The success of the project is the premise of the success of the research. There is a saying that philosophy and social sciences, unlike natural sciences, have no so-called success or failure. If you are willing to do it, you will succeed in the end. This statement is ridiculous. Without a good topic, even tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions of words are useless. This is not a successful study. Successful research must be based on successful topic selection. So, what is the topic of success? In short, we should have a sense of problems in selecting topics. What is problem consciousness?

First, it refers to the goal orientation of research.

Successful topic selection should reveal the goal orientation of the research, that is, what kind of goal the research should achieve. The goal orientation of research reflects whether the research is valuable or not. Therefore, we can know the research status and possible development trend of this problem from the topic selection. If the topic does not reveal the goal orientation of the research, but only states a fact, it means that the research is not worth studying, or the predecessors have done more detailed research, and there is no possibility of in-depth research under the current circumstances. Don't choose this topic.

Second, it refers to the specific research scope.

Successful theme selection should be specific, not comprehensive. That is to say, the topic should not be too big. Too big a topic will make the research unable to go deep, just like skimming the water. On the other hand, if the topic is too small, the research will be too addicted to trivial details, thus making the research lose its value and taste. In particular, some details are not representative and can't really reflect the development trend of things, but because the researchers' vision is too small, they can't find the basic laws of things' development from the details. Especially those who study historical materials often have such problems.

The third is to question an academic question, or to argue.

There is no end to academic research and no end to truth. At that time, many academic viewpoints were right or right, but the time and conditions changed, so their reasons changed. Therefore, we must dare to question the topic, but the question must be well-founded and not just suspicious. On the basis of reasonable doubt, such a topic must be valuable.

In short, the topic selection is very skillful. Choosing a topic is actually the first ideological blowout after accumulation, and it is impossible to choose a topic without accumulation. Good topic selection can make the research get twice the result with half the effort, and good topic selection is the premise of the success of the paper. After choosing a topic, there is another important problem, that is, how to express the content. Here are a few exquisite:

First, the topic should not be too long. Too long indicates that the author lacks the ability of generalization and abstraction. The topic should be concise, and strive to reach the level that a word is too long and a word is too short.

Second, there should not be too many core concepts, at most two, the best one. This requires the implementation of the "family planning" policy. There are more than two core concepts, so it is difficult to grasp the content of the paper. Too many concepts are likely to explain the concepts throughout and dilute the substantive content.

Third, the expression should be accurate. If the topic is ambiguous or ambiguous, then the paper is likely to stray from the topic in writing.

Second, document arrangement and document utilization

Literature is not only the material for writing a good paper, but also the basis for research. It embodies the professional foundation and ability of researchers. Without literature, it is equivalent to building a house without bricks; At the same time, without literature, there is no foundation like building a house in the air. Literature is the carrier of academic inheritance and academic ethics. Respecting documents means respecting predecessors' research and documents, and also reflects the context of academic development. Therefore, writing papers and literature are very important. Before writing a paper, one should arrange the literature and be good at using it.

(A) on the literature review

1, what is the purpose of combing the literature?

The problem consciousness of choosing a topic comes from reading and analyzing the literature, not out of thin air, and the second is to find problems based on existing research. The purpose of combing the literature is:

First of all, sort out the historical development of the topic. Any problem has a development context, and it is impossible to conduct in-depth research on academic issues without understanding the context of academic development. That is to say, where did this question come from? Only then can we predict the future development direction of this problem. It is necessary to sort out the research status of this issue both at home and abroad, so as to fully grasp the basic situation of this issue. If you turn on the computer and go straight to the point, write down a specific question without consulting the relevant literature, and the result may be low-level repetition. Such a paper is worthless, even if it is sent out, it is only the result of workload or professional title evaluation, and it does not mean any contribution to the academic. In academic papers, the papers that go straight to the point at the beginning are generally not good papers. People are expensive in being straight, and literature is expensive in being happy. Paper is also very expensive. This kind of music is expressed by tracing back and analyzing previous studies.

Secondly, combing the literature is to fully affirm the academic contributions of predecessors. Anyone's research is a new exploration on the basis of previous research. This is what Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants. In the research, this giant is not a specific person, but all the predecessors who have contributed to this academic problem. Academic inheritance means respecting history and not respecting the academic contributions of predecessors, so it is difficult to open up new research fields and conduct in-depth research on academic research. If you don't respect history, you will also fall into a blind and arrogant style of study, thinking that others have not reached their own level, which will eventually lead to repeating stories that others have already told and wasting academic resources.

Third, the most fundamental purpose of combing the literature is to find the problems in previous studies, so as to find a breakthrough for our own research. Most academic problems cannot be solved by a generation of scholars, and a generation of scholars can only solve problems that can be solved at the cognitive level of that generation of scholars. Even so, there are omissions and loopholes in the research, and there are also research defects caused by insufficient subjective ability. Therefore, the younger generation of scholars should read, compare and analyze the previous research results repeatedly, and find out the problems and loopholes in the research. In this way, it is possible to continue and deepen the previous research, or find the loopholes and shortcomings of the previous research, or find a new research virgin land in the original problem field. This truly reflects the research value of the topic.

2. How to organize the literature?

Many authors like to list all relevant documents in one breath in the introduction, which is called document sorting. However, listing all relevant documents will definitely occupy the length of the paper and lead to the structure of the paper. There are too many documents listed, so there must be room for the text. As a result, the text wants to go on, only to find that the length is getting longer and longer, and I dare not delve into it. This document sorting method is the least desirable. The correct method of document arrangement is:

First, select representative documents, that is, papers and authoritative works published in authoritative journals, to represent the basic situation of academic development. You can't list all the articles in those obscene publications.

Second, choose the papers of representative authors, that is, the papers and essays of authoritative scholars or authors who are active in academic circles. These papers also represent the basic situation of academic development.

Third, choose the research perspective to sort out the literature. You will also sort out the literature from the perspective you want to study, especially the specific issues, which will greatly narrow the scope and help the author grasp the literature.

Fourthly, there is no need to sort out the literature in the introduction. The introduction can properly explain the ins and outs of the problem, and in the process of writing the text, you can trace back to specific points of view. This method requires the author to be very clear about academic history, especially the academic views of predecessors, and to have skilled paper writing skills. This is beyond the grasp of ordinary novices.

(2) How to use the literature?

In the use of literature, quite a few authors think that annotated articles are the use of literature. However, what documents are used in the paper? There is also whether the documents used are consistent with the quoted views. There are several wrong tendencies in the use of literary works:

1, literature for literature's sake, that is, make up the numbers in literature. Scaring readers with a lot of literature shows that the author has read a lot of literature, but after careful reading, he will find that the correlation between literature and the views of the paper is not high. This is actually a fake document. The general reader may not read the literature carefully, but as an editor, especially the editor-in-chief, I want to keep my literature well at first sight, and I must not let the author make money from it.

2. Both the literature and the quoted opinions belong to Dai Li, Zhang Guan, and the quoted opinions were originally Zhang San's, but the author is unwilling to check them correctly out of inertia. He only saw that Li Si used this view in second-hand literature, so he thought it was Li Si's. This situation is very serious.

3. Most of them are self-quoted documents, which completely avoid the research of other scholars. This situation reflects the author's pride that no one has surpassed himself on this issue, so he is unwilling to quote other people's views. Even in order to highlight myself, I quoted my own small articles published in very humble publications and newspapers. This situation shows that the author has the heart of pursuing fame and profit.

Therefore, the use of literature should not be opportunistic, but must be honest. The use of documents reflects whether a scholar is rigorous in his studies and whether he studies hard. Therefore, when using the literature:

1 to avoid file accumulation. The value of using documents lies in reflecting the research depth and rigor of the paper, rather than showing off how extensive your professional knowledge is by piling up documents. If so, the result may be counterproductive.

2, don't sell yourself short, be sure to find the source of the document, if it is a classic document, it is even more necessary to read and check. For example, the works of Marx and Engels are combined, but some authors don't read their works and quote others directly. At the same time, it may be wrong because it is not clear whether it is Marx's view or Engels' view. This will become an academic joke. Remember to consult the literature, don't "follow suit". In particular, some authors of foreign literature don't want to read it, and after others quote it, they quote it without reading it, and even want to use foreign languages to send it away. This is an academic case. In another case, Zhang Guan Dai Li was a scholar when he quoted the viewpoint, but another scholar when he annotated the document. This shows that the author didn't look at the scholars with shady views at all, but saw this sentence from the papers with annotated documents belonging to the author, and at the same time didn't want to take the time to check it correctly, so it is also a situation.

3. Never use online documents or newspaper documents. Whether academics are impetuous or rigorous is clear from the use of documents. If the whole document is a network document or a newspaper document, such a paper is not in-depth anyway. Some authors will say that online literature and newspaper literature show the latest views when writing papers. However, neither online literature nor newspaper literature is an academic point of view, nor is it an academic point of view after strict debate. In other words, this view has no academic background. Therefore, these documents cannot support an academic paper. Of course, can't online literature and newspaper literature be used? That's not necessarily true. Some data must be published through the internet, such as statistics and survey data of some statistical institutions. In short, the websites of authoritative institutions, authoritative academic institutions and internationally renowned research institutions can be used completely.

4. Don't take literature for granted, including wrong publication time, wrong quotation, wrong page number, mistakes of authors and translators, etc. All these will lead to serious damage in the newspaper.

Third, the logic of argument.

Research is a process of argumentation, and argumentation is a rigorous logical thinking process. This process should be, but at present, many papers lack this kind of thinking, and most of them write papers with divergent thinking, so the papers lack depth. The logic of the debate is embodied in the following aspects:

1, layered, non-planar.

Good argument logic must be three-dimensional and hierarchical, not flat. The world is flat, which is just an illusion. The argument logic of this paper is three-dimensional, a rigid realistic requirement, not a fantasy. Good reasoning logic is like an onion, which is pushed to the center layer by layer, and finally you will know what the center of the onion is. However, the logic of plane argument lacks freshness, just like spreading a pie. We know what's in the pie from the beginning, so such an argument will not give people reverie or bring freshness. A good paper should also bring unexpected effects to readers.

2, meticulous, not a loose sand.

The thoroughness of argumentation reflects the author's thinking ability and mastery of professional knowledge. Those with a solid professional foundation must have strong logical thinking ability. On the contrary, if there is no solid professional foundation, then its argument must be fragmented. Because his professional knowledge is fragmented. Fragmented expertise can only lead to fragmented argumentation logic. Although many scholars are well-known in academic circles, their professional foundation is not solid, so when writing papers, they are basically listed by 1, 2, 3, 4 ... without careful logical reasoning and logical proof. This situation may not be a minority, but a generation problem. Because another generation of scholars in China grew up during the Cultural Revolution. They didn't read much and received professional training, but they did rank among the famous scholars through their own efforts, but he couldn't make up for this defect. Therefore, this generation basically put forward some fragmented views in the fragmented knowledge structure, and it is impossible for them to become scholars and thinkers with rigorous academic research and profound academic background.

3. Science, not publicity

Academic research is undoubtedly a process of seeking truth, and it needs a lot of facts or historical materials for logical argumentation to reach a conclusion. It is in this way that academics are real and scientific. However, today's academic research is increasingly lacking such spirit. Those who do historical research don't want to soak in libraries and archives, and those who do practical research don't want to do field research. They use second-hand materials and second-hand data to preset a value position, and use these materials and data to prove this preset position or viewpoint. As we all know, the same materials and data can confirm two completely opposite views. In this way, academic research loses its scientificity and authenticity because it does not follow academic norms. On the other hand, it is easy to find the corresponding materials and data to prove this view by presupposing an opinion, which will also lead to difficulties in discovering academic truth. Both of these situations will do harm to academics, that is, anyone can engage in academic research, and academics will fundamentally lose their dignity and have no academic authority. The correct way is to form a new viewpoint after reading a lot of literature, and then go back to the materials to prove the scientific nature of your viewpoint through more materials.

It is the basic method of propaganda to preset ideas first and then find materials. At present, the scientific nature of academics is increasingly being replaced by propaganda. The reasons are as follows: First, the phenomenon of administrative interference in academics is very serious. Academic quality (award-winning), academic level (various academic titles) and academic assessment are all evaluated by administrative leaders. In this case, even the administrative level is directly proportional to the academic level. Under the administrative intervention, academics are increasingly serving the administration, making academics an accessory of politics and serving political propaganda. Second, in order to improve their administrative level as soon as possible, some scholars continue to do the "learning" of political propaganda, and the research of academic rationality is shelved, while the timely propaganda articles are swept away, but they are often correct empty words and useless nonsense. Third, it is easier to publicize "research" than real academic research. Read the integral newspaper, browse the articles of several mainstream websites, and immediately form an article of your own. Moreover, as long as the politics is correct, there is no shortage of places for such articles to be published. The impetuousness of academic circles can also be imagined.

4. Learn rationality instead of oral English.

Academic papers must be very academic and must go beyond the oral expression of daily life. Oral stress can make readers understand, so it is arbitrary. Academic papers are not for the public, but for people with professional backgrounds. If everyone can understand it, it is not an academic paper, but a daily speech. There is a view that makes fun of scholars' papers, which others can't understand. This kind of paper is of no use to society. I think this view is really superficial and ridiculous. Academic papers can be understood and understood, so they are not called professional academic papers, and academic papers can only be understood by professionals; Moreover, academic papers inherit not the general culture, but the core culture of a nation, which is the greatest spiritual motivation and intellectual support for national development. Its impact is strategic, not whether the general public can understand it clearly at present. Of course, academic ideas must be disseminated to the public, and at this time it is necessary to communicate with the public in a popular way.

5. Rigidity, not randomness

Academic research is a process of seeking truth, so researchers must have a rigorous attitude when writing papers. At present, academic impetuousness, especially the demand of scientific research management departments for quick results, has contributed to various academic misconduct. For example, one is to use data at will. When using data, academic papers must be authoritative data, that is, data released by authoritative organizations. However, due to the large number of data publishing institutions at present, some authors are too arbitrary in selecting data and have no authority of the research institutions themselves. Therefore, the data used are questioned by the academic community. Some even change the data at will because they can't find the source of the data, which leads to the authenticity of the data. Including the materials and documents used. In recent years, too many foreign works have been introduced into translation, which is too casual and even misinterprets the original meaning. However, when using these translated works, the author did not carefully choose what he had, and as a result, the wrong document content was introduced into his own paper, which led to some serious injuries in the paper. In addition, the rigor of research can also be reflected in the use of literature. Some books are published at different times, and the author may take it for granted that the whole series is published at the same time, which is also a serious injury to the paper. For example, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (volume 1-3) was published at different times. The reliability of investigation lies in the feasibility of investigation means, sampling methods and statistical methods.

6. demonstrate around the core issues, not academic prose.

Academic papers must have a core point of view, so in the process of argumentation, it must be carried out around this core point of view, and all materials are aimed at this core point of view, not derived from it. Once extended, it may deviate from the theme. But at present, many authors are trying to find a way to gather words. For this reason, there are many keywords in the paper, almost every section tells a keyword, and the whole paper is likely to be a platter, not a paper under the guidance of a keyword or a core point of view. The result is long, but I don't know what to say. Completely like a wild horse that can't be pulled back. Such an article can be said to be an academic paper, not an academic paper.

Fourthly, the revision and verification of the paper.

The article is ever-changing and tireless. This is a research attitude. Now most people are reluctant to modify and verify documents and materials. This obviously lacks the seriousness and rigor of academic research.

The author's own requirements for revising the article:

First, consider the overall structure of the article. Mainly to see if there are any unreasonable phenomena in the structure, such as anticlimactic; Or the structure is not commensurate (discuss two issues that are not directly related).

Second, sort out the logic of the article to see if there is any logical inconsistency.

Third, consider the sentence and see if there is any problem with the expression.

Fourth, whether there are any errors in the literature when searching the literature.

Fifth, check the data to see if there is any data error.

Sixth, check your notes to see if there are any mistakes.

How to treat the editorial department's revision opinions

First, in general, the editorial department's suggestions for revision mean that this article may reach the level of publication after revision. Without any new ideas and contacts, the editorial department will not propose amendments to articles without any new ideas.

Secondly, the editorial department generally has a wider perspective on the problem and puts forward suggestions for revision so that the author can meet the requirements of the editorial department as much as possible.

Third, if the editorial department's revised opinions are really inappropriate, the author can write back to explain his views. If the editorial department thinks what is said is reasonable, it will generally respect the author.

Fourth, don't think that the editorial department can make things difficult, and repeated communication can only make the paper perfect, instead of denying the author's article after repeated revisions. Even if some changes are redundant, the editorial department will scrutinize them again and again.

Fifth, the end of the paper.

The end of the paper is not only the crowning touch of the whole paper, but also reveals the development trend of future academic research. Therefore, the ending must be magnificent, and the magnificent ending can often highlight the overall quality of the paper. Judging from the current academic papers, there are mainly the following questions at the end:

First, the paper has no ending at all. When the argument ended, the paper came to a screeching halt. This is a typical anticlimactic.

Secondly, it did not summarize the previous studies, but talked about experience without previous studies, so it did not reflect the role of conclusions.

Third, the previous studies were all general and did not focus on the views, which seemed too dull.

Fourth, it's too simple. There is no difference between having an end and not having one. This ending is meaningless.

So, what kind of ending is a good ending? I think at least the following aspects should be reflected:

First of all, we should be able to summarize the paper from a macro perspective. The front is mainly argumentation, confirmation or falsification, but it has not highlighted its own point of view, so there must be an ending to refine the author's point of view, so that readers can understand the author's point of view more clearly.

The second is to have majestic momentum and flowing air. The previous argument is a process of careful verification, which can't show the author's writing style, but in the end you can let go of your hands and feet and emancipate your mind; You can give full play to the author's literary talent to summarize and refine the essence of the paper.

Third, in addition to summing up the views, we can also make a scientific prediction of the development trend of this study and further think about this issue.

Six, abide by academic norms, abide by academic ethics

Academic norms are the lifeblood of learning. Scholars must engage in academic research in accordance with academic norms and should not ask "ideas" at will. If only "idea" is mentioned, the unconfirmed "idea" is just a hypothesis. A hypothetical viewpoint can never represent an academic level. Only through the logical proof of theoretical methods, if this "idea" is innovative and conforms to academic logic, then this "idea" will be transformed into an academic point of view, representing the academic level of scholars. Nowadays, the impetuousness of society has also penetrated into the academic field, so that scholars are no longer silent and ivory towers, but realize their false reputation through the Great Leap Forward of academic papers, thus gaining various academic honors and awards and finally gaining corresponding academic status. As a result, some people resort to unscrupulous means to make academic fraud through various academic misconduct and academic corruption. At present, academic misconduct and academic fraud are manifested in the following aspects:

1, plagiarism

Or plagiarize ideas, materials, paragraphs, or documents, or plagiarize other people's articles slightly, or just change the title to your own.

2. forcibly sign other people's achievements.

There are mainly the following situations: First, the relationship between tutors and students. The tutor stipulated that students must sign the tutor's name when publishing articles, and even asked to sign the first author, but the tutor did not review the articles. Once the article was reported, the tutor tried every means to avoid it; Or openly claimed not to know, it was the students who took the initiative. The second is the relationship between superiors and subordinates, especially the relationship between leaders. Or the lower level deliberately grabs the knife for the leader; Or be forced to borrow administrative power by superiors.

3. Tampering with documents and data and deliberately taking them out of context.

This is mainly because I don't want to look up data and documents. My thesis may need such a set of data to prove my point of view. As a result, I have to tamper with the marginal data for my use, or deliberately misinterpret the views of the literature, or quote them out of context to meet my research needs.

4. Wrong notes or "fake notes", as mentioned above.

5. Low level repetition

I don't want to read the literature and don't understand the academic development, which leads to my own research repeating previous research and even peer research.

6, citing second-hand literature and not checking the guide literature, leading to misinformation.

7. Only quote your own papers and brag about yourself.

8. Reading China literature and quoting foreign languages to express literature are self-defeating.

9. Books and periodicals from foreign languages are translated into Chinese, and the result is that the bull's head is not right.

10, citing foreign notes without indicating the original source, it is difficult to find the original documents and identify their authenticity.

1 1, contributed more than one article, and some even voted for different publications with a little disguise.