How?to?write?a?first-class?paper

如何寫出一篇一流的論文

Six?experts?offer?advice?on?producing?a?manuscript?that?will?get?published?and?pull?in?readers.

六位專家就撰寫將發(fā)表并吸引讀者的手稿提供了建議。

Find?a?new?job找一份新工作

Illustration?adapted?from?Aron?Vellekoop?Leon/Getty

插圖改編自?Aron?Vellekoop?Leon/Getty

Manuscripts?may?have?a?rigidly?defined?structure,?but?there’s?still?room?to?tell?a?compelling?story?—?one?that?clearly?communicates?the?science?and?is?a?pleasure?to?read.?Scientist-authors?and?editors?debate?the?importance?and?meaning?of?creativity?and?offer?tips?on?how?to?write?a?top?paper.

手稿可能有嚴(yán)格定義的結(jié)構(gòu)，但仍然有空間來講述一個(gè)引人入勝的故事——一個(gè)清晰地傳達(dá)科學(xué)知識(shí)并且閱讀起來令人愉悅的故事?？茖W(xué)家作者和編輯討論創(chuàng)造力的重要性和意義，并提供如何撰寫頂級(jí)論文的技巧。

Keep?your?message?clear?保持您的信息清晰

Angel?Borja,?marine?scientist?at?AZTI-Tecnalia,?a?producer?of?sustainable?business?services?and?goods,?Pasaia,?Spain;?journal?editor;?author?of?a?series?on?preparing?a?manuscript.

Angel?Borja，西班牙帕薩亞可持續(xù)商業(yè)服務(wù)和商品生產(chǎn)商?AZTI-Tecnalia?的海洋科學(xué)家；期刊編輯；準(zhǔn)備手稿系列的作者。

Think?about?the?message?you?want?to?give?to?readers.?If?that?is?not?clear,?misinterpretations?may?arise?later.?And?a?clear?message?is?even?more?important?when?there?is?a?multidisciplinary?group?of?authors,?which?is?increasingly?common.?I?encourage?groups?to?sit?together?in?person?and?seek?consensus?—?not?only?in?the?main?message,?but?also?in?the?selection?of?data,?the?visual?presentation?and?the?information?necessary?to?transmit?a?strong?message.

考慮一下您想向讀者傳達(dá)的信息。如果不清楚，以后可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)誤解。當(dāng)有一個(gè)越來越普遍的多學(xué)科作者群體時(shí)，清晰的信息就顯得更加重要。我鼓勵(lì)各團(tuán)體面對(duì)面坐在一起尋求共識(shí)——不僅在主要信息上，而且在數(shù)據(jù)的選擇、視覺呈現(xiàn)和傳遞強(qiáng)烈信息所需的信息方面。

The?most?important?information?should?be?in?the?main?text.?To?avoid?distraction,?writers?should?put?additional?data?in?the?supplementary?material.

最重要的信息應(yīng)該在正文中。為了避免分散注意力，作者應(yīng)該在補(bǔ)充材料中添加額外的數(shù)據(jù)。

Countless?manuscripts?are?rejected?because?the?discussion?section?is?so?weak?that?it’s?obvious?the?writer?does?not?clearly?understand?the?existing?literature.?Writers?should?put?their?results?into?a?global?context?to?demonstrate?what?makes?those?results?significant?or?original.

無數(shù)的稿件被拒絕，因?yàn)橛懻摬糠痔∪?，很明顯作者對(duì)現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)沒有清楚的了解。作者應(yīng)該將他們的結(jié)果放在全球背景下，以證明是什么使這些結(jié)果具有重要意義或原創(chuàng)性。

There?is?a?narrow?line?between?speculation?and?evidence-based?conclusions.?A?writer?can?speculate?in?the?discussion?—?but?not?too?much.?When?the?discussion?is?all?speculation,?it’s?no?good?because?it?is?not?rooted?in?the?author’s?experience.?In?the?conclusion,?include?a?one-?or?two-sentence?statement?on?the?research?you?plan?to?do?in?the?future?and?on?what?else?needs?to?be?explored.

猜測和基于證據(jù)的結(jié)論之間存在著一條狹窄的界限。作者可以在討論中進(jìn)行推測——但不能太多。當(dāng)討論全是猜測時(shí)，那就不好了，因?yàn)樗鼪]有植根于作者的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。在結(jié)論中，用一兩句話來說明您計(jì)劃在未來進(jìn)行的研究以及還需要探索的內(nèi)容。

Create?a?logical?framework

創(chuàng)建邏輯框架

Brett?Mensh,?scientific?adviser,?Howard?Hughes?Medical?Institute,?Janelia?Research?Campus,?Ashburn,?Virginia;?consultant,?science?communications.

Brett?Mensh，科學(xué)顧問，霍華德休斯醫(yī)學(xué)研究所，珍妮莉亞研究園區(qū)，阿什本，弗吉尼亞州；顧問，科學(xué)傳播。

Structure?is?paramount.?If?you?don’t?get?the?structure?right,?you?have?no?hope.

結(jié)構(gòu)是最重要的。如果你的結(jié)構(gòu)不正確，你就沒有希望。

I?co-wrote?a?paper?(B.?Mensh?and?K.?Kording?PLoS?Comput.?Biol.?http://doi.org/ckqp;?2017)?that?lays?out?structural?details?for?using?a?context–content–conclusion?scheme?to?build?a?core?concept.?It?is?one?of?the?most?highly?tweeted?papers?so?far.?In?each?paragraph,?the?first?sentence?defines?the?context,?the?body?contains?the?new?idea?and?the?final?sentence?offers?a?conclusion.?For?the?whole?paper,?the?introduction?sets?the?context,?the?results?present?the?content?and?the?discussion?brings?home?the?conclusion.

我與他人共同撰寫了一篇論文（B.?Mensh?和?K.?Kording?PLoS?Comput.?Biol.?http://doi.org/ckqp；2017），該論文列出了使用上下文-內(nèi)容-結(jié)論方案構(gòu)建核心概念的結(jié)構(gòu)細(xì)節(jié)。這是迄今為止推特上轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)次數(shù)最多的論文之一。在每個(gè)段落中，第一句話定義了上下文，正文包含了新的想法，最后一句話提供了結(jié)論。對(duì)于整篇論文來說，引言設(shè)定背景，結(jié)果呈現(xiàn)內(nèi)容，討論得出結(jié)論。

It’s?crucial?to?focus?your?paper?on?a?single?key?message,?which?you?communicate?in?the?title.?Everything?in?the?paper?should?logically?and?structurally?support?that?idea.?It?can?be?a?delight?to?creatively?bend?the?rules,?but?you?need?to?know?them?first.

將您的論文集中在標(biāo)題中傳達(dá)的單一關(guān)鍵信息上至關(guān)重要。論文中的所有內(nèi)容都應(yīng)該在邏輯和結(jié)構(gòu)上支持這個(gè)想法。創(chuàng)造性地打破規(guī)則可能是一種樂趣，但您需要首先了解它們。

You?have?to?guide?the?naive?reader?to?the?point?at?which?they?are?ready?to?absorb?what?you?did.?As?a?writer,?you?need?to?detail?the?problem.?I?won’t?know?why?I?should?care?about?your?experiment?until?you?tell?me?why?I?should.

你必須引導(dǎo)天真的讀者，讓他們準(zhǔn)備好吸收你所做的事情。作為一名作家，你需要詳細(xì)說明問題。在你告訴我為什么我應(yīng)該關(guān)心你的實(shí)驗(yàn)之前，我不知道為什么我應(yīng)該關(guān)心你的實(shí)驗(yàn)。

State?your?case?with?confidence

自信地陳述您的情況

Dallas?Murphy,?book?author,?New?York?City;?instructor,?writing?workshops?for?scientists?in?Germany,?Norway?and?the?United?States.

達(dá)拉斯·墨菲?(Dallas?Murphy)，書籍作者，紐約市；講師，為德國、挪威和美國的科學(xué)家撰寫研討會(huì)。

Clarity?is?the?sole?obligation?of?the?science?writer,?yet?I?find?constantly?that?the?‘What’s?new’?element?is?buried.?Answering?one?central?question?—?What?did?you?do??—?is?the?key?to?finding?the?structure?of?a?piece.?Every?section?of?the?manuscript?needs?to?support?that?one?fundamental?idea.

清晰是科普作家的唯一義務(wù)，但我不斷發(fā)現(xiàn)“新鮮事”元素被掩蓋了?；卮鹨粋€(gè)核心問題——你做了什么？?——是尋找作品結(jié)構(gòu)的關(guān)鍵。手稿的每一部分都需要支持這一基本思想。

There?is?a?German?concept?known?as?the?‘red?thread’,?which?is?the?straight?line?that?the?audience?follows?from?the?introduction?to?the?conclusion.?In?science,?‘What’s?new?and?compelling?’?is?the?red?thread.?It’s?the?whole?reason?for?writing?the?paper.?Then,?once?that’s?established,?the?paragraphs?that?follow?become?the?units?of?logic?that?comprise?the?red?thread.

德國有一個(gè)概念，叫做“紅線”，即觀眾從引言到結(jié)論所遵循的直線。在科學(xué)中，“什么是新的、引人注目的？”是一條紅線。這就是寫這篇論文的全部原因。然后，一旦建立起來，接下來的段落就成為構(gòu)成紅線的邏輯單元。

Scientific?authors?are?often?scared?to?make?confident?statements?with?muscularity.?The?result?is?turgid?or?obfuscatory?writing?that?sounds?defensive,?with?too?many?caveats?and?long?lists?—?as?if?the?authors?are?writing?to?fend?off?criticism?that?hasn’t?been?made?yet.?When?they?write?for?a?journal?gatekeeper?rather?than?for?a?human?being,?the?result?is?muddy?prose.

科學(xué)作者常常害怕以強(qiáng)有力的方式做出自信的陳述。結(jié)果是浮夸或含糊不清的寫作，聽起來像是防御性的，有太多的警告和長長的清單——就好像作者寫這些是為了抵御尚未提出的批評(píng)一樣。當(dāng)他們?yōu)槠诳撮T人而不是為人類寫作時(shí)，結(jié)果就是混亂的散文。

Examples?such?as?this?are?not?uncommon:?“Though?not?inclusive,?this?paper?provides?a?useful?review?of?the?well-known?methods?of?physical?oceanography?using?as?examples?various?research?that?illustrates?the?methodological?challenges?that?give?rise?to?successful?solutions?to?the?difficulties?inherent?in?oceanographic?research.”?Why?not?this?instead:?“We?review?methods?of?oceanographic?research?with?examples?that?reveal?specific?challenges?and?solutions”?

諸如此類的例子并不少見：“雖然不具有包容性，但本文以各種研究為例，對(duì)物理海洋學(xué)的眾所周知的方法進(jìn)行了有益的回顧，這些研究說明了方法論的挑戰(zhàn)，這些挑戰(zhàn)成功地解決了海洋學(xué)固有的困難。研究?！睘槭裁床贿@樣說：“我們通過揭示具體挑戰(zhàn)和解決方案的例子來回顧海洋學(xué)研究的方法”？

And?if?the?prose?muddies?the?science,?the?writer?has?not?only?failed?to?convey?their?idea,?but?they’ve?also?made?the?reader?work?so?hard?that?they?have?alienated?him?or?her.?The?reader’s?job?is?to?pay?attention?and?remember?what?they?read.?The?writer’s?job?is?to?make?those?two?things?easy?to?do.?I?encourage?scientists?to?read?outside?their?field?to?better?appreciate?the?craft?and?principles?of?writing.

如果散文混淆了科學(xué)，那么作者不僅未能傳達(dá)他們的想法，而且還讓讀者如此努力，以至于疏遠(yuǎn)了他或她。讀者的工作是注意并記住他們所讀到的內(nèi)容。作者的工作就是讓這兩件事變得容易做。我鼓勵(lì)科學(xué)家在他們的領(lǐng)域之外閱讀，以更好地理解寫作的技巧和原則。

Beware?the?curse?of?‘zombie?nouns’

謹(jǐn)防“僵尸名詞”的詛咒

Zoe?Doubleday,?ecologist,?University?of?Adelaide,?Australia;?co-author?of?a?paper?on?embracing?creativity?and?writing?accessible?prose?in?scientific?publications.

Zoe?Doubleday，生態(tài)學(xué)家，澳大利亞阿德萊德大學(xué)；一篇關(guān)于擁抱創(chuàng)造力和在科學(xué)出版物中撰寫通俗易懂的散文的論文的合著者。

Always?think?of?your?busy,?tired?reader?when?you?write?your?paper?—?and?try?to?deliver?a?paper?that?you?would?enjoy?reading?yourself.

當(dāng)你寫論文時(shí)，一定要想到忙碌、疲憊的讀者——并嘗試寫出一篇你自己喜歡閱讀的論文。

Why?does?scientific?writing?have?to?be?stodgy,?dry?and?abstract??Humans?are?story-telling?animals.?If?we?don’t?engage?that?aspect?of?ourselves,?it’s?hard?to?absorb?the?meaning?of?what?we’re?reading.?Scientific?writing?should?be?factual,?concise?and?evidence-based,?but?that?doesn’t?mean?it?can’t?also?be?creative?—?told?in?a?voice?that?is?original?—?and?engaging?(Z.?A.?Doubleday?et?al.?Trends?Ecol.?Evol.?32,?803–805;?2017https://unpaywall.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.011https://sci-hub.ee/10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.011).?If?science?isn’t?read,?it?doesn’t?exist.

為什么科學(xué)寫作必須枯燥、枯燥和抽象？人類是會(huì)講故事的動(dòng)物。如果我們不投入自己的這一方面，就很難吸收我們正在閱讀的內(nèi)容的含義。科學(xué)寫作應(yīng)該是事實(shí)、簡潔和基于證據(jù)的，但這并不意味著它不能具有創(chuàng)造性——以原創(chuàng)的聲音講述——并且引人入勝（Z.?A.?Doubleday?et?al.?Trends?Ecol.?Evol.?32,?803?–805；2017??）。如果科學(xué)不被閱讀，它就不存在。

One?of?the?principal?problems?with?writing?a?manuscript?is?that?your?individual?voice?is?stamped?out.?Writers?can?be?stigmatized?by?mentors,?manuscript?reviewers?or?journal?editors?if?they?use?their?own?voice.?Students?tell?me?they?are?inspired?to?write,?but?worry?that?their?adviser?won’t?be?supportive?of?creativity.?It?is?a?concern.?We?need?to?take?a?fresh?look?at?the?‘official?style’?—?the?dry,?technical?language?that?hasn’t?evolved?in?decades.

撰寫手稿的主要問題之一是你個(gè)人的聲音被壓制了。如果作家使用自己的聲音，他們可能會(huì)受到導(dǎo)師、稿件審稿人或期刊編輯的侮辱。學(xué)生們告訴我，他們受到寫作的啟發(fā)，但擔(dān)心他們的導(dǎo)師不會(huì)支持創(chuàng)造力。這是一個(gè)問題。我們需要重新審視“官方風(fēng)格”——幾十年來一直沒有發(fā)展的枯燥的技術(shù)語言。

Author?Helen?Sword?coined?the?phrase?‘zombie?nouns’?to?describe?terms?such?as?‘implementation’?or?‘a(chǎn)pplication’?that?suck?the?lifeblood?out?of?active?verbs.?We?should?engage?readers’?emotions?and?avoid?formal,?impersonal?language.?Still,?there’s?a?balance.?Don’t?sensationalize?the?science.?Once?the?paper?has?a?clear?message,?I?suggest?that?writers?try?some?vivid?language?to?help?to?tell?the?story.?For?example,?I?got?some?pushback?on?the?title?of?one?of?my?recent?papers:?‘Eight?habitats,?38?threats,?and?55?experts:?Assessing?ecological?risk?in?a?multi-use?marine?region’.?But,?ultimately,?the?editors?let?me?keep?it.?There’s?probably?less?resistance?out?there?than?people?might?think.

作者?Helen?Sword?創(chuàng)造了“僵尸名詞”這個(gè)短語來描述諸如“實(shí)現(xiàn)”或“應(yīng)用”之類的術(shù)語，這些術(shù)語吸走了主動(dòng)動(dòng)詞的生命力。我們應(yīng)該調(diào)動(dòng)讀者的情感，避免使用正式的、客觀的語言。盡管如此，還是有一個(gè)平衡。不要聳人聽聞的科學(xué)。一旦論文有了明確的信息，我建議作者嘗試一些生動(dòng)的語言來幫助講述故事。例如，我最近一篇論文的標(biāo)題遭到了一些反對(duì)：“八個(gè)棲息地，38?個(gè)威脅和?55?位專家：評(píng)估多用途海洋區(qū)域的生態(tài)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”。但最終編輯們讓我保留它。外界的阻力可能比人們想象的要小。

Recently,?after?hearing?me?speak?on?this?topic,?a?colleague?mentioned?that?she?had?just?rejected?a?review?paper?because?she?felt?the?style?was?too?non-scientific.?She?admitted?that?she?felt?she?had?made?the?wrong?decision?and?would?try?to?reverse?it.

最近，一位同事聽我講完這個(gè)話題后提到，她剛剛拒絕了一篇綜述論文，因?yàn)樗X得論文風(fēng)格太不科學(xué)了。她承認(rèn)，她覺得自己做出了錯(cuò)誤的決定，并會(huì)嘗試扭轉(zhuǎn)這一決定。

Prune?that?purple?prose?修剪那些紫色的散文

Peter?Gorsuch,?managing?editor,?Nature?Research?Editing?Service,?London;?former?plant?biologist.

Peter?Gorsuch，自然研究編輯服務(wù)總編輯，倫敦；前植物生物學(xué)家。

Writers?must?be?careful?about?‘creativity’.?It?sounds?good,?but?the?purpose?of?a?scientific?paper?is?to?convey?information.?That’s?it.?Flourishes?can?be?distracting.?Figurative?language?can?also?bamboozle?a?non-native?English?speaker.?My?advice?is?to?make?the?writing?only?as?complex?as?it?needs?to?be.

作家必須小心“創(chuàng)造力”。聽起來不錯(cuò)，但科學(xué)論文的目的是傳達(dá)信息。就是這樣。繁花似錦可能會(huì)分散注意力。比喻語言也會(huì)迷惑非英語母語人士。我的建議是讓寫作盡可能復(fù)雜。

That?said,?there?are?any?number?of?ways?of?writing?a?paper?that?are?far?from?effective.?One?of?the?most?important?is?omitting?crucial?information?from?the?methods?section.?It’s?easy?to?do,?especially?in?a?complicated?study,?but?missing?information?can?make?it?difficult,?if?not?impossible,?to?reproduce?the?study.?That?can?mean?the?research?is?a?dead?end.

也就是說，有很多寫論文的方法都遠(yuǎn)非有效。最重要的問題之一是從方法部分省略關(guān)鍵信息。這很容易做到，尤其是在復(fù)雜的研究中，但缺失信息可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致重現(xiàn)研究變得困難，甚至不可能。這可能意味著這項(xiàng)研究走進(jìn)了死胡同。

It’s?also?important?that?the?paper’s?claims?are?consistent?with?collected?evidence.?At?the?same?time,?authors?should?avoid?being?over-confident?in?their?conclusions.

同樣重要的是，論文的主張與收集到的證據(jù)一致。與此同時(shí)，作者應(yīng)避免對(duì)自己的結(jié)論過于自信。

Editors?and?peer?reviewers?are?looking?for?interesting?results?that?are?useful?to?the?field.?Without?those,?a?paper?might?be?rejected.?Unfortunately,?authors?tend?to?struggle?with?the?discussion?section.?They?need?to?explain?why?the?findings?are?interesting?and?how?they?affect?a?wider?understanding?of?the?topic.?Authors?should?also?reassess?the?existing?literature?and?consider?whether?their?findings?open?the?door?for?future?work.?And,?in?making?clear?how?robust?their?findings?are,?they?must?convince?readers?that?they’ve?considered?alternative?explanations.

編輯和同行評(píng)審員正在尋找對(duì)該領(lǐng)域有用的有趣結(jié)果。如果沒有這些，論文可能會(huì)被拒絕。不幸的是，作者往往在討論部分遇到困難。他們需要解釋為什么這些發(fā)現(xiàn)很有趣，以及它們?nèi)绾斡绊憣?duì)該主題的更廣泛理解。作者還應(yīng)該重新評(píng)估現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)，并考慮他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)是否為未來的工作打開了大門。而且，在明確他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)有多可靠時(shí)，他們必須讓讀者相信他們已經(jīng)考慮過其他解釋。

Aim?for?a?wide?audience

瞄準(zhǔn)廣泛的受眾

Stacy?Konkiel,?director?of?research?and?education?at?Altmetric,?London,?which?scores?research?papers?on?the?basis?of?their?level?of?digital?attention.

Stacy?Konkiel?是倫敦?Altmetric?的研究和教育總監(jiān)，該機(jī)構(gòu)根據(jù)研究論文的數(shù)字關(guān)注程度對(duì)研究論文進(jìn)行評(píng)分。

There?have?been?no?in-depth?studies?linking?the?quality?of?writing?to?a?paper’s?impact,?but?a?recent?one?(N.?Di?Girolamo?and?R.?M.?Reynders?J.?Clin.?Epidemiol.?85,?32–36;?2017https://unpaywall.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.018https://sci-hub.ee/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.018)?shows?that?articles?with?clear,?succinct,?declarative?titles?are?more?likely?to?get?picked?up?by?social?media?or?the?popular?press.

目前還沒有將寫作質(zhì)量與論文影響聯(lián)系起來的深入研究，但最近進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)研究（N.?Di?Girolamo?和?R.?M.?Reynders?J.?Clin.?Epidemiol.?85,?32–36;?2017??）表明，標(biāo)題清晰、簡潔、陳述性的文章更有可能被社交媒體或大眾媒體報(bào)道。

Those?findings?tie?in?with?my?experience.?My?biggest?piece?of?advice?is?to?get?to?the?point.?Authors?spend?a?lot?of?time?setting?up?long-winded?arguments?to?knock?down?possible?objections?before?they?actually?state?their?case.?Make?your?point?clearly?and?concisely?—?if?possible?in?non-specialist?language,?so?that?readers?from?other?fields?can?quickly?make?sense?of?it.

這些發(fā)現(xiàn)與我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)相吻合。我最大的建議是切入主題。作者在真正陳述自己的觀點(diǎn)之前，花費(fèi)了大量時(shí)間來提出冗長的論點(diǎn)，以消除可能的反對(duì)意見。清楚、簡潔地表達(dá)你的觀點(diǎn)——如果可能的話，使用非專業(yè)語言，以便其他領(lǐng)域的讀者可以快速理解它。

If?you?write?in?a?way?that?is?accessible?to?non-specialists,?you?are?not?only?opening?yourself?up?to?citations?by?experts?in?other?fields,?but?you?are?also?making?your?writing?available?to?laypeople,?which?is?especially?important?in?the?biomedical?fields.?My?Altmetric?colleague?Amy?Rees?notes?that?she?sees?a?trend?towards?academics?being?more?deliberate?and?thoughtful?in?how?they?disseminate?their?work.?For?example,?we?see?more?scientists?writing?lay?summaries?in?publications?such?as?The?Conversation,?a?media?outlet?through?which?academics?share?news?and?opinions.

如果您以非專業(yè)人士可以理解的方式寫作，那么您不僅可以被其他領(lǐng)域的專家引用，而且還可以讓外行人可以閱讀您的作品，這在生物醫(yī)學(xué)領(lǐng)域尤其重要。我的?Altmetric?同事艾米·里斯?(Amy?Rees)?指出，她認(rèn)為學(xué)者們?cè)趥鞑テ溲芯砍晒麜r(shí)更加深思熟慮和深思熟慮。例如，我們看到越來越多的科學(xué)家在《對(duì)話》（The?Conversation）等出版物上撰寫簡明摘要，這是學(xué)者們分享新聞和觀點(diǎn)的媒體渠道。