【正文】 . These last factors represent the public relations side of a petitive field. This behavior is understandable, if not praiseworthy. But when the authors mislead the reader as to what is firmly established and what is speculation, it is hard, especially for the novice, to know what is settled and what is not. A careful evaluation is necessary, as we now discuss. Back to outline 4. Evaluating a paper A thorough understanding and evaluation of a paper involves answering several questions: a. What questions does the paper address? b. What are the main conclusions of the paper? c. What evidence supports those conclusions? d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? e. What is the quality of the evidence? f. Why are the conclusions important? a. What questions does the paper address? Before addressing this question, we need to be aware that research in biochemistry and molecular biology can be of several different types: Type of research Question asked: Descriptive What is there? What do we see? Comparative How does it pare to other anisms? Are our findings general? Analytical How does it work? What is the mechanism? Descriptive research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a system. We can39。codewords39。 and relates these findings to the field of study. As will be seen, this logical order is also that of the paper as a whole. The next section of the paper is the Introduction. In many journals this section is not given a title. As its name implies, this section presents the background knowledge necessary for the reader to understand why the findings of the paper are an advance on the knowledge in the field. Typically, the Introduction describes first the accepted state of knowledge in a specialized field。 4. An inspirational cheer leader。 課堂筆記：《科學閱讀、寫作和報告》 20200804 今天是 李沉簡老師 開設(shè)的 暑期課程《科學閱讀、寫作和報告》 的第一課，李老師思維清晰、講課生動，頗有收獲，下面就是這堂課的簡要課堂筆記： 文章寫給別人看，晦澀艱深讀也難；簡要清通四字訣，先求平易后波瀾。（就好像 Daily Review,Weekly Review 一樣，養(yǎng)成一個習慣。由于文獻綜述有作者自己的評論分析，因此在撰寫時應分清作者的觀點和文 獻的內(nèi)容，不能篡改文獻的內(nèi)容。這就要求了下面 3 點： ? 工具便攜 ：這就要求要總帶著記錄的工具，所以這個工具就必須是口袋大小的； ? 工具快捷 ：如果打開一個小的裝著 windows 系統(tǒng)的筆記本電腦光開機就需要 30S 種，顯然不合適； ? 方法簡單 ：一開始記錄時不需要設(shè)置太多規(guī)則，如果需要很多步驟的話，當然不會有人愿意經(jīng)常記了； ? 工具 o 電腦 ? 聯(lián)網(wǎng)： GoogleNotebook+Firefox 的 GoogleNotebook 的Extension； ? 不聯(lián)網(wǎng)： Evernote； o 非電腦 ? 紙質(zhì) ? 文字 ? Cornell 筆記法 ? 手繪 ? 電子 ? 相機 ? 錄音筆 ? ...... ? 步驟 （ 5R） o Record 記錄 o Reflect 思考：可能需要先搜尋自己的大腦和 “ 延伸大腦 ” （網(wǎng)絡(luò)）充分理解記錄內(nèi)容的含義，這是一個 “ 把書讀厚的過程 ” o Reduce 簡化：再建立節(jié)點之間的聯(lián)系 (connect)，這是一個 “ 把書讀薄的過程 ” ； o Recite 背誦：留在自己的大腦內(nèi)存里面才能成為將來的神經(jīng)生發(fā)中心； o Review 回 顧：可以考慮用兩個本子，夏勒就是這樣：謄寫的過程其實是一個整理和思考的過程； 隨機文章 : 如何做文獻綜述 Tags: 文獻綜述 . 寫文獻 綜述是很全面、綜合的一個研究過程，它需要從選題開始，到檢索文獻、管理文獻、閱讀文獻 ......到最后的通盤綜述相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的研究進展，并從中找出將來可能的研究方向。否則等于沒看。真正有用的全文并不多，過分追求全文是浪費，不可走極端。 在第二階段，要找出論文真正具有內(nèi)容的部分。而在一個爐火熊熊的旺火爐中，不斷會有優(yōu)秀工作的積累，優(yōu)秀人才的產(chǎn)生，并且創(chuàng)新思想和人 才的不斷相互作用，相互啟發(fā)，相互激勵，就會不斷創(chuàng)造出 新的突破性成果。古人說得好： “ 盡信書不如無書 ” 。 其實，由于現(xiàn)在科技進步很快，即使是自己從事的領(lǐng)域，也有很多新技術(shù)、新觀點不停的出現(xiàn)，所以，即使是個 “ 老手 ” ，如果懶于更新自己的知識，也會很快落后。只要堅持學習，就會積累起自己的知識架構(gòu)。哪些需要仔細閱讀并保存，哪些用處不大，待刪除，哪些需要閱讀卻尚未閱讀。我和王忠誠院士、顧玉東院士的接觸中，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們都有記卡片的習慣。 2。由點到面。然后，擴展開，根據(jù)興趣和研究的目 的，知道，在研究的領(lǐng)域：誰的文章被引用的次數(shù)多，誰的文章最多最新最有啟發(fā)性。 對于高質(zhì)量高水平的期刊，定期瀏覽，從面上了解學術(shù) 進展和熱點，根據(jù)個人的興趣和工作進展，逐篇仔細閱讀新作 . 3。無論寫在紙上，還是記載在電腦內(nèi)，都應該有一個記事簿，并且經(jīng)常整理。如果只作為一個收藏家，就失去了研究的意義。后來隨著閱讀量的增加，終于最后融匯貫通，也理解了導師的方法?，F(xiàn)在可以在網(wǎng)上閱讀所有重要刊物的目錄和摘要，這就更容易做到了。創(chuàng)新思想來自何處，雖然靈機一動產(chǎn)生了重要的創(chuàng)新思想，在科學史上確實有所記載，但這畢竟是比較罕 見的，而遠遠更為常見的是天才出于勤奮，創(chuàng)新出于積累，積累可以是個人積累，也可以是本人所在單位的長期積累。內(nèi)容目錄（ the table of contents）、結(jié)論部分（ conclusion）和簡介 （ introduction）是三個重點。 理解論文得到了什么結(jié)論并不等同于理解了該論文。 復印或打印的文獻，直接用筆標記或批注。但要注意引用這篇文章的其它文章是如何評價這篇文章的：支持還是反對，補充還是糾錯 我是如何做筆記的 Tags: notetaking，筆記 . ? 目的 o 幫助專心 ：記錄這個動作本身就是一種參與，會讓自己更加投入到思考之中?？砂茨甏樞蚓C述，也可按不同的問題進行綜述，還可按不同的觀點進行比較綜述，不管用那一種格式綜述，都要將 所搜集到的文獻資料歸納、整理及分析比較，闡明有關(guān)主題的歷史背景、現(xiàn)狀和發(fā)展方向，以及對這些問題的評述，主題部分應特別注意代表性強、具有科學性和創(chuàng) 造性的文獻引用和評述。s website。 ? Delete unecessary words and phrases。 A roadblock for career development ? A man who knows how will have a job。 ? Reviews ? Big yesyes:print papers out。 Cell severely edits many papers to shorten them, and has a short word limit in the abstract。 if they firmly believe a particular model, they may not be openminded about other possibilities. These may not be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how wellestablished are the facts under discussion. One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a wellestablished finding. Another example of this approach is the Assertive Sentence Title, which presents a major conclusion of the paper as a declarative sentence (such as LexA is a repressor of the recA and lexA genes). This trend is being prevalent。 multiple approaches make the argument more persuasive. Another thing to look for is implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly. Back to Evaluating a paper e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master. Beginning scientists often wonder, Who am I to question these authorities? After all the paper was publ