中英文科技论文写作教程标题一、英文文章标题（Title）的结构：1.完整句子作为题目，这是一种常见的结构，尤其在报刊中常用：Fuzhou Strives for Better Exports（由于是题目，在句尾不能用句号）2.名词+动词不定式结构：这种结构表示将来，因在题目中一般不用will或shallThe Chinese Communist Party to Hold Its 18th Congress3.名词或名词短语+过去分词。
这种结构常用于报道已做过的事情.Capital International Airport Enlarged.北京国际机场扩建4.现代分词短语结构。
Visiting a Friend on a Snowy Night5.介绍短语结构In Memory of ….6.名词或名词短语+介词短语结构Home for the Sailors7.以动词原形开始的短语结构，这种结构常用于带有号召性的题目中。
Server the People8.名词或名词短语结构，例如A small Green City二、注意题目字母的大小写问题1. 题目中除介词、冠词、和连接词的字母全部小写外，其它的词的第一个字母要大写（介词和冠词在题目开头时第一个字母也要大写）My Family and Myself2.题目中全部字母大写，这种形式大多用于书籍封面上的题目，例如：上海简介A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO SHANGHAI3.题目第一个词的第一个字母大写外，其它字母一律小写，但遇到专门名词时，该词的第一个字母仍须大写，现在报纸上的题目大都采用这种形式，主要是便于排版。
中国体操选手夺得七枚金牌Chinese gymnasts sweep away seven gold medals三．在英语文章题目中，冠词常可省略，例如美国总统在西方U.S. President in West四、英文文题的一般性原则*文题应准确而清晰反映文章的内容和重点。
英文科技论文写作技巧大全英文科技论文的基本格式•Title•Author(s)•Affiliation(s) and address(es) •Abstract•Keywords•Introduction •Experimental •Results and discussion •Conclusion (Summary;Concluding remarks) •Appendix (Abbreviation)•Acknowledgement •References2.基本要求（1）Title长短适中，概括性强，重点突出，一目了然。
（2）Author(s)姓氏和名字要容易弄清楚，以免发生以名代姓。
（3）Affiliation(s) and address(es)准确清楚，使读者能按所列信息顺利地与作者联系。
（4）Abstract不宜太详尽，也不宜太简短，应将论文的研究体系、主要方法、重要发现、主要结论等，简明扼要地加以概括。
不要将结论与提要重复使用。
（5）Introduction说明本研究的目的意义。
归纳与本研究密切相关的前人研究结果及有关文献，指出本研究与前人研究的不同之处。
说明本论文要解决的问题及方法、手段等。
不宜将本论文的结果在“绪论”中叙述。
（6）Experimental叙述主要的实验过程、方法、仪器设备、试剂来源及规格等。
不宜将实验结果在“实验部分”中叙述。
（7）Results and discussion是论文的核心部分，要求：–数据及图表的内容及含义交代清楚，有条理；–对数据及现象的归纳、演绎、解释、立论要有逻辑性、自洽性。
–语句要准确、流畅、多样化，不宜重复使用相同的句型和词汇。
（8）Conclusion (Summary, Concluding remarks)简明扼要地归纳出本论文的新发现、新观点、新理论等。
不宜将“结果及讨论”部分的语句直接抄录作为结论。
（9）References要按所投杂志规定的格式准确书写。
【关键字】论文Workshop 3: Authorship, Author By-line & Names & AddressIntroductionIn today’s workshop we consider the vexed question of authorship. Who should be included as an author on your paper? Or alternatively, what contribution is required for someone to qualify as an author? We also examine issues as the order of names on a paper, the format for citing your own name on a paper and address for correspondence. These issues may seem citing trivial, but an understanding of them can prevent problems and disputes from occurring in future.Who should be an author?The part of paper that comes immediately after the title is the author’s by-line, which is a list of people who made an important contribution to the published paper. Writing this by-line is usually straight-forward, but great judgment is needed in some cases when deciding on whether someone should be included a co-author, and also the order in which the names of co-authors are cited. Dispute over a co-authorship can arise, and as pointed out by Day (1998) “reasonable, rational, colleagues can become bitter enemies solely because they could not agree on whose names should be listed or in what order.” After all the only people who never get upset about authorship are the people who do not publish papers!Comprehensive guidelines on authorship are published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (). This organization states that:“Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.”Failure to take responsibility for the content of a paper is important as the following editorial in Nature points out: “Few would dispute that researchers have to take responsibility for papers that have their names on them. A senior laboratory figure who puts his or her name on a paper without direct supervision or involvement is unquestionably abusing the system of credit. There have been occasions where distinguished scientists have put their names irresponsibly on a paper that has turned out to contain serious errors or fraud. Rightly some of them have paid a heavy price.”(Anon 1997)Criteria for co-authorshipThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors state that “one or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole from inception to published article.”Agreement on who this person is should be reached before embarking on a piece of research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors defines an author using the following criteria (see /ethical 1author.html):(1)Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis andinterpretation of data.(2)Drafting the article of revising it critically for important intellectual content.(3)Final approval of the version to be published.All the three criteria must be met, according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors before someone can qualify as an author. This organization does not consider the following contributions as giving someone the right to be an author:(1)Acquisition of funding.(2)Collection of data (technical help of a routine nature).(3)General supervision of research group or student.(4)Writing assistance of a routine nature.Many people consider the aforementioned guidelines as too restrictive. In particular some feel that they undervalue the contributions of skilled technicians (see below). Furthermore, the guidelines do not specify what should be considered as a substantial intellectual contribution to the research (criteria 1). To overcome this problem and to make it easier to come to a judgment about who should be an author on a paper some professors have developed criteria for authorship that weight the different criteria and assign points to each criterion. The decision on whether to include a person as an author on a paper is then based upon whether they reached a minimum point score, for example 10% of the total points allocated to all criteria. For example, Kosslyn (2002) allocated 1000 points to the following 6 criteria:(1)The idea (250 points)(2)Experimental design (100 points)(3)The implementation; translating experimental design into instructions and ensuring thatexperimentation proceeds according to the design (100 points)(4)Conducting the experiment (100 points)(5)Data analysis (200 points)(6)Writing (250 points)A person achieving 100 points is granted co-authorship. Kosslyn’s guidelines can be found at /fs/docs/icb.topic562342.files/authorship_criteria_Nov02.pdf. Technician & statistician as co-authors?Kosslyn (2002) stated that the key to fair allocation of authorship and equitable ordering is to have criteria that are known to all and that all can discuss. These should be agreed upon and discussed before starting any research that could lead to the publication of a paper. Both the guidelines published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and those written by Kosslyn (2002) emphasize the intellectual contributions to the published paper. Simply carrying out research work under instruction is deemed by many to be insufficient for co-authorship. Hence, a technician who carries out research for a paper can in theory be excluded as a co-author. However, in many cases technicians modify experimental procedures to make them better or more efficient, or they are involved in the generation of research questions as a result of making original observations during the course of doing practical research. Such inputs are important intellectual contributions for any piece of research and certainly qualify technicians for co-authorship. Hence, technicians are often co-authors on a paper. There has also been debate in the scientific literature about whether statisticians involved in research should be granted co-authorship. The answer to this question is much more straight-forward than the question of whether to grant a technician co-authorship. Statisticians should always be granted co-authorship if they are involved in the design or analysis of experiments. Good experimental design and correct and efficient analysis and interpretation of data are the hallmarks of high quality scientific research. Statisticians can ensure that your research has these qualities, but they are unlikely to become involved if their contributions are relegated to the acknowledgement section of a paper. Statisticians understandably become quite annoyed when their contributions to papers are undervalued as the following abstract of a letter in the British Medical Journal points out (Mullee et al. 1995): “Statisticians should be co-authors”“EDITOR, -Neville W Goodman outlines criteria for authorship of published material. Medicalresearch is often, by its nature, multidisciplinary, and frequently the authorship or papers reflects this. As statisticians we find that analysis is rarely just a “simple manipulation on a computer” but involves a great deal of time and care from the study’s design stage, through checking of the data and statistical analysis to presentation of the results. The application of “standard statistical tests”does not necessarily imply that the analysis was straightforward; it may imply that more complicated methods of analysis, which are often less easy to interpret, were considered to be inappropriate. We therefore believe that statisticians’contribution to medical research should generally be recognized through co-authorship and not simply through their receiving credit for what they have done and nothing more.”Guest authorshipThe inclusion of a person’s name on a paper in the author’s by-line implies that they have made an important contribution to the work being reported. A guest author is a person who has not made an important contribution to a paper, but nevertheless is included as a co-author. Guest authorship can arise for a number of reasons. Firstly, many scientists are not aware that material support, general supervision or simple editing does not qualify them for co-authorship, and insist that they receive co-authorship to which they are not entitled. Some scientists may be aware that their contributions do not entitle them to co-authorship, but nevertheless insist on co-authorship to inflate their publication record. Such dishonest practice has been encouraged by administrators of universities who equate research productivity and quality with numbers of papers and provide incentives (tenure, promotion and merit awards) for scientists based on the number of papers they have authored. Faculty members of University Departments who sit on review panels are aware of this problem and look quite closely at the records of people who appear as co-authors on papers that lie outside of their main field of research or who publish large numbers of paper without appearing as first author on many of them. In such cases it may be necessary to clarify the authors’contribution to some of the papers to remove any suspicion that they have accepted guest authorship. Most good scientists are too honest to accept guest authorships, now would they grant guest authorships, as they are aware that such practice dilutes and undervalues the contributions of co-authors who have made substantial contributions to published work. In some societies, however, there is strong pressure on researchers to grant co-authorship to the head of their laboratory. Failure to follow this practice would lead to the termination of their research contract. Therefore, it is understandable that many of them comply by granting co-authorship to the head of their laboratory. Most scientists, however, are aware of the countries in which such practices is common and discount the contribution of the head of the laboratory, which is unfortunate because that person may actually deserve co-authorship.Contributors listTo fairly assign credit to authors and overcome problems such as guest authorship many journals are now including a contributors list. To contributors list is a section included at the end of a paper (or submitted to the journal), which lists the authors and describes their contributions to a paper. The contributors list serves two purposes; Firstly, it makes the practice of guest authorship more difficult as the editor of a journal is able to evaluate the contributions of each author. Secondly, the contributors list allows the reader to identify the people to contact to obtain more information on a particular area of interest to them or request samples or reagents. The contributors list should not be too detailed. Here is an example of a contributors list from a paper in Nature Nanotech (Peng et al 2008).Author contributions“H.E. conceived and designed the experiments. B.P. and S.L. performed the experiments. H.E., P.Z., G.S. and M.L. conceived the simulations. All authors analyzed the data. S.M. contributed analysis tools. All authors discussed the results and co-wrote and commented on the manuscript.B.P. and M.L. contributed to this work.”Even if the journal that you are submitting your paper to does not a contributors list, it is a good idea to develop one with your co-author(s) and include it in the letter you write when you submit the paper to a journal. The editor of the journal will be pleased to have such information and it may encourage him/he to adopt the idea of a contributors list.Order of authorsAs pointed out by Day (1998) the sequence of authors on a published paper “should be decided before the research commences, and it is foolish to leave this question to the end of the research.”A number of conventions are used to denote the relative importance of authors’ contributions to a published paper:(1)List authors in order of importance to the experiments, the first author being the senior author,the second author the primary associate etc.(2)First and last author’s spots have seniority with the first spot representing the senior author,(usually the person who had the greatest experimental contributions to the paper), and the last position allocated to the person (usually a senior scientist) who conceived of the study.Between these two positions the order of scientists is listed according to their relative contributions.(3)As above for 1 or 2, but a scientist can receive recognition equivalent to that of the seniorauthor by marking the authors names with a superscript to a footnote or subheading that indicates that the authors made equal contributions to the work.(4)As an alternative to 3 a subheading or footnote can be used to indicate that all authorscontributed equally to the work or the published paper.(5)In some fields such as mathematics it is common for authors to be listed alphabetically,presumably to avoid conflicts over author’s credit.The first position in the author’s by-line is known as the senior author and certainly carries more prestige than other authors’ positions in the by-line. Most people would agree that the first author has made the largest contribution to the publication of research work and if there are two people with equivalent publication records in terms of number of papers and the quality of journals they have published in, then the person who has authored more papers as a senior author will be regarded as having the superior publication record. For this reason it is quite important for junior scientists seeking their first appointment or tenure or promotion to author papers as a senior author rather than act as a co-author on papers, particularly if the other co-authors are more senior faculty.All people listed as co-authors on a paper should agree to be co-authors and you should resist requests for guest authorship (as discussed above). Even though scientists may agree to be co-author on a paper, it is unlikely, as mentioned by Gustavii (2003), that they will be happy with their position/ranking within the by-line because many authors tend to overestimate their own particular contribution to a paper.NamesThe citing of people’s names within the authors by-line usually follows the following convention:First name (in full), middle initial and surname (in full). The middle name is not spelled out in full because it could lead to confusion about whether it is part of the surname i.e., Callum B. Evans, rather than Callum Bowen Evans (Bowen being a surname).Whenever possible a scientist should try to cite his/her name in the same way on every paper they publish so that search engines such as Web of Science will retrieve all of the published work. therefore, avoid the temptation to shorten your first name (Barb instead of Barbara or Phil instead of Philip) and always include your middle initial, if you have one. Certain situations can lead to inconsistencies in the citing of people’s names on papers. Foremost amongst these are a change of name resulting from marriage or divorce and re-marriage. This type of inconsistency only affects women and can be avoided if female scientist retain their maiden names. Scientists from China who work in the West often adopt an English name and inconsistencies can arise if they first publish using their Chinese name, for example, N.S. Hon and then when they move to the West subsequently prefix their Chinese initial(s) with the initial of a English name such as David (D.N.S. Hon). Inconsistencies in the citing of people’s names can make it difficult to easily retrieve a person’s publication record using the Web of Science. The same is true of people with very common names as John Smith or Philip Evans! Fortunately, the inclusion of a subject are, journal titles and institutional details in the search can usually result in the retrieval of most of a person’s publication record.AddressesThe listing of authors’ addresses below the authors by-line on a paper can be straightforward if the scientist who published the paper worked at one institution. Even if they work at different institutions then their affiliations can be indicated with a superscript (1, 2, 3 or a, b, c) after their names. Sometimes scientists move institutions and their new address can be indicated in a footnote such as Present Address. A scientist may occasionally be affiliated with two institutions or publish work that was done in two different institutions. In such a situation their names may carry two superscripted symbols to indicate affiliation with two institutions. In some countries institutional funding provided by government is linked to the numbers of papers published and hence it is important to indicate if work was done in an institution in that country. The address and email is important because if allows scientist to contact authors about the published work (see also comments above about the role of the corresponding author).ReferencesAnon. (1997). Games people play with author’s name. Nature 387(6636): 831Day, R.A. (1998). How to write & publish a scientific paper (5th Edition), Oryx Press, Westport C T.Gustavii, B. (2003). How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge.Mullee, M.A., Lampe, F.C., Pickering, R.M., Julious, S.A. (1995). Statisticians should be co-authors. British Medical Journal. 310: 869.Peng, B., Locascio, M., Zapol, P., Li, S., Mieke, S.L., Schatz, G.C., Espinosa, H.D. (2008). Measurements of near-ultimate strength for multi-walled carbon nano-tubes and irradiation-induced crosslinking improvements. Nature nanotechnology 3, 626-631 (2008)此文档是由网络收集并进行重新排版整理.word可编辑版本！。
科技英语论文的写作要点总体原则（3C）：Correct (正确)，Clear (清楚)；Concise (简洁)。
1 论文题名1.1 基本要求(1) 准确(Accuracy)。
题名要准确地反映论文的内容。
作为论文的“标签”，题名既不能过于空泛和一般化，也不宜过于烦琐，使人得不出鲜明的印象。
如果题名中无吸引读者的信息，或写得不堪理解。
为确保题名的含义准确，应尽量避免使用非定量的、含义不明的词，如"rapid"，"new"等；并力求用词具有专指性，如"a vanadium-iron alloy"明显优于"a magnetic alloy"。
(2) 简洁(Brevity)。
题名需用词简短、明了，以最少的文字概括尽可能多的内容。
题名最好不超过10 ~ 12个单词，或100个英文字符（含空格和标点），如若能用一行文字表达，就尽量不要用2 行（超过2行有可能会削弱读者的印象）。
在内容层次很多的情况下，如果难以简短化，最好采用主、副题名相结合的方法，如：Importance of replication in microarray gene expression studies: statistical methods and evidence from repetitive CDNA hybridizations (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2000, 97(18): 9834 ~ 9839). 其中的副题名起补充、阐明作用，可起到很好的效果。
(3) 清楚(Clarity)。
题名要清晰地反映文章的具体内容和特色, 明确表明研究工作的独到之处，力求简洁有效、重点突出。
为表达直接、清楚，以便引起读者的注意，应尽可能地将表达核心内容的主题词放在题名开头。
如The effectiveness of vaccination against in healthy, working adults (N Engl J Med，1995, 333: 889-893)中，如果作者用关键词vaccination作为题名的开头，读者可能会误认为这是一篇方法性文章：How to vaccinate this population? 相反，用effectiveness作为题名中第一个主题词，就直接指明了研究问题：Is vaccination in this population effective? 题名中应慎重使用缩略语。
