How can a newbie in scientific research start writing a thesis? This article is full of useful information!

From studying for a master's degree, Ph.D., to working as a researcher, few people have actually studied the problem of how to write an academic paper. During the study period, tutors usually give students professional knowledge and methods to obtain professional knowledge, but will not teach students how to write good papers. After engaging in research, most people are busy writing papers and eager to publish papers without knowing how to write papers. Think about how to write a paper.

Therefore, there is a very common phenomenon in domestic academic circles. People write papers to get a degree, a professional title, or to win awards. They basically do not consider how to make their papers academically innovative. As a result, it was difficult to publish, and in order to publish, I had to rely on connections and find acquaintances. Once you achieve your goals, academics will say goodbye forever. Academic research and academic innovation are just means to the goal of life, not the goal at all. Therefore, there are fewer and fewer scholars with a sense of academic responsibility, or even none at all, while there are many scholars who seek academic fame for purposes other than academics. It’s no wonder that most Chinese academics are rubbish.

As the saying goes, sharpening the knife will not waste time chopping wood. To write an academic paper well, you must master the method of writing an academic paper. I have been engaged in research for more than 20 years and have been the editor-in-chief of academic publications for nearly ten years. Engaging in academic research gives me a professional perspective on academic issues, and being the editor-in-chief gives me the opportunity to abandon the impetuousness of academic research and calmly think about the possibility of academic innovation from the perspective of a publication. Therefore, I have the opportunity to interweave two different eyes and perspectives to talk about how to write a good academic paper.

The success of the topic selection is the prerequisite for the success of the research. There is a saying that philosophy and social sciences are not like natural sciences. There is no such thing as success or failure. As long as you are willing to do it, you will definitely succeed in the end. This is ridiculous. Without a good topic selection, even if it is eloquent for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions of words, the result will be useless nonsense. This cannot be considered successful research. Successful research must be based on successful topic selection. So, what is a successful topic selection? In short, you need to be aware of the problem when choosing a topic.

1. What is problem awareness?

The first refers to the goal orientation of the research. A successful topic selection should reveal the goal orientation of the research, that is, what goals the research is to achieve. The goal orientation of research reflects whether the research is valuable and worthy of research. Therefore, from the topic selection, we can know the status and possible development trend of the research on this issue. If the topic selection does not reveal the goal orientation of the research, but only states a fact, it means that the research is not worth studying, or that previous people have done more detailed research, and there is no possibility of in-depth research under the current situation. . This kind of topic should not be chosen.

The second refers to the specific scope of the research. A successful topic selection should be specific in scope, not broad and comprehensive. That is to say, the topic should not be too big. If the topic is too big, the research will not be able to go in depth, and it will only be a glimpse of water. On the other hand, if the topic is too small, the research will be too obsessed with trivial details, causing the research to lose value and taste. In particular, some details are not representative and cannot truly reflect the development trend of things. However, because the researcher's field of vision is too small, it is impossible to discover the basic laws of the development of things from the details. Especially those who do research on historical materials often have this problem.

The third is to question an academic issue, or to be controversial. Academic research is endless, and truth is even more endless. Many academic opinions were correct or the truth at the time, but time and conditions have changed, so their truth will also change. Therefore, when choosing a topic, you must dare to question it, but the question must be well-founded and not just a random suspicion. Based on well-founded suspicion, such a topic selection must be valuable.

In short, topic selection is very skillful. Topic selection is actually the first burst of ideas after accumulation. Without accumulation, topic selection cannot be carried out. A good topic selection can make the research twice the result with half the effort, and a good topic selection is the prerequisite for the success of the paper. After selecting the topic, another important issue is the expression of the topic, that is, how to express the content.

2. Content expression

First, the title should not be too long.

Too long indicates that the author lacks the ability to generalize and abstract. The title must be concise and concise, and strive to reach a level where one more word is too long and one less word is too short.

Second, there should not be too many core concepts, at most two, preferably one. This requires the implementation of the "family planning" policy. If there are more than two core concepts, it will be very difficult to grasp what the paper is researching. Moreover, if there are too many concepts, the whole article may just explain the concepts, and the substantive content will be diluted.

Third, the expression must be precise. If the title causes ambiguity or is unclear, then the paper is likely to go off-topic when writing.

Literature is the material for writing a good paper and the basis for research. It reflects the professional foundation and professional abilities of the researcher. Without literature, it is like building a house without bricks; at the same time, without literature, it is like building a house in the air without a foundation. Documents are the carrier of academic inheritance and academic ethics. Respecting literature means respecting previous research, and respecting literature also reflects the context of academic development. Therefore, literature is crucial in writing a paper. Before writing a paper, firstly, you must conduct necessary combing of the literature, and secondly, you must be good at using the literature.

1. The purpose of combing the literature

The problem awareness of topic selection comes from the reading and analysis of the literature. The problem awareness is not generated out of thin air, but is discovered based on existing research. question. The purpose of combing the literature is:

First, to sort out the historical development of the selected issue. Any problem has a development context. If you don’t understand the context of academic development, you cannot conduct in-depth research on academic issues. In other words, where does this problem come from? Only then can we predict what the future development direction of this problem may be. It is necessary to sort out not only the domestic research status of this issue, but also the international academic research status on this issue, so as to comprehensively grasp the basic status of research on this issue. If you turn on the computer and go straight to the topic, writing about a specific problem without consulting the relevant literature, the result may be low-level repetition. Such a paper has no value. Even if it is published, it is only the result of workload or professional title evaluation, and does not mean that it has made any contribution to scholarship. In academic papers, papers that go straight to the topic at the beginning are generally not good papers. The most valuable thing about people is straightness, and the most valuable thing about culture is crookedness. The value of the paper lies in the song. This kind of music is expressed through the recollection and analysis of previous research.

Secondly, reviewing the literature is to fully acknowledge the academic contributions made by predecessors. Anyone's research is a new exploration based on previous research. This is what Newton said, standing on the shoulders of giants. In research, this giant is not a specific person, but all the predecessors who have contributed to this academic issue. Academic inheritance means respecting history. Without respect for the academic contributions of predecessors, it will be difficult to explore new research fields and conduct in-depth academic research. Without respect for history, we will also fall into a blind and arrogant style of study, thinking that others have not reached our own level, and will eventually fall into repeating stories that others have told and wasting academic resources.

Third, the most fundamental purpose of combing the literature is to discover problems in previous research, so as to find breakthroughs for your own research. Most academic problems cannot be solved by one generation of scholars. A generation of scholars can only solve problems that can be solved below the cognitive level of that generation of scholars. But even so, there are still oversights and loopholes in the research, which will also cause problems. There are research flaws due to the lack of subjective ability. Therefore, future generations of scholars must repeatedly read, compare and analyze the existing research results of their predecessors, and discover problems and loopholes in the research. In this way, your own topic selection may either continue the previous research and deepen it, or discover the loopholes and deficiencies of previous research to make up for, or discover new virgin research areas in the original problem area. This truly reflects the research value of the chosen topic.

2. How to sort out the literature?

Many authors like to list all relevant literature in one breath in the introduction, thinking that this is called literature review. However, listing all relevant literature will definitely occupy the space of the paper and lead to a paper structure that overwhelms the focus. If there are too many documents listed, the main text must be freed up. As a result, I want to write the main text but find that the length is getting longer and longer and I dare not go in depth. This method of literature review is the most undesirable.

The correct method of literature review is:

First, select representative literature. That is, papers and authoritative treatises published in authoritative journals. These papers and treatises represent the basic status of academic development. We cannot list all the articles in unpopular publications.

Second, select papers by representative authors. That is, papers and treatises written by authoritative scholars or authors active in academia. These papers also represent the basic trend of academic development.

Third, choose a research perspective to sort out the literature. You will also sort out the literature based on the perspective you want to study, especially the specific issues. This will greatly reduce the scope and help the author grasp the literature.

Fourth, it is not necessary to review the literature in the introduction. The introduction can appropriately explain the ins and outs of the problem, and during the writing process of the main text, you can conduct a literature review of specific viewpoints. This method requires the author to be very clear about academic history, especially the academic views of previous generations, and to be proficient in writing papers. This is not something that ordinary novices can grasp.

3. How to use literature

When it comes to the use of literature, quite a few authors think that if an article has annotations, it means that it has used literature. But what literature did the paper use? There is also the question of whether the literature used is consistent with the cited views. There are several erroneous tendencies in using literature:

One is to use literature for the sake of literature, that is, to make up the numbers in literature. Using a large amount of literature to scare readers shows that the author has read a lot of literature, but after a closer look, you will find that the literature is not closely related to the point of view of the paper. In fact, it is a fake document. Ordinary reviewers may not read the documents carefully, but as an editor, especially the editor-in-chief, the first thing to do is to check the documents well, and the author must not be allowed to ignore the documents.

The second is that the literature and the cited opinions belong to Zhang Guanli Dai. The point of view quoted was originally Zhang San's, but the author was too lazy to check it. He only saw Li Si using this point of view in second-hand literature, so he thought that this point of view was Li Si's. This situation is very serious.

Third, most of them are self-cited documents and completely avoid research by other scholars. This situation reflects the author's pride, thinking that no one can surpass him on this issue, and therefore unwilling to quote other people's opinions. Even in order to stand out, he quoted himself from the small articles he published in very inconspicuous publications and newspapers. This situation shows that the author has the intention to gain fame and reputation.

Therefore, there cannot be any opportunistic methods when using literature, and it must be done honestly. The use of literature reflects whether a scholar is rigorous in his studies and whether he has worked hard in his research. Therefore, when using literature:

First, avoid stacking literature. The value of using literature is to reflect the depth and rigor of the paper's research, rather than to show off how extensive one's professional knowledge is by piling up literature. If so, the results may be counterproductive.

Second, do not show off your reputation. You must look for the source of the document. If it is a classic work, it is even more important to read and check it. For example, the works of Marx and Engels are combined, but some authors did not read their works, but quoted them directly from other people's quotations. At the same time, because it is not clear whether it is Marx's point of view or Engels' point of view, it may be mistaken. This becomes an academic joke. Remember to consult the literature and not just follow what others say. In particular, some authors of foreign documents are unwilling to read them. After others quote them, they cite them without reading them, and even try to pass them off as foreign languages. This is a public case in academia.

Another situation where Zhang Guan and Li Dai are quoting opinions is from a scholar, but when annotating documents, it is another scholar. This shows that the author has not read the scholars who cited the views at all, but saw this sentence from the annotated document attributed to the author. At the same time, he is not willing to take the time to check it, so it is also a situation of showing off.

Third, do not use online literature or newspaper literature. Whether the academic is impetuous or not, and whether the academic is rigorous or not can be clearly seen from the use of documents. If the documents throughout the article are all online documents or newspaper documents, such a paper will not be in-depth anyway. Some authors will say that online literature and newspaper literature show that the paper is the latest point of view.

However, online literature and newspaper literature are not academic opinions, nor are they academic opinions that have been rigorously demonstrated.

In other words, this view has no academic foundation. Therefore, these documents cannot support an academic paper. Of course, online documents and newspaper documents cannot be used? That's not necessarily the case. Some data must be released through the Internet. For example, statistical data and survey data from some statistical agencies are released from the Internet. In short, websites of authoritative institutions, academic websites of authoritative academic institutions, websites of internationally renowned research institutions, etc. These online documents are completely usable.

Fourth, do not take literature for granted. Including errors in publication date, citation errors, page number errors, author and translator errors, etc. These can lead to serious flaws in the paper.

Research is a process of argumentation, and argumentation is a rigorous logical thinking process. However, many current papers lack this kind of thinking. Most of them use divergent thinking to write papers, so the papers lack depth. The logic of the argument is reflected in the following aspects:

1. A sense of hierarchy, not a sense of plane

A good argument logic must be three-dimensional and hierarchical, not plane. sexual. The world is flat, which is just a conjecture. The argument logic of the paper is three-dimensional. This is a rigid realistic requirement, not a conjecture. Good argument logic is like plucking an onion, layer by layer until you get to the center, and finally you know what is at the center of the onion. The flat argumentation logic lacks novelty. It is like spreading a pie. You already know what is in the pie from the beginning, so this kind of argument will not make people daydream, nor will it bring novelty. A good paper should also bring unexpected results to readers.

2. Rigorousness, not a piece of loose sand

The rigor of argumentation reflects the author’s thinking ability and the author’s mastery of professional knowledge. Those with a solid professional foundation must have strong logical thinking abilities. On the contrary, if there is no solid professional foundation, then the argument will definitely be fragmented. Because the professional knowledge he possesses is fragmented. Fragmented professional knowledge can only lead to fragmented argumentation logic. Many scholars, although they are well-known in the academic world, do not have a solid professional foundation. Therefore, when writing papers, they basically use 1, 2, 3, 4... to list, but lack rigorous logical reasoning. and logical proof. This situation may not be a problem for a few people, but for a generation.

Because another generation of Chinese scholars grew up during the Cultural Revolution. They did not read much, had no professional training, and lacked professional qualities. However, through their own efforts, they have indeed become among the well-known scholars. , but he himself has no way to make up for this shortcoming. Therefore, this generation basically puts forward some fragmented views in the fragmented knowledge structure, and it is impossible to become scholars and thinkers with rigorous scholarship and profound academic foundation.

3. Scientific, not propaganda

Academic research is undoubtedly a truth-seeking process, which requires a large number of facts or historical materials to be concluded through logical argumentation. in conclusion.

It is in this way that academics can be truthful and scientific. However, today's academic research increasingly lacks such a spirit. Those who do historical research do not want to visit libraries and archives, and those who do practical research do not want to do fieldwork. They use second-hand materials and second-hand data, and presuppose them first. A value position, using these materials and data to prove this preset position or point of view. As everyone knows, the same materials and data can prove two completely opposite views. In this way, academic research loses its scientific nature and truth because it does not follow academic standards.

On the other hand, presupposing a point of view can easily find the corresponding materials and data to prove this point of view, which will also make it difficult to find academic truth. Both situations will cause harm to academics, that is, anyone can engage in academic research, and academics will fundamentally lose its dignity, and there will be no academic authority at all. The correct method is to form a new point of view after reading a large amount of literature, and then return to the material to prove the scientific nature of your point of view with more material.

Presupposing a point of view and then finding materials is the basic method of publicity.

The scientific nature of current academics is increasingly being replaced by propaganda. The reasons are: First, the phenomenon of administrative interference in academics is very serious today. Academic quality (awards), academic level (various academic titles), academic assessment, etc. are all subject to administrative leadership. To evaluate, in this case, even the administrative level is directly proportional to the academic level.

Under administrative intervention, academics increasingly serve the administration, making academics an accessory to politics and serving political propaganda. The second is that some scholars continue to engage in political propaganda in order to advance their administrative ranks as quickly as possible. Rational research is shelved and propaganda articles that cater to the occasion are written, but they are often correct empty words and useless nonsense. . Third, propaganda "research" is easier to produce results than real academic research, and it is also easier. Read a few newspapers, browse articles on several mainstream websites, and immediately form an article of your own. Moreover, as long as it is politically correct, such articles will have no place to be published. One can imagine the impetuousness of the academic world.

4. Learn rationality, not colloquialism

Academic papers must be highly academic, and they must go beyond the colloquial expressions of daily life. Spoken language emphasizes that it can be understood by readers, so it is casual. Academic papers are not meant to be understood by the general public, but only by people with professional backgrounds. If everyone can understand it, it is no longer an academic paper, but everyday speech. There is a ridiculing view that scholars’ papers are for their own entertainment and cannot be understood by others. Such papers are of no use to society at all.

I think this view is really superficial and ridiculous. If everyone can understand and understand academic papers, then they are not called professional academic papers. Academic papers must only be understood by professionals; and what academic papers inherit is not general culture, but the core culture of a nation. This This culture is the greatest spiritual motivation and intellectual support for national development. Its impact is strategic, not whether the general public can understand and hear it. Of course, academic ideas must be disseminated to the public. At this time, it is necessary to use popular colloquial methods to communicate with the public.

5. Rigor, not randomness

Academic research is a truth-seeking process, so researchers must have a rigorous attitude in writing papers. The current academic impetuousness, especially the demands of scientific research management departments for quick results, has encouraged various academic misconducts. For example, one is to use data arbitrarily. When academic papers use data, they must be authoritative data, that is, data released by authoritative organizations. However, because there are currently many institutions publishing data, some authors are too casual when selecting data and do not study the authority of the institution itself. As a result, the data used are questioned by the academic community. Some even modify the data at will because they cannot find the source of the data, causing the data to lose its authenticity.

The same goes for the materials and documents used. In recent years, too many foreign works have been imported and translated, and the translations are too casual. There are even translations that misinterpret the meaning of the original works. However, the authors are using these translated works. I did not choose carefully at the time, and used whatever I had in hand. As a result, I introduced the wrong literature content into my paper, causing some flaws in the paper. In addition, the rigor of the research can also be reflected in the use of literature. Some series of documents are published at different times, and the introducer may assume that the entire series of books is published at the same time. This is also a serious flaw in the paper. For example, "Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping" (Volume 1-3) was published at different times. The reliability of the survey lies in whether the survey method is feasible, the sampling method, and the statistical method, etc.

6. Develop arguments around core issues rather than arbitrary academic prose

Academic papers must have a core point of view, so the argumentation process must be centered around this core point of view. The purpose of the materials is to point to this core point of view, rather than extending from the core point of view. Once it is extended, it may deviate from the topic. However, many authors nowadays are just trying to make up the word count. For this purpose, the paper contains a lot of keywords. Almost every section tells a keyword. The whole paper is likely to be a platter, rather than focusing on a keyword or a keyword. A thesis guided by a core point of view. As a result, the article is very long but incomprehensible. It is like a wild horse that has run wild and cannot be pulled back. Such an article can only be said to be academic prose, not an academic paper.

The article never gets tired of being revised hundreds of times.

This is an attitude towards research. Most people today are unwilling to revise or verify documents and materials. This clearly lacks seriousness and rigor in academic research.

1. The author’s request to revise the article himself

First, consider the overall structure of the article. The main thing is to see whether there are unreasonable phenomena in the structure, such as anticlimactic results; or structural disproportionality (discussing two issues that are not directly related together);

Second , sort out the logic of the article to see if there is any logical incoherence;

Third, consider the text to see if there are any problems with the expression;

Fourth, check the Check the literature to see if there are errors in the literature;

Fifth, check the data to see if there are errors in the data;

Sixth, check the annotations to see if there are errors in the literature; Are there any errors?

2. How to treat the editorial department’s comments on modifications

First, under normal circumstances, the editorial department’s comments on modifications mean that the article may be modified. reach publication level. In the absence of any new ideas or connections, the editorial department will not provide revision opinions on articles without any new ideas;

Secondly, the editorial department generally has a broader perspective when looking at problems. The perspective should be wider, and the author should try his best to meet the requirements of the editorial department when proposing revision opinions;

Thirdly, if the editorial opinion of the revision is really inappropriate, the author can write back to explain his own point of view, and the editorial department If you think what you say makes sense, you will generally respect the author;

Fourth, don’t think that the editorial department can make things difficult. Repeated correspondence will only make the paper more perfect, rather than denying the author after revising it many times. article. Even if some modifications are redundant, the editorial department will go over them again and again.

The end of the paper is not only the highlight of the entire paper, but also reveals the development trend of academic research in the future. Therefore, the ending must be powerful. A majestic ending can often highlight the overall quality of the paper. Judging from current academic papers, the endings mainly have the following problems:

First, the paper has no ending at all. When the argument is completed, the paper stops abruptly. This is a typical anticlimax;

Secondly, it does not summarize the previous research, but talks about the experience in isolation from the previous research, thus failing to reflect the role of the conclusion;

Thirdly, Talking about the previous research in general terms without focusing on the point of view makes it seem too plain;

Fourth, it is too simple. There is no difference between having an ending and not having an ending. Such an ending is meaningless.

So, what kind of ending is a good ending? I think it must reflect at least the following aspects:

First, it must be able to summarize the paper from a macro perspective. The front part is mainly about argumentation, confirmation or falsification, but it has not yet highlighted your own point of view, so there must be an ending to refine the author's point of view and make the author's point of view clearer to the reader.

The second is to have majestic momentum and flowing air. The previous argument is a process of careful verification and cannot show the author's writing style, but in the final part, you can let go and liberate your mind; you can fully show the author's literary talent to summarize and abstract the essence of the paper.

The third is to have scientific prediction and thinking. In addition to summarizing the views, the conclusion can also make scientific predictions on the development trend of the research on this issue, as well as further thinking on the issue.

Academic standards are the lifeline of academics. Scholars must conduct academic research in accordance with academic norms and should not raise "ideas" as they please. If it is just an "idea", the "idea" without proof is just a hypothesis. A hypothetical point of view in no way represents an academic level. Only after logical proof using theoretical methods, if the "idea" is innovative and consistent with academic logic, can the "idea" be transformed into an academic opinion, which represents the academic level of the scholar. At present, social impetuosity has also penetrated into the academic field, causing scholars to no longer remain silent in the ivory tower, but to achieve their own fame through great leaps in academic papers, thereby obtaining various academic honors and academic awards, and finally obtaining Corresponding academic status.

As a result, some use unscrupulous means to engage in academic fraud through various academic misconduct and academic corruption. Currently, academic misconduct and academic fabrication are manifested in papers in the following aspects:

1. Plagiarism

Or plagiarizing ideas, plagiarizing materials, or plagiarizing paragraphs , or plagiarize literature, or slightly change someone else's article to plagiarize it as a whole, or just change the title and add your own name.

2. Forcing to sign on other people’s work

This mainly includes the following situations: First, the relationship between the tutor and the student. The tutor stipulates that students must sign the tutor’s name when publishing articles. , and even asked to be signed as the first author, but the tutor did not review the article. Once the article was reported, the tutor did everything possible to avoid it; or openly claimed that he did not know and it was the student who signed the article on his own initiative. The second is the relationship between superiors and subordinates, especially the relationship between leaders and the led. Either the subordinates deliberately ghostwrite for the leader; or the superiors borrow administrative power to force the request

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

This is mainly because they are unwilling to check the data and documents , and your own paper may specifically need such a set of data to prove your point of view. As a result, you have to tamper with the marginal data to suit your own needs, or deliberately misinterpret the views of the literature, or quote them out of context to suit your own research. needs.

4. The annotations are wrong or "false annotations" are made, as mentioned before.

5. Low-level repetition

Unwilling to read the literature, and therefore do not know the dynamics of academic development, resulting in one's own research repeating the research of predecessors, and even repeating that of fellow scholars. research.

6. Other issues

Citing secondary documents and failing to check primary documents leads to misinformation.

Only cite your own papers and brag about yourself.

Reading Chinese literature but quoting foreign language expression literature will be self-defeating.

It originated from foreign books and periodicals but was translated into Chinese. The result is completely wrong.

Quoting foreign language annotations without indicating the original source makes it difficult to find the original document and determine its authenticity.

One manuscript is submitted to multiple publications, and some even submit it to multiple different publications after a little "disguise".