Question (1): The abstract and conclusion almost coincide. This article is the most common one I have seen in graduate thesis. In many cases, the repetition rate of abstracts and conclusions in their papers exceeds 70%. Of course, I have seen people whose repetition rate exceeds 90% when I review the manuscript myself. As far as the reasons are concerned, I personally think they don't quite understand the "function" of abstracts and conclusions.
For the abstract, we should first use a short sentence to draw out why we do this research, then briefly summarize the research methods adopted, then directly tell the most important results of this paper, not all the results, and finally talk about what phenomena we pay attention to outside these works. For the conclusion of the paper, there is no need to explain why and how to do this research. In general, we should directly and clearly summarize the discovered phenomena and results (1), (2) and (3). Let people know at a glance what phenomena have been discovered and what opinions have been put forward in the paper.
As for the most important results and conclusions mentioned in the abstract, they may be repeated, and the author needs to describe them in different sentences instead of copying them directly.
Question (2): The keywords are too random. In the process of helping graduate students revise their papers, I will re-select and revise the keywords of almost every paper. The most common problems are: keywords are not real words, keywords are composed of many words, keywords contain many abbreviations, and keywords do not appear in the preface. In fact, the key words are very simple. Just pick out the content words that appear frequently in the preface or paper, and don't need too much. In general, writing four or five words will meet the requirements.
Question (3): The foreword quotation is unscientific. International academic papers actually attach great importance to introduction. Usually, the introduction can account for a quarter to a third of the paper. In the introduction, the author needs to tell the reviewers and readers the significance of this article, so that people can have a general understanding of why the author conducted this research after reading the introduction.
The common problems in the introduction are: 1) The introduction is too short. After reading the short and pithy situation, they just briefly introduced the research background in a few words. Personally, except for papers such as communication, the introduction needs to be written in a certain length. 2) Important files are lost. Few people pay attention to this article. There are so many papers in the world that it is not a problem to cite one less. In fact, sometimes, if an important document is cited, the paper may be successfully hired. 3) Literature citations are simply listed, and there is not much logic between citations. The quotation part is a stage for telling stories completely. The most important thing in storytelling is logic, not listing. Therefore, each cited document should reflect its role in the position. 4) There are too many references in the same position in the introduction. Often see such a situation, "... work [1-20]". In general, it is enough to put two or three quotations in the same place, which makes people feel that you may not have read the literature. 5) Citation negates the previous work. Generally speaking, we can say that someone did some work, but they didn't do anything else. But it will be more troublesome to say that the work done by someone may be wrong. Even if there is such a paper, there is no need to quote it, which can also reduce unnecessary trouble.
Question (4): The description of the experiment is too simple. In a paper, although the proportion of experimental description is not very large, it should be expressed as clearly as possible. On the one hand, readers can repeat this paper step by step if they want to do it again. On the other hand, if the experimental conditions are slightly changed, the conclusion may be completely different.
About this part, I personally find that the main problems are as follows: 1) Sometimes there may be too many experimental descriptions, but it seems that I don't want to write more. A friend directly said that the experimental description was a paper. And some of the documents they cited are graduate papers. There are not many problems in this situation in theory, but it will undoubtedly increase the difficulty of readers. Who is interested and in the mood to find out the articles you quoted and study them carefully? The names of experimental methods are not uniform. It is often seen that in the abstract, the experimental method uses the name A, in the preface, the name B is changed, in the research method, it becomes the name C, and in the conclusion, it returns to A, and this A, B and C actually say the same thing.
Question (5): The result is somewhat confusing. Many people write academic papers, thinking that as long as the results are good. In fact, good results are sometimes rejected. As for the main reason, the logical structure of the paper is chaotic, so people don't know what the paper says.
Specific common problems are: 1) The research results are simply listed, but the relationship inside is not clear. I have seen extreme situations, just to write a long paper, put two completely unrelated contents together, and finally I don't know what he wants to say. 2) The author has no plan to write which part first. Once I saw such a paper, the author first wrote some mechanical properties results, and then some organizational observations. Suddenly, he listed some mechanical properties and some microscopic analysis. Just like I write a blog post, I write wherever I want. 3) In the experimental part, I said that I had done some research, but I didn't see these results at all in the research results. In other cases, some results are written in the results section, but they are not known from where and are not mentioned in the research methods.
Problem (6): Rough chart making. As a reviewer, before I review a paper, I usually read the abstract first, then I will take a general look at the structure of the paper, and then I will spend a lot of time on the pictures of the paper. If the paper pictures are beautiful, at least my first impression is good. On the other hand, if the picture quality is poor, the mood is not so happy.
The common problems in the paper chart are as follows: 1) The characters in the chart are too small to be seen clearly with a magnifying glass. Some graduate students just give pictures taken by machines for simplicity. These pictures can be seen clearly on one screen, but it is difficult to distinguish them when compressed into a piece of paper. 2) When multiple pictures are put together, once the Enter key is pressed, the picture format will be completely confused. I often help them revise their papers. When they give them to me, they can still read them well. However, if I correct the problem inside, the picture will move around and people will not find the north. 3) experimental curve, without increasing the error bar. Some graduate students said in their papers that the experiment was repeated many times, but there was only one value in the picture. 4) The picture scale values are not uniform. Sometimes in a group of photos, the magnification of one photo is 100 times, and the other photo becomes 200 times. Put together, it is convenient for people to observe the differences, but because of the different multiples, people can't compare them. 5) The form format is not uniform. In some places, three lines are used in the table, and in some places, all lines are solid.
Question (7): There is hardly any discussion in the paper. The discussion of papers is actually very important, but according to my observation, graduate students seldom pay attention to the discussion part when writing papers. At first, when I helped graduate students revise their papers, I always put forward this article, and then I stopped talking about it because it was useless and they didn't know how to add discussion parts. If you read the paper in a good journal, the discussion part accounts for a very large proportion of the paper. Some people say that the discussion part should also account for about one third. Of course, writing this part well really needs a certain level and experience accumulation.
Question (8): There are too many conclusions. In general, an academic paper only needs to focus on one core issue. Therefore, it is necessary to write 3-4 articles in the conclusion of the paper. However, I have read some students' papers, and they can't wait to put a sentence in the conclusion in every paragraph of the paper. In particular, I once reviewed a paper and an author wrote more than ten conclusions. I suggested him to reduce some conclusions for the first time, and as a result, he deleted some slightly. In the second review, there was really no way to tell him to sort them into five, and he continued to refine them.
Question (9): The format of references is confusing. This article is the biggest headache for me. Sometimes I help graduate students revise their papers. Finally, I wrote "Please unify the reference format". The second time I saw it, it was still the same, with many problems.
With regard to this article, the specific questions are as follows:
1) The same reference appears multiple times. To tell the truth, I have encountered this problem. If a paper quotes 50 documents, it is difficult for me to find out whether a paper is repeatedly quoted. But in any case, you still need to read it twice before submitting it.
2) The information of the cited papers is incomplete. In general, citing a paper will basically include the author, periodical, year, issue and page number. Sometimes, they just write part of the information.
3) The format is confusing. Some papers are written according to the format of A periodical, while others are written according to the format of B periodical. When people first read it, even if it was copied directly from other places.
4) The journal name is wrong. I don't know what to say. For example, Journal of Iron and Steel Research and International Journal of Iron and Steel Research, the author accidentally omitted the international name of the second journal, resulting in these two completely different journals. ...