获得发表的10条简单法则
10 simple rules for getting published0This is an interesting article on how to get publications.
cited from http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=getdocument&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.0010057
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 benefit—it 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 scientists—learn 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 judged—learn to live with it. If reviewers are unanimous about the poor quality of the paper, move on—in 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 obvious—novelty 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 obvious—good organization, the appropriate use of tables and figures, the right length, writing to the intended audience—do 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 available—use 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. 获得发表的10条简单法则
这是一篇有趣的怎样获得发表的文章
法则1：读很多论文，从其他人那里学习做得好的和坏的地方。
越早成为一个批评家越好。期刊俱乐部，作为一个批判性地评论论文的组织，对于这种意见的交换做得非常好。一天详细地阅读至少二篇论文（不只是你研究的领域），并考虑它们的质量也会对你有所帮助。博览群书的另一个潜在的主要益处是——它推动了对自己工作的更客观的评价。当你在电脑屏幕前和/或实验室长椅上花了许多深夜工作后，太容易确信你自己的工作是最新最有用最好的创造。更大的可能是并非如此，而你的导师也倾向于陷入同样的陷阱中，因此见法则2。
法则2：对于你的工作看得越客观，你的工作会最终会变得越好。
唉，有些科学家永远不会对他们的工作客观起来，也永远不会成为最好的科学家——早些学会客观吧，编辑和评审人已经客观了。
法则3：好的编辑和评审人将会对你的工作客观。
编辑部的水准是评审进程的早期指标。看看你准备发表的期刊的刊头。出色的编辑要求得到出色的评审。投稿前花精力在提高手稿的质量上。理想状态是，评审意见会提高你的论文质量。但是如果你的论文有根本上的缺陷，他们将不会给予那种建议。
法则4：如果你的英语写得不好，早些上课；以后会极为有用的。
这不只关于语法，而更重要的是理解力。最好的论文是对那些复杂的意思，用一种对很少涉猎这一领域的人也能理解的方式表达。你是否已注意到最有名的科学家经常用最有逻辑性的最简单的阐述，然而却做出振奋人心的讲座？这也可外推到他们的写作上。注意：写作清晰是有价值的，即使你的最终职业不是取决于在英文期刊上创作出好的科学性的论文。如果投出的论文没有很好用英文清晰的表达，除非科学性真的出色，通常会被退稿或充其量因为需要广泛的文稿校订而延迟发表。
法则5：学着忍受退稿
失去客观性可导致更难接受退稿，而你将会被退稿。科学生涯充满了退稿，即使对于最好的科学家也是如此。对论文被退稿或要求大的修订的正确反应是听取评审人的建议并用客观的而不是主观的方式回应。评审意见反应了你的论文正在怎么样地被评价——学会容忍它。如果评审人对你论文的质量差意见一致，改换话题——所有情况的实质是，他们是对的。如果他们要求大的修订，做到，并在你的附函和文本明显修订处注明他们提出的每一点观点。对那些所有相关点作多轮修订是令人痛苦的，并且减慢了发表进程。
法则6：高标准的科学有显而易见的组成成分——研究课题的新颖性，相关文献的广泛涵盖，正确的数据，包含强统计学支持的正确分析，和启迪人思索的讨论。高标准的科学报道有显而易见的组成成分——良好的组织，恰当的运用表和图，恰好的论文长度，给预期的读者写作的——不要忽视这些显而易见的组成成分。
当你评审初稿时，客观的评价这些组成成分，不要依赖你的导师。让那些没有从这项研究中获得既得利益，包括那些没有直接参与这一课题领域的同事读你的论文，从中得到中肯的意见。
法则7：从有了钻研什么问题的主意那天开始写作论文。
有些人将争议这条过于重点放在发表上，但这条也有助于界定研究范围和用假想来推动科学。新手作者的诱惑在于努力尝试在一篇论文中写出他们知道的所有事情。你的学位论文是极端现实主义的。你的论文应该精炼，用最少的文字传递尽可能多的信息。熟悉稿约并遵照执行，编辑和评审人都遵循它。当你着手工作时，维护好一个文献数据库，阅读里面的论文。
法则8：在你职业生涯的早期就成为一个评审人
评审他人的论文将有助于你撰写出更好的论文。开始时，与你的导师合作；让他们给你他们正在评审的论文并由你作初审（多数导师将很乐于这么做）。然后浏览由你导师发出的最后的评审意见，并且如果该期刊真的允许，看看其他人的评审意见。这将提供出你的评审质量的重要的（思考问题的）角度，可以期望这样能使你用更客观的方式看待你自己的工作。你也能逐渐理解评审过程和评审质量，这也是决定你向何处投稿的重要因素。
法则9：早些决定你的论文努力在何处发表。
这将界定你的论文的详细格式和水平，并设想你做的工作的新颖性。许多期刊都有一个可使用的投稿前的询问系统——使用它。即使在写作论文前,也应先了解一下你做的工作的新颖性，哪个具体的杂志会感兴趣。
法则10：质量是一切。
在一个高质量的期刊发表一篇论文比在次要的期刊上发表多篇论文要好。想掩盖你论文的影响力是越来越难了；决定教授职权的委员会和雇主们正在用象Google Scholar和ISI Web of Science这样的工具来界定衡量你工作的质量。过去常常只用期刊名作为衡量的一种标准。在数字式的世界里，每个人都知道是否一篇论文几乎没有影响力。努力地在高影响因子的期刊上发表论文；如果你的论文被这种期刊采用，很可能是因为你的论文将会有很高的影响力。
当你与世长辞，你的科学遗产，很大的部分是，你留在身后的文献和它展现的影响力。我希望这十条简单的法则可以帮助你死后留给一些被未来一代的科学家所羡慕的了不起的财富。
评论
非常好，希望能多发些这方面的贴子 haha ,David的帖子早没发现，理应加分。为我们作院感的人员指明：不仅做好工作，更应该上一台阶，总结经验得出科学严谨一点的论文，供他人参考。[ 本帖最后由 泉子 于 2008-3-31 21:33 编辑 ] 很有意思的十大法则,学习了 有意思，学习了。 挺有见解，很受启发。谢谢！ 很想发表论文,看了很有启发.谢谢,发论文英语方面(英文摘要)还是难点的. 因为晋升，所以，论文很头痛。谢谢！ 很受启发，谢谢！ 2# David
非常精辟！谢谢分享！
还真是应该把经验总结出来，写成论文，也许会有那么一点点内容，能够成为科学遗产，造福后人！ 学习了，谢谢分享。 值得借鉴 争取写出高质量的论文:) 很受启发哦:victory: 很辛苦艰难得看完了原文，鼠标往下一滚动，突然发现有中文翻译版的，哎..... 多读多钻研，尝试学习英文 。 读了很有启发，并摘录在自己的笔记本上，希望对我有指引、帮助。 读书破万卷，学会思考与提问，肚中真有货，还要精通英文，最后站在巨人的肩膀上方能成为流芳百世，贡献多多之大人！
哇！好难！ 阅读了，谢谢老师的分享！{:1_1:} mmzhou 发表于 2011-9-18 21:39 static/image/common/back.gif
读书破万卷，学会思考与提问，肚中真有货，还要精通英文，最后站在巨人的肩膀上方能成为流芳百世，贡献多多 ...
好难？真的难吗？只要自己认真去做，我想并不难的，关键是看自己有没有决心和毅力。世上无难事，只怕有心人。呵呵。
页:
[1]
2