.
Never say 'The data showed….' Rather, say: We inferred…., We concluded…., Our interpretation was….
Either cite a P value (abstract and results) or say 'significant' (discussion), but don't do both.
In the discussion, the general approach is that you briefly repeat what you found (it really should be a summary; a detailed description belongs in the results, and in most cases, you should not refer to specific tables or figures) and then you interpret this in the context of the literature, how it is similar or different from previous reports and what you think it means. It is noteworthy that for each topic, the specific order of presentation is your work, the literature, then your interpretation; use this sequence most of the time (it highlights your work by putting it first; don't emphasize the literature by citing it before you cite your work).
Although the results section should very closely follow materials and methods, in the discussion, you have relatively more freedom in terms of the order of presentation.
In the discussion, I recommend that you identify the key findings (usually there is a maximum of 6 in a manuscript), rank them in decreasing order of importance, and then present the most important information finding first (typically that will be your findings regarding the objectives/hypotheses), then the second most important, etc. Thereafter, discuss individual animals with unusual outcomes and other matters that are less important than the major findings of the paper. Finally, finish with a strong concluding paragraph, summarizing the most important findings. Do not finish by saying 'more work is needed; this is not news to anyone! It is rare to include a literature citation in the final paragraph; you are not making new statements, you are simply summarizing the key findings.
In the discussion, as much as possible, try to discuss one item completely, and then move on to the next item. It may take more than one paragraph to discuss one item, and that's fine. They key is to avoid what I call 'back and forth', where you discuss one item, then you discuss one or more other items, and then you come back to the first item. It is not always possible to discuss an item in its entirety and then move on, as some items are inter-connected and you necessarily have to discuss them more than once.
Dr. Kastelic
The abstract should provide a good summary of what you did and what you found; it should be valuable in the absence of the rest of the paper (it may be the only source of your work that a reader is able to access). It should begin with a clear statement of objectives and end with a clear conclusion. Where possible, state what you found and allow the reader to infer what you did; this enables you to communicate considerable specific information (including means and P values), without exceeding word limits.
The introduction should provide a brief context and justification regarding what is known and what you plan to do; it should not be an exhaustive review of the literature. It should end with a clear statement of the objectives. As a general rule, it should not exceed 2 pages (double spaced).
In materials and methods, you must describe what you did in sufficient detail that a competent investigator could repeat your work. Also, this section and the results section should be 'mirror images' of one another; if you said that you did it, you must report the results, and if you report the results, you must have said you did it. I find it very helpful to write materials and methods and results at the same time, going back and forth between the two sections to ensure agreement.
In the text of the results section, you should refer to and highlight the information that you have presented in tables and figures; however, you should not repeat all the data you have presented in tables and figures (you simply refer the reader to the tables and figures and give a brief summary of what is there). Furthermore, the results section is for presentation of your findings, NOT for discussion and interpretation of your findings; that belongs in the discussion. Furthermore, you are not supposed to report data or findings in the discussion that you have not already presented in the results.
Never say 'The data showed….' Rather, say: We inferred…., We concluded…., Our interpretation was….
Either cite a P value (abstract and results) or say 'significant' (discussion), but don't do both.
In the discussion, the general approach is that you briefly repeat what you found (it really should be a summary; a detailed description belongs in the results, and in most cases, you should not refer to specific tables or figures) and then you interpret this in the context of the literature, how it is similar or different from previous reports and what you think it means. It is noteworthy that for each topic, the specific order of presentation is your work, the literature, then your interpretation; use this sequence most of the time (it highlights your work by putting it first; don't emphasize the literature by citing it before you cite your work).
Although the results section should very closely follow materials and methods, in the discussion, you have relatively more freedom in terms of the order of presentation.
In the discussion, I recommend that you identify the key findings (usually there is a maximum of 6 in a manuscript), rank them in decreasing order of importance, and then present the most important information finding first (typically that will be your findings regarding the objectives/hypotheses), then the second most important, etc. Thereafter, discuss individual animals with unusual outcomes and other matters that are less important than the major findings of the paper. Finally, finish with a strong concluding paragraph, summarizing the most important findings. Do not finish by saying 'more work is needed; this is not news to anyone! It is rare to include a literature citation in the final paragraph; you are not making new statements, you are simply summarizing the key findings.
In the discussion, as much as possible, try to discuss one item completely, and then move on to the next item. It may take more than one paragraph to discuss one item, and that's fine. They key is to avoid what I call 'back and forth', where you discuss one item, then you discuss one or more other items, and then you come back to the first item. It is not always possible to discuss an item in its entirety and then move on, as some items are inter-connected and you necessarily have to discuss them more than once.
Dr. Kastelic
文章评论