对于英语非汉语的留学人员来讲，paper创作的近道是效仿，而在效仿以前学生们务必掌握paper创作的一些基础理论和关键点。今日Hotessay做为技术专业Paper代笔组织就给学生们共享麻省理工大学Ezra Zuckerman Sivan的一篇小短文Tips to Article Writers。內容上，除开全文，会再加上简单翻译和注释或一些书本章节目录，便于扩宽、加重了解。期待对大伙儿的paper创作有一定的协助。
Motivate the paper.The first question you must answer for the reader is why they should read your paper.There is A LOT out there to read and it is very easy to find an excuse not to read a paper.Most people don't even read all the articles published in their field's flagship journals.So if you want your paper to be read,you need to sell the reader on why your paper is so great.The introduction of your paper has to be exciting.It must motivate the reader to keep on reading.They must have the sense that if they keep on reading,there is at least a fair chance that they will learn something new.
Know your audience.Since different people get excited about different things,you cannot get them motivated unless you know their taste.And different academic communities/journals have very different tastes for what constitutes an interesting question and what constitutes a compelling approach to a question.The basic idea is that social scientific communities are arrayed by two dimensions,where the“rows”are“phenomena”[e.g.,area studies;topics such as entrepreneurship or racial inequality]and the“columns”are disciplines or theories.One key lesson is that one typically needs to choose whether one is aiming for a“row”audience/journal or a“column”audience/journal,and motivate/frame one's paper accordingly.Trying to motivate both row and column simultaneously usually does not work.
Use substantive motivations,not aesthetic ones.By an aesthetic motivation,I mean that the author is appealing to the reader's sense that a certain kind of theory or approach should be preferred regardless of its explanatory power(e.g.,we should be avoiding“economistic”or“functionalist”or“reductionist”explanations).Sometimes aesthetic motivations work(for getting a paper accepted),but the contribution tends to be hollow because the end of research(figuring out how the world works)is sacrificed for the means(telling each other how much we like certain ideas).Another way of putting this is that we should not like a paper simply because it proudly displays the colors of our tribe.
Always frame around the dependent variable.The dependent variable is a question and the independent variables are answers to a question.So it makes no sense to start with an answer.Rather,start with a question/puzzle!(Note that I don't mean the literal dependent variable in the analysis in the paper,but the larger process/pattern that it is supposed to represent).
Frame around a puzzle in the world,not a literature.The only reason anyone cares about a literature is because it is helpful in clarifying puzzles in the world.So start with the puzzle.A related point is that just because a literature has not examined some phenomenon,that does not mean that you should.The only reason a phenomenon is interesting is if it poses a puzzle for existing ways of viewing the world.(Too often,I read papers that try to get motivation from the fact that a literature"has not looked at"x,y,or z.So what?There will always be a great deal of unstudied[by academics]phenomena.The question is why that matters.)
分析：紧紧围绕一个难题/疑团写作，而不是一篇参考文献发觉没人报导就越马科学研究。没有人做了，不意味着有使用价值;具备可探究性及其其附加因果关系逻辑性的难题，才有使用价值科学研究。浩天文化教育觉得Introduction里引出来自身研究方向的措辞要注意了，尽管可能是说同一个科学研究，但描述为since X has not been studied,we...而不是阐述其牵涉到的来龙去脉，就很有可能令人感觉这是一个为了更好地科学研究而科学研究的无使用价值工作中。还可以简易了解为“包裝”。
One hypothesis(or a few tightly related hypotheses)is enough.If people remember a paper at all,they will remember it for one idea.So no use trying to stuff a zillion ideas in a paper.A related problem with numerous hypotheses is that it’s never clear what implications the invalidation of any one hypothesis has for the theory hotessay.cn.(Note:the organizations community apparently does not agree with me on this one)
Build up the null hypothesis to be as compelling as possible.A paper will not be interesting unless there is a really compelling null hypothesis.If there is no interesting alternative to the author's argument,why would anyone care about it?Flogging straw men is both unfair and uninteresting.
Save the null.Since the null is compelling,it must be right under certain conditions.The author's job is to explain to the reader that s/he was right to believe x about the world,but that since x doesn't hold under certain conditions,s/he should shift to belief x‘.This helps the reader feel comfortable about shifting to a new idea.Moreover,a very subtle shift in thinking can go a long way.
Orient the reader.The reader needs to know at all times how any sentence fits into the narrative arc of the paper.All too often,I read papers where I get lost in the trees and have no sense of the forest.The narrative arc should start with the first paragraph or two where a question/puzzle is framed and lead to the main finding of the paper.Everything else in the paper should be in service of that arc,either by clarifying the question or setting up the answer(including painstakingly dealing with objections).A related tip is:
Never write literature reviews.No one likes to read literature reviews.They are borrring.So don't write them.But that doesn't mean you should ignore"the relevant literature."To the contrary.You have raised a puzzle about the real world(see tips 3-5).One reason why it is a puzzle is because existing answers are compelling(see point 7),but flawed.So you review the literature not as an end in itself but because you show what is compelling but flawed about existing answers.Any research that does not pertain to that objective can remain unmentioned.(Ok,ok.Some reviewers will demand to see their names or that of their favorite scholars even when their work is essentially irrelevant.And it is usually good to anticipate that.But try to do as little as possible.).