However, only the original work and its introduction are original, major and primary, involving inventions and other intellectual property rights. Others are of course important, but they are all processed, developed and written for specific application purposes and objects. Let's just talk about some experiences in writing original works, and also talk about some experiences on how to make a good academic report. When discussing the original paper writing, I'm not going to talk about all kinds of rules and regulations about manuscript writing. I mainly talk about the problems and experiences that are easy to occur in writing, and it is the standardization of writing ethics and writing content. Thesis writing requires narrative in the order of article structure. (A) the topic of scientific papers should have a topic, not "untitled". The topic is generally about 20 words. The size of the topic should be consistent with the content, try not to have subtitles, and there is no need to report it twice. Topics should be described directly, without exclamation marks and question marks, and topics of scientific papers should not be written as advertising language or news reports. (two) the signature of scientific papers should be the real name and real work unit. Mainly reflects the responsibility and achievement attribution, which is convenient for future generations to follow up. Strictly speaking, the author refers to the person who is responsible for the whole process of topic selection, argumentation, literature review, scheme design, compilation method, experimental operation, data collation, induction and writing, and should be able to answer questions related to the article. Nowadays, people who take part in the work are often listed, so they should be arranged according to the contribution. The signature should be approved by myself. According to the actual situation, academic tutors can be listed as authors, or they can be thanked in general. Administrative leaders generally do not sign their names. (3) The introduction is fascinating and significant, so it should be written well. A good introduction can often let readers know the development of your work and its position in this research direction. It is necessary to write down the basis, foundation, background and research purpose of the topic. It is necessary to review the necessary literature and state the development of the problem, and the text should be concise. (4) Materials and Methods The experimental objects, equipment, animals, reagents and their specifications, experimental methods, indicators, judgment standards, experimental design, grouping and statistical processing methods are truthfully written. Just follow the magazine rules. (5) The experimental results should be highly summarized, carefully analyzed and logically described. We should choose the best from the rough, discard the false and retain the true, but we should not make subjective choices because it does not meet our own intentions, let alone resort to deceit. Only data obtained during the period of unskilled technology or unstable instruments, data obtained during the period of technical failure or operational error, and data obtained when experimental conditions are not met can be discarded. Moreover, when problems are found, the reasons must be indicated on the original records, and it is not allowed to eliminate them at will due to anomalies during summary processing. When discarding this kind of data, the experimental data under the same conditions and in the same period should be discarded together, not just the unsatisfactory data. The arrangement of experimental results should be closely related to the theme, and some data may not be suitable for this article, so it can be reserved for other purposes and not stuffed into an article. Writing should try to use technical terms. Don't use charts for those who can use tables, and it is best not to use charts for those who can use tables, so as not to occupy more space and increase the difficulty of typesetting. Words, tables and charts do not repeat each other. Special circumstances such as accidental phenomena and unexpected changes in the experiment should be explained as necessary and should not be discarded at will. (6) Discussion is the key and difficult point of this paper. We should look at the overall situation, grasp the main controversial issues, and discuss from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge. It is necessary to analyze and reason the experimental results instead of repeating them. We should focus on discussing the achievements and opinions in relevant literature at home and abroad, and express our own views, especially the opposing views. In the discussion, you can put forward assumptions and ideas about the development of this topic, but the discretion should be appropriate, and it should not be written as "science fiction" or "imagination". (seven) conclusions or conclusions should be written with clear and reliable results and conclusive conclusions. Words should be concise and can be written item by item. Don't use such vague words as "summary". Accurate positioning. So there are both technical problems and scientific moral problems here. All careless, do not check the literature; Deliberately not quoting, boasting innovation; Degrade others and raise yourself; It's wrong to pose lightly while avoiding weight. This phenomenon can still be seen in many articles now, which should be regarded as a taboo for researchers. Among them, mistakes such as not consulting documents, omitting important documents, deliberately not quoting other people's documents or deliberately belittling other people's work are obvious and easy to find. Some practices are subtle, such as introducing what should be in the introduction and introducing it into the discussion. This will be the basis or forerunner of your thesis, and put it on an equal footing with your thesis. For another example, scientific research is always developing in depth, and your work is always developing on the basis of previous work. The correct writing should be, what did someone do on this topic in a certain year, and what did someone do on this basis in a certain year? Now I have finished this research on the basis of them. This is an attitude of seeking truth from facts, and this expression will not harm your contribution at all. Some authors don't say this, but say that someone did this problem for a year and didn't do it for a year, and now I have done it. This is not a realistic attitude. This can sometimes fool some laymen who don't know the truth, but only one insider needs to poke it, and the paper tiger will be broken, and the result will be self-defeating and lose credibility. This phenomenon is not uncommon in real life. Let me give an example of my own experience. When I was a graduate student in the Soviet Union, I found that the central clonus caused by cocaine was related to the maturity of the cerebral cortex. There is no such reaction in fetal and neonatal period of rabbits, but it appears gradually after birth. It is not until 2 1 day after birth, which is equivalent to sexual maturity, that a typical clonic syncope can appear like an adult rabbit. This discovery is of course significant. My tutor is very happy, saying that this discovery is enough to serve as the basis for your associate doctoral thesis. But not long after, I read a passage from 65438 to 0940 in a German pharmacology textbook, which recorded that a German author found the same phenomenon as I observed and explained the same problem. I showed the book to my tutor without thinking. The tutor read it carefully from beginning to end, and suddenly patted me on the shoulder and said loudly, "Good boy! I believe you will succeed! But now you must look for new discoveries from scratch. " I did a lot of work. After my thesis defense passed, my tutor gave me Bender's document and said, "Keep it as a souvenir!" " Thank you for your honesty, courage and confidence. "Honesty" was what I understood at that time, and "courage" and "confidence" were gradually understood later. Dare to deny your own "discovery", be confident that you will make new discoveries, don't succeed by luck, and respect the work of predecessors, even though it may be unknown records. These are indeed the necessary qualities for success. During the Cultural Revolution, I was copied from my home, my book was destroyed, I was released from the May 7th Cadre School, and later I moved home many times, but I always took this book with me. I dare not forget what my tutor expects of me. (9) Thanks to instructors, technical collaborators, providers of special reagents or equipment, funders and people who made important suggestions are all objects of thanks. Thank you for being sincere, true and not vulgar. Don't thank the professor in general, and don't just thank others. Before writing a thank-you note, you should get the consent of the person being thanked, and you can't pull banners to make tiger skins. (10) The abstract or abstract briefly summarizes the full text in about 200 words. Always put the first one. Write carefully and attractively. Letting readers read the abstract is like seeing the epitome of the full text, or they want to continue reading the relevant parts of the full text after reading the abstract.