【正文】 ? 只說(shuō)明研究結(jié)果，不夾雜對(duì)問(wèn)題的 討論和推測(cè)。 論文的基本結(jié)構(gòu) (IMRAD) ? Introduction: What and why? 研究什么問(wèn)題？為什么研究這個(gè)問(wèn)題？ ? Methods： How? 如何研究的？ ? Results： What? 發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么？ ? Discussion： What? 發(fā)現(xiàn)意味著什么？ Introduction 引言 ? 為什么要做 ? 介紹研究背景，闡述研究目的 ? 別人做了什么工作 ? 存在什么問(wèn)題 ? 綜述之前的國(guó)內(nèi)外 相關(guān)研究 工作，指出這些研 究的問(wèn)題 和局限性， ！??！不能漏掉重要或經(jīng)典文獻(xiàn) ? 你做的是什么 ? 針對(duì)他人研究的問(wèn)題和局限，提出自己的研究?jī)?nèi)容，強(qiáng) 調(diào)研究的創(chuàng)新性。 ? (3)報(bào)道 指示性摘要 (informative indicative abstract)： 以報(bào)道性摘要的形式表述一次文獻(xiàn)中的信息價(jià)值較高的部分，以指示性摘要的形式表述其余部分。 Figures Discussion References Read them first and decide to read the rest or not What is the abstract? ? Ab, out + trahere, to pull: to pull out To pull out the key points from the paper ? An abstract can be viewed as a miniversion of the paper. ? Two mon types of Abstracts Informative abstracts: most research papers (five elements) Indicative (Descriptive) abstracts: review articles 20220520 摘要的類型與基本內(nèi)容 ? 根據(jù)內(nèi)容的不同，摘要可分為以下三大類 ? (1)報(bào)道性摘要 (informative abstract)： ? 也常稱作信息性摘要或資料性摘要，其特點(diǎn)是全面、簡(jiǎn)要地概括論文的目的、方法、主要數(shù)據(jù)和結(jié)論。 Figures Materials amp。 How to submit the manuscript Where amp。 Surviving the review process: an editor’ s perspective James L. Sartin Editor, Domestic Animal Endocrinology First Consideration: Should you write a paper? ? Do you have a novel and innovative hypothesis? ? Does your data provide new information to the scientific literature? ? Is your paper descriptive or mechanistic? ? Is your experimental design adequate? ? Are your statistics appropriate? ? Are your conclusions consistent with your data and starting hypothesis? Choosing a Journal ? What is the scope of your paper? ? Is the subject matter appropriate to the journal? ? Then follow the instructions to authors for this journal very closely. Choose a title ? A Role for AGRP in Appetite Regulation in a Species with Continuous Nutrient Delivery. ? The effect of AGRP on feed intake in sheep. ? Informative but attract attention Selecting authors ? Did they contribute to the conduction of the research project? ? Did they contribute to the development of the hypothesis and intellectual aspects of the project? ? Did they have a special role such as statistical analysis or a key method? ? It takes only 12 ATP to add a name, but much more if you leave off a name and insult a coworker. Abstract ? The abstract should provide the hypothesis, details of the methods and results and a short conclusion. ? It should adequately describe what you have done. Introduction ? Logical series of paragraphs to convince the readers that your paper has a solid scientific basis. ? Frame your hypothesis. ? This section is where you sell your idea. If reviewers don’t buy the argument for the project you have lost the battle to publish. Materials and Methods ? Detailed statement of what you did. ? Remember that others must be able to follow your descriptions and repeat your study. Results ? Present data in an objective manner. ? Choose the format (tables, figures or micrographs) that best illustrates your for big data sets. ? Use adequate figure legends so the figures can be understood alone (may differ with different journals). ? Identify important trends. ? Do not interpret your data. That is a discussion. Discussion ? Tell your reader what your data mean. ? You should indicate how your data answers the hypothesis—from Introduction. ? You should talk about how your data relates to the scientific literature. ? How has your data advanced scientific knowledge. ? Avoid too much speculation. ? A concise summary or conclusion in useful. References ? Your references should cite relevant articles in the field. ? Do not use more than needed – check a current journal to suggest a number. ? Check the journal style. ? Make sure the information you cite is accurate. ? Use recent references. Submitting your manuscript Authors ? Cover letter ? Make sure all authors have read and approved the papers submission. ? Some journals require that all authors sign a form. Suggest reviewers ? Many journals offer the author the chance to suggest reviewers (provide plete contact information including phone, FAX and ). ? Most journals will allow authors to specify reviewers that they do not want to see their paper. ? Some editors look at your references list or search PubMed using your keywords for reviewer names. Common reviewer plaints ? Paper doesn’t add anything new to the scientific literature. ? This paper is fine but is just descriptive. ? For some journals—this has already been done in the rat. ? Results don’t prove the stated hypothesis. ? Did not follow instructions to authors. ? Did not follow animal welfare regulations or concerns. ? No hypothesis ? Figure legends do not provide sufficient information ? Statistics are not appropriate for the experimental design. ? Methods are not adequate. ? Poor quality illustrations. ? Disanized progression of the paper. Primary problem for Chinese authors? ? Chenglish. ? The paper cannot be evaluated due to improper English. Reviewers may refuse to evaluate paper. ? A good paper scientifically is rejected only on the basis of language. ? International Science editing ? Asian Science Editing Responding to the reviewers ? Do not respond antagonistically. ? Carefully consider and respond pletely to all reviewer ments. ? Identify by line numbers and page numbers where all changes have been made in the manuscript. ? Do not send a paper back with no changes. ? Failure to follow a reviewers advice can damage your chance of publishing. Don’t make them angry. Rejection ? Most choose another journal and try again. A rejection may only mean the reviewe