5亿彩票网最权威购彩平台

SCI论文写作之Results Discussion

发布时间:2017-06-16     来源:未知 查看:打印  关闭
...
起源:研之成理

原题目:SCI论文写作之Results & Discussion(一)

撰文:邹世辉 所属专栏:SCI论文写作实验室

  

前言:

从即日起,研之成实践文写作版块命名为“SCI论文写作实验室”,并将连续为大家分享论文写作的那些事儿,希望对大家有所赞助。同时也非常欢送对写作有兴趣的,愿意分享本人心得和经验的朋友参加我们(rationalscience@163.com),共同繁荣这个版块,谢谢!

今日分享:

本期内容主要介绍下Results & Discussion写作中的一个根本原则:先摆现象,讨论完了才干给出结论。什么意思呢?在SCI论文写作时,一般采取分总式,即先将实验成果列出来,然后联合文献等进行探讨,最后得出结论。结论的得出要基于试验结果和讨论。说起来似乎全世界人民都知道一样,但是实际写作中仍是会有一些这样或那样的问题,下面举一些例子:

  

参考文献:Liu, J. et al. Catal. Commun. 2017, 99, 6-9.

1. 通过XRD谱图来解释Pt纳米颗粒很疏散:

不适当的写法:XRD patterns suggest that Pt nanoparticles are well dispersed on TiO2 support.

正确的写法:No obvious characteristic diffraction peaks of Pt are detected, presumably due to the small crystalline size and good dispersion of Pt0, which is also confirmed by TEM images.

不恰当写法的剖析:XRD谱图可以直接阐明Pt的高分散么?这是个常识么?XRD怎么就说明了Pt的高分散了呢?

正确写法的分析:1) 实验结果:No obvious characteristic diffraction peaks of Pt are detected;2) 推论:presumably due to the small crystalline size and good dispersion of Pt0; 3) 佐证:which is also confirmed by TEM images。

不恰当的原因:没有讨论直接给出结果,让人摸不着头脑。对于熟习相关知识点的读者来说,要理解你的结论问题可能不大,但是对于那些不懂得相关知识的读者来说,懂得起来就有一定艰苦了。从科技文写作的角度来讲,好的论文应该逻辑严密,每个结论的得出都有迹可循。除非是公理,否则不能直接给出结论,必需有一定的讨论。

2. 相似的,在STEM分析中,诸如line scanning profiles以及EDS mapping中说明纳米颗粒是合金(或者核壳)结构

参考文献:Zou, S. et al. J. Phys. Chem. C 2017, 121, 4343-4351.

不恰当的写法:EDX mapping images demonstrate a ZnO@Bi(NO3)3 core-shell structure for BN-ZnO catalyst.

正确的写法:EDX mapping images show enrichment of Zn signals in the core and homogeneous distribution of Bi signal in the shell. Meanwhile, line scanning exhibits a broad peak for Zn located at the center of the profile and two intensive peaks for Bi on both sides, further confirming the core-shell configuration.

不恰当的原因与例1相同,都是不加讨论直接给出结论。

3. 上面的两个例子都是不讨论直接给出结论,其实还有一种值得商议的写法是先给出结论,然后再进行讨论,好比:

参考文献:Liu, J. et al. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, 1203-1210.

值得商榷的写法:The coexistence of Pt and the partially reduced Bi2O3?x is essential to achieve high efficiency in alcohol oxidation (先给出了结论).Specifically, Pt/Bi2O3?x could catalyze the oxidation of BA to BAD, obtaining a conversion and selectivity up to 94.1 ± 2.7% and >99.9% within 5 h, respectively (sample # 06 in Table 2). However, no detectable activity was observed under the same reaction conditions for other catalysts including unsupported PtNPs, Bi2O3 and Pt/Bi2O3. The big difference between Pt/Bi2O3?x (sample # 06) and Bi2O3?x (sample # 04) reveals that the presence of Pt is critical for alcohol oxidation(讨论了Pt的重要作用). The complete inactivity of unsupported PtNPs (sample # 02) and Pt/Bi2O3 (sample # 05), on the other hand, demonstrated the pivotal role played by the Bi2O3?x phase(讨论了部分还原Bi2O3-x的作用).

更恰当的写法:Interestingly, it was found that Pt/Bi2O3?x could catalyze the oxidation of BA to BAD, obtaining a conversion and selectivity up to 94.1 ± 2.7% and >99.9% within 5 h, respectively (sample # 06 in Table 2). However, no detectable activity was observed under the same reaction conditions for other catalysts including unsupported PtNPs, Bi2O3 and Pt/Bi2O3(先摆出实验现象). The big difference between Pt/Bi2O3?x (sample # 06) and Bi2O3?x (sample # 04) reveals that the presence of Pt is critical for alcohol oxidation(讨论Pt的作用). The complete inactivity of unsupported PtNPs (sample # 02) and Pt/Bi2O3 (sample # 05), on the other hand, demonstrated the pivotal role played by the Bi2O3?x phase(讨论了部分还原Bi2O3-x的作用). It is important to point out that the initial TOF of 0.57% Pt/Bi2O3?x, even up to 21.24 h?1 for the first 5 h at room temperature, is 7 times higher than that reported for 1 wt% Pt/Ca(Mg)-ZSM catalysts, and twice than that reported for the Cu(II) coordination complex in homogeneous catalysis of BA oxidation(将Pt/Bi2O3-x的活性与文献进行对照). The extremely high activity of Pt/Bi2O3?x leads to a hypothesis that the coexistence of Pt and the partially reduced Bi2O3?x is essential to achieve high efficiency in alcohol oxidation(最后得出结论).

分析:上面两段话许多内容实在是完全一致的,主要的不同在于The coexistence of Pt and the partially reduced Bi2O3?x is essential to achieve high efficiency in alcohol oxidation这个结论摆在什么位置。从逻辑上来说,第二种写法先给出实验现象,然后针对现象进行讨论,最后结合文献比较得出实验结论是正常的逻辑,属于典型的分总式。而第一种写法先给出结论,然后再分离讨论,属于总分式,假如在这段末尾把结论换个形式再说一遍就属于总分总的形式。这里不推荐这两种格局,总分式的结论放在最前面,固然很明白的告知了读者这一段的中心思维是什么,但是从逻辑上来说,显得有点倒置,因为科学研究多是摸索型实验而不是验证型,是从实验现象中总结分析得出的结论。而总分老是在段落开头和结尾都有结论,有点重复,对于写作的人要求也很高,你至少要保障这两个处所的语句有一定的变化才不至于让人读起来显得乏味。

今天先分享到这,有不恰当之处,欢迎方家指正。

前期内容链接:

1. SCI论文写作的三重境界

2. What makes a good publication? :从文章构造开端谈起

3. 题好一半文:Science, Nature的论文标题是什么样子的?

4. 好话不说第二遍:论文写作中的重述语意

5.SCI论文写作(五): 写论文一定要有提纲

6.What makes a good publication? :从文章结构开始谈起

7. SCI论文写作之Experimental section(一)

8. SCI论文写作之Experimental section(二

责任编辑:

申明:本文由入驻本网大众平台的作者撰写,除本网官方账号外,观点仅代表作者自己,不代表本网态度。

Back to Top