2017年来自美国宾夕法尼亚大学和美国西北大学的Konrad Kording教授一篇发表在PLOS Computational Biology的旧闻，如今读起来仍然觉得很实用。ISE学术前沿小编把他整理出来，供大家学习科研写作时参考。
这篇文章向读者们建议10条简单的原则，试图点出论文写作最需要注意的问题。遵循这些写作原则可以让你的论文更具吸引力，同时提高写作效率。
前四条技巧可以应用于一篇论文的任意部分，甚至是其他形式的交流，如会议交流、海报等。后四条技巧适用处理论文主体部分。最后两条技巧则是在这一过程中进行指导---如何有效的架构论文原稿的启发式方法。
Overview
Good scientific writing is essential to career development and to the progress of science. A well-structured manuscript allows readers and reviewers to get excited about the subject matter, to understand and verify the paper’s contributions, and to integrate these contributions into a broader context. However, many scientists struggle with producing high-quality manuscripts and are typically untrained in paper writing. Focusing on how readers consume information, we present a set of ten simple rules to help you communicate the main idea of your paper. These rules are designed to make your paper more influential and the process of writing more efficient and pleasurable.
Writing and reading papers are key skills for scientists. Indeed, success at publishing is used to evaluate scientists [1] and can help predict their future success [2]. In the production and consumption of papers, multiple parties are involved, each having their own motivations and priorities. The editors want to make sure that the paper is significant, and the reviewers want to determine whether the conclusions are justified by the results. The reader wants to quickly understand the conceptual conclusions of the paper before deciding whether to dig into the details, and the writer wants to convey the important contributions to the broadest audience possible while convincing the specialist that the findings are credible. You can facilitate all of these goals by structuring the paper well at multiple scales—spanning the sentence, paragraph, section, and document.
Clear communication is also crucial for the broader scientific enterprise because “concept transfer” is a rate-limiting step in scientific cross-pollination. This is particularly true in the biological sciences and other fields that comprise a vast web of highly interconnected sub-disciplines. As scientists become increasingly specialized, it becomes more important (and difficult) to strengthen the conceptual links. Communication across disciplinary boundaries can only work when manuscripts are readable, credible, and memorable.
The claim that gives significance to your work has to be supported by data and by a logic that gives it credibility. Without carefully planning the paper’s logic, writers will often be missing data or missing logical steps on the way to the conclusion. While these lapses are beyond our scope, your scientific logic must be crystal clear to powerfully make your claim.
Here we present ten simple rules for structuring papers. The first four rules are principles that apply to all the parts of a paper and further to other forms of communication such as grants and posters. The next four rules deal with the primary goals of each of the main parts of papers. The final two rules deliver guidance on the process—heuristics for efficiently constructing manuscripts.
原则（技巧1-4）
写作即是交流。因此，读者的体验至关重要，所有的写作都应为这一目标而服务。当你写作时应当时刻将读者铭记在心。
Writing is communication. Thus, the reader’s experience is of primary importance, and all writing serves this goal. When you write, you should constantly have your reader in mind. These four rules help you to avoid losing your reader.
每篇文章的标题只传达出的一条中心思想
虽然一篇论文需在获得其最终信息的过程中讲述多个创新点，但务必不要贪心。论文如果试图同时关注多个结果时则倾向于每一个结果都会或多或少缺少信服力，从而让人无法记忆深刻。
论文最为重要的因素便是标题。标题的质量将会决定读者是否会花时间阅读摘要。
标题不仅仅表达论文的中心思想，同时也会是一个（对你而言）时刻的提醒，在正文部分应集中体现这一思想。毕竟科学是从复杂数据中提炼简单原则，而把标题则是文章贡献的最终体现。尽早思考标题---同时经常性地打磨它---这不仅能够帮助你撰写论文，而且可以协助实验设计或者理论开发的过程。
Your communication efforts are successful if readers can still describe the main contribution of your paper to their colleagues a year after reading it. Although it is clear that a paper often needs to communicate a number of innovations on the way to its final message, it does not pay to be greedy. Focus on a single message; papers that simultaneously focus on multiple contributions tend to be less convincing about each and are therefore less memorable.
The most important element of a paper is the title—think of the ratio of the number of titles you read to the number of papers you read. The title is typically the first element a reader encounters, so its quality [3] determines whether the reader will invest time in reading the abstract.
The title not only transmits the paper’s central contribution but can also serve as a constant reminder (to you) to focus the text on transmitting that idea. Science is, after all, the abstraction of simple principles from complex data. The title is the ultimate refinement of the paper’s contribution. Thinking about the title early—and regularly returning to hone it—can help not only the writing of the paper but also the process of designing experiments or developing theories.
This Rule of One is the most difficult rule to optimally implement because it comes face-to-face with the key challenge of science, which is to make the claim and/or model as simple as the data and logic can support but no simpler. In the end, your struggle to find this balance may appropriately result in “one contribution” that is multifaceted. For example, a technology paper may describe both its new technology and a biological result using it; the bridge that unifies these two facets is a clear description of how the new technology can be used to do new biology.
为那些不清楚你工作的有血有肉的人们写作
你是世界上最了解你做所工作的专家。很多作者常犯的错误是从一个设计者而不是肚子的角度进行思考。下次试着站在一个“懵懂的”读者角度去思考这一论文，让读者快速且不费力的抓住主要信息。
Because you are the world’s leading expert at exactly what you are doing, you are also the world’s least qualified person to judge your writing from the perspective of the naïve reader. The majority of writing mistakes stem from this predicament. Think like a designer—for each element, determine the impact that you want to have on people and then strive to achieve that objective [4]. Try to think through the paper like a naïve reader who must first be made to care about the problem you are addressing (see Rule 6) and then will want to understand your answer with minimal effort.
Define technical terms clearly because readers can become frustrated when they encounter a word that they don’t understand. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms so that readers do not have to go back to earlier sections to identify them.
The vast knowledge base of human psychology is useful in paper writing. For example, people have working memory constraints in that they can only remember a small number of items and are better at remembering the beginning and the end of a list than the middle [5]. Do your best to minimize the number of loose threads that the reader has to keep in mind at any one time.
▌规则3
记住背景-内容-结论（Context，Content，Conclusion，即CCC）的结构
绝大多数受欢迎的论文通常拥有如下结构，包括一个辨识度高的Introduction，一个界限明确的Content以及Conclusion。这一结构能够减少读者提出以下问题的几率，如“为什么告诉我这个？”或者“那又如何？”。
举例而言，我们也许想以时间顺序对论文进行架构。但是对读者们而言，他们读不出文章中的很多细节是否有关联。他们并不在乎你获得最终结论的时间顺序过程，他们只在乎最终声明和支持它的逻辑。因此，我们所有的工作必须重新定义，需要提供一个使我们的资料更有意义的背景，以及一个能够帮助读者进行理解和记忆的结论。
The vast majority of popular (i.e., memorable and re-tellable) stories have a structure with a discernible beginning, a well-defined body, and an end. The beginning sets up the context for the story, while the body (content) advances the story towards an ending in which the problems find their conclusions. This structure reduces the chance that the reader will wonder “Why was I told that?” (if the context is missing) or “So what?” (if the conclusion is missing).
There are many ways of telling a story. Mostly, they differ in how well they serve a patient reader versus an impatient one [6]. The impatient reader needs to be engaged quickly; this can be accomplished by presenting the most exciting content first (e.g., as seen in news articles). The C-C-C scheme that we advocate serves a more patient reader who is willing to spend the time to get oriented with the context. A consequent disadvantage of C-C-C is that it may not optimally engage the impatient reader. This disadvantage is mitigated by the fact that the structure of scientific articles, specifically the primacy of the title and abstract, already forces the content to be revealed quickly. Thus, a reader who proceeds to the introduction is likely engaged enough to have the patience to absorb the context. Furthermore, one hazard of excessive “content first” story structures in science is that you may generate skepticism in the reader because they may be missing an important piece of context that makes your claim more credible. For these reasons, we advocate C-C-C as a “default” scientific story structure.
The C-C-C scheme defines the structure of the paper on multiple scales. At the whole-paper scale, the introduction sets the context, the results are the content, and the discussion brings home the conclusion. Applying C-C-C at the paragraph scale, the first sentence defines the topic or context, the body hosts the novel content put forth for the reader’s consideration, and the last sentence provides the conclusion to be remembered.
Deviating from the C-C-C structure often leads to papers that are hard to read, but writers often do so because of their own autobiographical context. During our everyday lives as scientists, we spend a majority of our time producing content and a minority amidst a flurry of other activities. We run experiments, develop the exposition of available literature, and combine thoughts using the magic of human cognition. It is natural to want to record these efforts on paper and structure a paper chronologically. But for our readers, most details of our activities are extraneous. They do not care about the chronological path by which you reached a result; they just care about the ultimate claim and the logic supporting it (see Rule 7). Thus, all our work must be reformatted to provide a context that makes our material meaningful and a conclusion that helps the reader to understand and remember it.
通过避免重复讨论，优化论文逻辑
只有论文的中心思想才应该被重复多次提及，其他点则应该仅阐述一次，尽可能减少主题变换的次数。相关的语句或者相关的章节应当捆绑在一起，而不是来回往复形成A-B-A的形式。
论文的各个部分——摘要、引言、结果和讨论——的目标各不相同，因此为了实现各自的目标，它们各自采用的C-C-C结构略有不同。我们将在本节中讨论这些专门结构，并在如下图中加以总结。
Only the central idea of the paper should be touched upon multiple times. Otherwise, each subject should be covered in only one place in order to minimize the number of subject changes. Related sentences or paragraphs should be strung together rather than interrupted by unrelated material. Ideas that are similar, such as two reasons why we should believe something, should come one immediately after the other.
Similarly, across consecutive paragraphs or sentences, parallel messages should be communicated with parallel form. Parallelism makes it easier to read the text because the reader is familiar with the structure. For example, if we have three independent reasons why we prefer one interpretation of a result over another, it is helpful to communicate them with the same syntax so that this syntax becomes transparent to the reader, which allows them to focus on the content. There is nothing wrong with using the same word multiple times in a sentence or paragraph. Resist the temptation to use a different word to refer to the same concept—doing so makes readers wonder if the second word has a slightly different meaning.
The individual parts of a paper—abstract, introduction, results, and discussion—have different objectives, and thus they each apply the C-C-C structure a little differently in order to achieve their objectives. We will discuss these specialized structures in this section and summarize them in Fig 1.
Note that the abstract is special in that it contains all three elements (Context, Content, and Conclusion), thus comprising all three colors.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619.g001
摘要应讲述一个完整故事
大多数读者只阅读论文摘要。这意味着摘要中必须有效呈现论文的所有信息。为实现这一目标，摘要的结构建议采取CCC模式，细节如下：
Context 背景，必须解释清楚文章即将填补的空缺。第一句话介绍该研究的广阔领域。随后缩小到该所要回答的待解决问题上。通过表述“文献中缺失部分”和“为何这很重要”。
Content 内容，首先描述的是能够让你回答这一空缺/问题的新颖方法或者途径。随后你呈现出“血肉”---获得这些结果的方法。避免使用含有术语。
Conclusion 结论，通常突出讲述该结论如何推动广阔领域继续前进（例如，“更广阔的重要意义”）。
The abstract is, for most readers, the only part of the paper that will be read. This means that the abstract must convey the entire message of the paper effectively. To serve this purpose, the abstract’s structure is highly conserved. Each of the C-C-C elements is detailed below.
The context must communicate to the reader what gap the paper will fill. The first sentence orients the reader by introducing the broader field in which the particular research is situated. Then, this context is narrowed until it lands on the open question that the research answered. A successful context section sets the stage for distinguishing the paper’s contributions from the current state of the art by communicating what is missing in the literature (i.e., the specific gap) and why that matters (i.e., the connection between the specific gap and the broader context that the paper opened with).
The content (“Here we”) first describes the novel method or approach that you used to fill the gap or question. Then you present the meat—your executive summary of the results.
Finally, the conclusion interprets the results to answer the question that was posed at the end of the context section. There is often a second part to the conclusion section that highlights how this conclusion moves the broader field forward (i.e., “broader significance”). This is particularly true for more “general” journals with a broad readership.
This structure helps you avoid the most common mistake with the abstract, which is to talk about results before the reader is ready to understand them. Good abstracts usually take many iterations of refinement to make sure the results fill the gap like a key fits its lock. The broad-narrow-broad structure allows you to communicate with a wider readership (through breadth) while maintaining the credibility of your claim (which is always based on a finite or narrow set of results).
在Introduction部分中解释清楚为什么这篇论文至关重要
Introduction部分通常是由一系列渐进的、更为精确的段落来完成。
举一个例子：
第一段落解释了为什么细胞分化是一个重要的课题以及这一领域中还未解决到底是什么触发了它（领域空缺）。第二段则阐明了某一特定细胞类型如星形胶质细胞分化过程中的未知问题（子领域空缺）。第三段也许提供线索，一个特定基因或许驱动星形胶质细胞的分化，随后声明该假设尚未得到验证（将要进行填补的子领域空缺）。这种叙述会引起读者对这篇论文想要传递思想的期待。
Introduction部分的最后一段十分特殊---它简单总结了用于填补上述空缺的结果。它同摘要有所不同，不需要重复背景（已在上述内容中描述过），但需要稍微更准确详细地阐述结果，如果可能的话可以简短地预先描述论文的结论。
The introduction highlights the gap that exists in current knowledge or methods and why it is important. This is usually done by a set of progressively more specific paragraphs that culminate in a clear exposition of what is lacking in the literature, followed by a paragraph summarizing what the paper does to fill that gap.
As an example of the progression of gaps, a first paragraph may explain why understanding cell differentiation is an important topic and that the field has not yet solved what triggers it (a field gap). A second paragraph may explain what is unknown about the differentiation of a specific cell type, such as astrocytes (a subfield gap). A third may provide clues that a particular gene might drive astrocytic differentiation and then state that this hypothesis is untested (the gap within the subfield that you will fill). The gap statement sets the reader’s expectation for what the paper will deliver.
The structure of each introduction paragraph (except the last) serves the goal of developing the gap. Each paragraph first orients the reader to the topic (a context sentence or two) and then explains the “knowns” in the relevant literature (content) before landing on the critical “unknown” (conclusion) that makes the paper matter at the relevant scale. Along the path, there are often clues given about the mystery behind the gaps; these clues lead to the untested hypothesis or undeveloped method of the paper and give the reader hope that the mystery is solvable. The introduction should not contain a broad literature review beyond the motivation of the paper. This gap-focused structure makes it easy for experienced readers to evaluate the potential importance of a paper—they only need to assess the importance of the claimed gap.
The last paragraph of the introduction is special: it compactly summarizes the results, which fill the gap you just established. It differs from the abstract in the following ways: it does not need to present the context (which has just been given), it is somewhat more specific about the results, and it only briefly previews the conclusion of the paper, if at all.
依据一系列的叙述阐明结果
结果部分需要说服读者相信结果是有数据和逻辑来支持的。每一个科研论据都有它自己独特的逻辑结构，从而决定要素该如何呈现的顺序。
图片和图例尤为重要。事实上，有些读者仅阅读摘要和图片。理想情况下，这些图片应该生动的讲述整个故事，而不需要阅读图例或者文字。
The results section needs to convince the reader that the central claim is supported by data and logic. Every scientific argument has its own particular logical structure, which dictates the sequence in which its elements should be presented.
For example, a paper may set up a hypothesis, verify that a method for measurement is valid in the system under study, and then use the measurement to disprove the hypothesis. Alternatively, a paper may set up multiple alternative (and mutually exclusive) hypotheses and then disprove all but one to provide evidence for the remaining interpretation. The fabric of the argument will contain controls and methods where they are needed for the overall logic.
In the outlining phase of paper preparation (see Rule 9), sketch out the logical structure of how your results support your claim and convert this into a sequence of declarative statements that become the headers of subsections within the results section (and/or the titles of figures). Most journals allow this type of formatting, but if your chosen journal does not, these headers are still useful during the writing phase and can either be adapted to serve as introductory sentences to your paragraphs or deleted before submission. Such a clear progression of logical steps makes the paper easy to follow.
Figures, their titles, and legends are particularly important because they show the most objective support (data) of the steps that culminate in the paper’s claim. Moreover, figures are often viewed by readers who skip directly from the abstract in order to save time. Thus, the title of the figure should communicate the conclusion of the analysis, and the legend should explain how it was done. Figure making is an art unto itself; the Edward Tufte books remain the gold standard for learning this craft [7,8].
The first results paragraph is special in that it typically summarizes the overall approach to the problem outlined in the introduction, along with any key innovative methods that were developed. Most readers do not read the methods, so this paragraph gives them the gist of the methods that were used.
Each subsequent paragraph in the results section starts with a sentence or two that set up the question that the paragraph answers, such as the following: “To verify that there are no artifacts…,” “What is the test-retest reliability of our measure?,” or “We next tested whether Ca2+ flux through L-type Ca2+ channels was involved.” The middle of the paragraph presents data and logic that pertain to the question, and the paragraph ends with a sentence that answers the question. For example, it may conclude that none of the potential artifacts were detected. This structure makes it easy for experienced readers to fact-check a paper. Each paragraph convinces the reader of the answer given in its last sentence. This makes it easy to find the paragraph in which a suspicious conclusion is drawn and to check the logic of that paragraph. The result of each paragraph is a logical statement, and paragraphs farther down in the text rely on the logical conclusions of previous paragraphs, much as theorems are built in mathematical literature.
讨论这一空缺如何被填补，说明诠释中的局限性以及同领域的相关性
Discussion部分解释了为什么结果能够填补介绍中提出确认的空缺部分，对诠释说明提供预警，以及描述该篇论文如何通过开创新的机遇从而推动领域发展。这通常以如下方法完成：对结果进行总结概括，讨论局限性，随后揭示论文发现如何促进未来的发展历程。Discussion部分第一段的特别之处在于它通常大致总结了Results部分中的重大发现。
Discussion部分接下来的每一个段落都以描述该文的某个缺点或者优点作为开端，随后通过广泛链接到相关文献从而对优势或者弱点进行衡量。最后，它将作者对于结果贡献的感知进行总结，并探讨进一步研究的可能性途径。
The discussion section explains how the results have filled the gap that was identified in the introduction, provides caveats to the interpretation, and describes how the paper advances the field by providing new opportunities. This is typically done by recapitulating the results, discussing the limitations, and then revealing how the central contribution may catalyze future progress. The first discussion paragraph is special in that it generally summarizes the important findings from the results section. Some readers skip over substantial parts of the results, so this paragraph at least gives them the gist of that section.
Each of the following paragraphs in the discussion section starts by describing an area of weakness or strength of the paper. It then evaluates the strength or weakness by linking it to the relevant literature. Discussion paragraphs often conclude by describing a clever, informal way of perceiving the contribution or by discussing future directions that can extend the contribution.
For example, the first paragraph may summarize the results, focusing on their meaning. The second through fourth paragraphs may deal with potential weaknesses and with how the literature alleviates concerns or how future experiments can deal with these weaknesses. The fifth paragraph may then culminate in a description of how the paper moves the field forward. Step by step, the reader thus learns to put the paper’s conclusions into the right context.
Process (Rules 9 and 10)
To produce a good paper, authors can use helpful processes and habits. Some aspects of a paper affect its impact more than others, which suggests that your investment of time should be weighted towards the issues that matter most. Moreover, iteratively using feedback from colleagues allows authors to improve the story at all levels to produce a powerful manuscript. Choosing the right process makes writing papers easier and more effective.
将时间分配到重要的部分：标题、摘要、图表和提纲
论文逻辑至关重要，它是连接实验阶段和撰写阶段的桥梁，因此将文章的逻辑结构同正在进行的实验保持一致十分重要。
你同样应当根据每个章节需要同读者进行交流的不同重要性分配你的时间。阅读标题的人远比阅读摘要的要多，而阅读摘要的人远比阅读论文剩余部分的人要多。
大纲先行。我们倾向在每个规划好的段落前先写一句非正式的语句，这通常对开始进行已获得结果的描述过程十分有用---这些语句也许会成为结果章节的节标题。因为故事总有一个整体框架，每个段落都应该对推动故事前进起到明确作用，而这一作用则最好在提纲阶段便已确定。
The central logic that underlies a scientific claim is paramount. It is also the bridge that connects the experimental phase of a research effort with the paper-writing phase. Thus, it is useful to formalize the logic of ongoing experimental efforts (e.g., during lab meetings) into an evolving document of some sort that will ultimately steer the outline of the paper.
You should also allocate your time according to the importance of each section. The title, abstract, and figures are viewed by far more people than the rest of the paper, and the methods section is read least of all. Budget accordingly.
The time that we do spend on each section can be used efficiently by planning text before producing it. Make an outline. We like to write one informal sentence for each planned paragraph. It is often useful to start the process around descriptions of each result—these may become the section headers in the results section. Because the story has an overall arc, each paragraph should have a defined role in advancing this story. This role is best scrutinized at the outline stage in order to reduce wasting time on wordsmithing paragraphs that don’t end up fitting within the overall story.
获得反馈从而对整个故事进行精简、再利用和再生
作为作者，如果你不能够在几分钟之内向你的同事描述出论文的整体大纲，那么很明显读者也无法做到。你需要进一步提炼你的故事。找寻到此类违反优秀写作的行为对从各个层次提高论文质量十分有益。
完成一篇成功的论文需要多方面人力的投入。试验性读者是必须的，他们可以确保整篇故事起作用，同时他们也能够给出具有价值的意见，如论文的那一部分看上去进程过快或者过慢，此外他们也能够明确在什么时候最好需要重头再来和重述整个故事。审稿人同样十分有用。不明确的反馈和表面上无聊的评论通常意味着审稿员并未找到重点的故事大纲。非常明确的反馈通常指出哪一段落的逻辑不够充分。
积极接受反馈至关重要。因为从别处获得反馈十分必要，拥有一群具有帮助性的同事是使文章令人印象深刻的根本条件，记住保持这些人脉，并且在必要时刻回报他们并且阅读他们的原稿。
Writing can be considered an optimization problem in which you simultaneously improve the story, the outline, and all the component sentences. In this context, it is important not to get too attached to one’s writing. In many cases, trashing entire paragraphs and rewriting is a faster way to produce good text than incremental editing.
There are multiple signs that further work is necessary on a manuscript (see Table 1). For example, if you, as the writer, cannot describe the entire outline of a paper to a colleague in a few minutes, then clearly a reader will not be able to. You need to further distill your story. Finding such violations of good writing helps to improve the paper at all levels.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619.t001
Successfully writing a paper typically requires input from multiple people. Test readers are necessary to make sure that the overall story works. They can also give valuable input on where the story appears to move too quickly or too slowly. They can clarify when it is best to go back to the drawing board and retell the entire story. Reviewers are also extremely useful. Non-specific feedback and unenthusiastic reviews often imply that the reviewers did not “get” the big picture story line. Very specific feedback usually points out places where the logic within a paragraph was not sufficient. It is vital to accept this feedback in a positive way. Because input from others is essential, a network of helpful colleagues is fundamental to making a story memorable. To keep this network working, make sure to pay back your colleagues by reading their manuscripts.
This paper focused on the structure, or “anatomy,” of manuscripts. We had to gloss over many finer points of writing, including word choice and grammar, the creative process, and collaboration. A paper about writing can never be complete; as such, there is a large body of literature dealing with issues of scientific writing [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].
Personal style often leads writers to deviate from a rigid, conserved structure, and it can be a delight to read a paper that creatively bends the rules. However, as with many other things in life, a thorough mastery of the standard rules is necessary to successfully bend them [18]. In following these guidelines, scientists will be able to address a broad audience, bridge disciplines, and more effectively enable integrative science.
1.Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102: 16569–16572. pmid:16275915
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar
2.Acuna DE, Allesina S, Kording KP (2012) Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature. 489: 201–202. pmid:22972278
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar
3.Paiva CE, Lima JPSN, Paiva BSR (2012) Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often. Clinics. 67: 509–513. pmid:22666797
View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar
4.Carter M (2012) Designing Science Presentations: A Visual Guide to Figures, Papers, Slides, Posters, and More: Academic Press.
5.Murdock BB Jr (1968) Serial order effects in short-term memory. J Exp Psychol. 76: Suppl:1–15.
6.Schimel J (2012) Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. USA: OUP.
7.Tufte ER (1990) Envisioning information. Graphics Press.
8.Tufte ER The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press.
9.Lisberger SG (2011) From Science to Citation: How to Publish a Successful Scientific Paper. Stephen Lisberger.
10.Simons D (2012) Dan's writing and revising guide. http://www.dansimons.com/resources/Simons_on_writing.pdf [cited 2017 Sep 9].
11.Sørensen C (1994) This is Not an Article—Just Some Thoughts on How to Write One. Syöte, Finland: Oulu University, 46–59.
12.Day R (1988) How to write and publish a scientific paper. Phoenix: Oryx.
13.Lester JD, Lester J (1967) Writing research papers. Scott, Foresman.
14.Dumont J-L (2009) Trees, Maps, and Theorems. Principiae. http://www.treesmapsandtheorems.com/ [cited 2017 Sep 9].
15.Pinker S (2014) The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. Viking Adult.
16.Bern D (1987) Writing the empirical journal. The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist. 171.
17.George GD, Swan JA (1990) The science of scientific writing. Am Sci. 78: 550–558.
18.Strunk W (2007) The elements of style. Penguin.
PLOS Computational Biology 的这篇文章向我们提出了十大原则，试图点出论文写作最需要注意的问题。遵循这些写作原则可以让你的论文更具吸引力，同时提高写作效率。
注：本文选自PLOS compbiol，作者Brett Mensh、Konrad Kording。
