【正文】 nological University 復(fù)述 ? 原文 (Buchanan, 1996): What makes intentionally killing a human being a moral wrong for which the killer is to be condemned is that the killer did this morally bad thing not inadvertently or even negligently, but with a conscious purpose – with eyes open and a will directed toward that very object. ? 復(fù)述 2: Buchanan (1996) states that we condemn a person who intentionally kills a human being because he did a morally bad thing not through negligence or accident but with open eyes and a direct will to take that life. Ronald K. Gratz. Using Other’s Words and Ideas. Department of Biological Sciences, Michigan Technological University 捏造數(shù)據(jù)弄虛作假 ? 捏造是指編造出數(shù)據(jù)或結(jié)果用于記錄和報告 ? 弄虛作假是指操縱研究材料、設(shè)備和操作過程，或篡改 /刪減數(shù)據(jù)或結(jié)果，使得研究狀況并未真實地反映在研究記錄中 “對真相絲毫的扭曲就是最大的謬誤 ” . Lichtenberg (1742–1799) 缺乏職業(yè)道德的研究 ? 對受試人或動物進行的實驗應(yīng)當遵守相關(guān)的道德標準，即1975年 《 赫爾辛基宣言 》 ， 2022年第五次修訂 ? 如果對于是否符合 《 赫爾辛基宣言 》 存在疑議，作者必須對其實驗方法作出合理的充分的解釋，并出示科研審議機構(gòu)的證明 不適當?shù)淖髡哓暙I 應(yīng)依據(jù)下述條件判定是否可以稱之為作者 、數(shù)據(jù)采集、數(shù)據(jù)分析和數(shù)據(jù)闡釋作出重大貢獻者 作者應(yīng)符合上述三條全部要求。不要因為可以避免的失誤而使稿件被期刊拒絕；確保稿件看起來無懈可擊 ” 因此，無論是學(xué)術(shù)內(nèi)容還是語言都應(yīng)當無懈可擊 Arnout Jacobs, Elsevier Publishing 三 “ C” 標準 ?Clarity (清晰 ) ?Conciseness (簡明 ) ?Correctness (accuracy) (精確 ) 優(yōu)秀的文章符合三 “ C” 標準： 關(guān)鍵是要在不損失必要細節(jié)的前提下盡量簡潔明確 警惕 ?重復(fù) ?繁冗 ?歧義 ?夸大 優(yōu)秀的文章能規(guī)避以下誤區(qū)： 這些都是困擾編輯的常見問題 重復(fù)和繁冗 摘要或前言結(jié)尾描述研究結(jié)果部分的語言應(yīng)使用不同的語句 不要直接從其他部分照抄照搬 避免使用意思相同的詞語 In addition, sections were also stained with … After centrifugation, pellets were then… 重復(fù)和繁冗 不要使用循環(huán)語句 In order to examine differences in protein levels, lysates were subjected to 10% SDSPAGE and Western blotting using an antiNR1 antibody, to observe the effects of stimulation on receptor trafficking. 用稍微不同的語句將試驗的原因描述了兩次 歧義 確保正確使用 “which”、逗號和連字符 “Calcium regulated transcription” 與 “Calciumregulated transcription” 意思截然不同 在 “ To identify biomarkers of prostate cancer, we performed microarray analysis, using custom cDNA arrays” 這句中，第二個逗號應(yīng)刪除 歧義 確保正確使用 “which”、逗號和 連字符 “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, which showed…” 上句中 “which” 使用不當，指代的是 actin 而不是 normalisation of data “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing that…” 這句是正確的 夸大 E f f e c t o f p . o . a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t e a a n d c a f f e i n e o n t u m o r n u m b e r0102030405060W a t e r G r e e n T e a B l a ck T e a C a f f e i n eT r e a t m e n tTumor number* “There was a massive decrease in the number of tumors following . administration of green tea” 避免 夸大其詞 但要指出 顯著差異 其他常見誤區(qū) 時態(tài)不一致 – 在一個句子中不要使用多種時態(tài) Before tumors were microdi