撰文：邹世辉 所属专栏：SCI论文写作实验室
前言：
从即日起，研之成理论文写作版块命名为“SCI论文写作实验室”，并将持续为大家分享论文写作的那些事儿，希望对大家有所帮助。同时也非常欢迎对写作有兴趣的，愿意分享自己心得和经验的朋友加入我们（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写作中的一个基本原则：先摆现象，讨论完了才能给出结论。什么意思呢？在SCI论文写作时，一般采用分总式，即先将实验结果列出来，然后结合文献等进行讨论，最后得出结论。结论的得出要基于实验结果和讨论。说起来好像全世界人民都知道一样，但是实际写作中还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谱图来说明Pt纳米颗粒很分散：
不恰当的写法：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.
不恰当写法的分析：XRD谱图能够直接说明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。对于熟悉相关知识点的读者来说，要理解你的结论问题可能不大，但是对于那些不了解相关知识的读者来说，理解起来就有一定困难了。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，必须有一定的讨论。
2. 类似的，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榷的写法是先给出结论，然后再进行讨论，比如：
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比）. 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：上面两段话很多内容其实是完全一致的，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，最后结合文献对比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，然后再分别讨论，属于总分式，如果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式，总分式的结论放在最前面，虽然很明确的告诉了读者这一段的核心思想是什么，但是从逻辑上来说，显得有点颠倒，因为科学研究多是探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。而总分总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，你至少要保证这两个地方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。
鸟语虫声总是传心之诀，花英草色无非见道之文！
联系客服
