academic-writing-standards

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Academic Writing Standards

学术写作标准

This skill provides expertise in academic writing standards for peer-reviewed research papers, ensuring clarity, rigour, and adherence to scientific writing conventions.

本技能提供同行评审研究论文的学术写作标准专业指导，确保内容清晰、严谨且符合科学写作惯例。

Core Writing Principles

核心写作原则

Clarity and Directness

清晰与直接

Prioritise:

Clarity over eloquence
Precision over persuasion
Simple constructions over complex ones
Active voice wherever possible

Avoid:

Unnecessary adjectives and adverbs
Overstatement and hyperbole
Excessive qualification ("very", "clearly", "significantly", "novel")
Complex punctuation where simpler alternatives work

优先遵循：

清晰胜于华丽
精准胜于说服
简洁结构胜于复杂句式
尽可能使用主动语态

避免：

不必要的形容词和副词
夸张和过度表述
过多限定词（"very"、"clearly"、"significantly"、"novel"）
在可用简单替代方案时使用复杂标点

Style Transformations

风格转换

Examples of preferred style:

Wordy: "The results clearly demonstrate that the novel approach significantly outperforms existing methods"
Better: "The approach outperforms existing methods"

Complex: "The model—which incorporates multiple data sources; including case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data—provides insights"
Better: "The model incorporates case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data. It provides insights"

Passive: "It was found that the infection rate was increasing"
Active: "We found the infection rate increased"

Hedged: "It appears that the results seem to suggest that there might be a relationship"
Direct: "The results suggest a relationship"

推荐风格示例：

冗余表述："The results clearly demonstrate that the novel approach significantly outperforms existing methods"
优化后："The approach outperforms existing methods"

复杂句式："The model—which incorporates multiple data sources; including case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data—provides insights"
优化后："The model incorporates case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data. It provides insights"

被动语态："It was found that the infection rate was increasing"
主动语态："We found the infection rate increased"

模糊表述："It appears that the results seem to suggest that there might be a relationship"
直接表述："The results suggest a relationship"

Punctuation Simplification

标点简化

Avoid semicolons when possible:

Avoid: "The model includes three components; case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
Better: "The model includes three components: case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
Or: "The model includes three components. These are case counts, delays, and reporting rates"

Avoid excessive em-dashes:

Avoid: "The approach—which we developed over three years—shows promise"
Better: "The approach shows promise. We developed it over three years"

Simplify nested clauses:

Avoid: "The method, which incorporates data from multiple sources, including surveillance systems, which track cases daily, and laboratory reports, provides estimates"
Better: "The method incorporates data from surveillance systems and laboratory reports. It provides estimates"

尽可能避免使用分号：

不推荐："The model includes three components; case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
推荐："The model includes three components: case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
或："The model includes three components. These are case counts, delays, and reporting rates"

避免过度使用破折号：

不推荐："The approach—which we developed over three years—shows promise"
推荐："The approach shows promise. We developed it over three years"

简化嵌套从句：

不推荐："The method, which incorporates data from multiple sources, including surveillance systems, which track cases daily, and laboratory reports, provides estimates"
推荐："The method incorporates data from surveillance systems and laboratory reports. It provides estimates"

Formatting Standards

格式标准

Document Structure

文档结构

One sentence per line in markdown format
Maximum 80 characters per line
UK English spelling (favour, colour, modelling, analyse)
No trailing whitespace
No spurious blank lines

Markdown格式下每行一个句子
每行最多80个字符
英式英语拼写（favour、colour、modelling、analyse）
无尾随空格
无多余空行

Mathematical Notation

数学符号

Use proper LaTeX formatting in appropriate contexts
Define all notation clearly on first use
Keep mathematical exposition accessible

在合适场景使用标准LaTeX格式
首次使用时清晰定义所有符号
确保数学表述通俗易懂

Citation and Reference Standards

引用与参考文献标准

Citation Format Checking

引用格式检查

Common formats to verify:

Pandoc markdown:
```
[@author2024]
```
,
```
[@author2024; @other2023]
```
Multiple citations:
```
[@first2024; @second2024]
```
In-text citations:
```
@author2024 showed that...
```

需验证的常见格式：

Pandoc markdown：
```
[@author2024]
```
、
```
[@author2024; @other2023]
```
多引用：
```
[@first2024; @second2024]
```
正文中引用：
```
@author2024 showed that...
```

Reference Integrity

引用完整性

Check for:

Placeholder citations:
```
[@placeholder]
```
,
```
[@TODO]
```
,
```
[@CITE]
```
Malformed citations: Missing brackets, typos in citation keys
Dangling references: Citations in text without corresponding bibliography entries
Unused references: Bibliography entries never cited

Citation consistency:

Verify citation keys follow consistent naming (e.g.,
```
authorYear
```
,
```
author_year
```
)
Check citation formatting matches throughout document
Ensure proper use of et al. in multi-author citations

检查要点：

占位符引用：
```
[@placeholder]
```
、
```
[@TODO]
```
、
```
[@CITE]
```
格式错误的引用：缺少括号、引用键拼写错误
悬空引用：正文中有引用但参考文献中无对应条目
未使用的参考文献：参考文献条目从未被引用

引用一致性：

验证引用键命名一致（如
```
authorYear
```
、
```
author_year
```
）
检查全文引用格式匹配
确保多作者引用中正确使用et al.

Bibliography Verification

参考文献验证

When .bib file available:

Cross-reference every citation against bibliography
Check for missing entries
Verify citation keys match exactly
Note any formatting inconsistencies in bibliography

When .bib file unavailable:

Flag that references cannot be fully verified
Suggest author independently verify all citations
Check citation formatting consistency in text

当有.bib文件时：

将每个引用与参考文献交叉核对
检查缺失条目
验证引用键完全匹配
记录参考文献中的格式不一致问题

当无.bib文件时：

标注无法完全验证参考文献
建议作者独立验证所有引用
检查正文中引用格式的一致性

Originality and Attribution

原创性与署名

Identifying Potential Issues

识别潜在问题

Flag text that:

Uses distinctive phrasing that may be borrowed
Contains technical descriptions matching common sources
Includes sequences of concepts in specific order suggesting copying
Lacks clear paraphrasing when discussing others' work

Not plagiarism checking:

Cannot definitively identify plagiarism
Flags passages requiring author verification
Suggests paraphrasing where appropriate
Encourages proper attribution

标记以下文本：

使用可能借鉴的独特措辞
包含与常见来源匹配的技术描述
按特定顺序呈现概念序列，疑似抄袭
讨论他人工作时缺乏清晰改写

注意：非 plagiarism 检测

无法明确判定抄袭
标记需作者验证的段落
建议在合适处进行改写
鼓励正确署名

Proper Paraphrasing Guidance

正确改写指导

Poor paraphrasing:

Original: "The model incorporates a hierarchical Bayesian structure with conjugate priors"
Poor: "The approach uses a hierarchical Bayesian framework with conjugate priors"

Good paraphrasing:

Better: "We used Bayesian hierarchical modelling with conjugate prior distributions"

不佳的改写：

原文："The model incorporates a hierarchical Bayesian structure with conjugate priors"
改写不佳："The approach uses a hierarchical Bayesian framework with conjugate priors"

良好的改写：

改写优化："We used Bayesian hierarchical modelling with conjugate prior distributions"

Common Writing Issues

常见写作问题

Overused Qualifiers

过度使用限定词

Remove or replace:

"clearly", "obviously", "evidently" → Often unnecessary, let evidence speak
"very", "quite", "rather" → Use stronger base word
"significantly" → Reserve for statistical significance
"novel", "new" → Show novelty through comparison, don't claim it
"state-of-the-art" → Demonstrate through benchmarking

删除或替换：

"clearly"、"obviously"、"evidently" → 通常不必要，让证据说话
"very"、"quite"、"rather" → 使用更有力的基础词汇
"significantly" → 仅用于统计显著性表述
"novel"、"new" → 通过对比体现创新性，而非直接宣称
"state-of-the-art" → 通过基准测试证明

Vague Language

模糊语言

Replace with specifics:

Vague: "The model performed well"
Specific: "The model achieved 95% accuracy"

Vague: "We used a large dataset"
Specific: "We used a dataset of 10,000 cases"

Vague: "Results improved substantially"
Specific: "Accuracy improved from 80% to 92%"

替换为具体表述：

模糊："The model performed well"
具体："The model achieved 95% accuracy"

模糊："We used a large dataset"
具体："We used a dataset of 10,000 cases"

模糊："Results improved substantially"
具体："Accuracy improved from 80% to 92%"

Redundancy

冗余表述

Common redundancies to fix:

"past history" → "history"
"future plans" → "plans"
"end result" → "result"
"basic fundamentals" → "fundamentals"
"completely finished" → "finished"

需修正的常见冗余：

"past history" → "history"
"future plans" → "plans"
"end result" → "result"
"basic fundamentals" → "fundamentals"
"completely finished" → "finished"

Field-Specific Conventions

领域特定惯例

Epidemiology and Public Health

流行病学与公共卫生

Use "infection" not "case" when referring to true infections
Distinguish "reported cases" from "infections"
Use "reproduction number" not "R value" in formal writing
Define abbreviations on first use: "reproduction number (R)"

指代真实感染时用"infection"而非"case"
区分"reported cases"（报告病例）与"infections"（感染）
正式写作中用"reproduction number"而非"R value"
首次使用时定义缩写："reproduction number (R)"

Statistical Reporting

统计报告

Report confidence/credible intervals: "estimate (95% CI: lower, upper)"
Use "uncertainty interval" for Bayesian analyses
Report p-values accurately: "p < 0.001" not "p = 0.000"
Distinguish statistical significance from practical importance

报告置信区间/可信区间："estimate (95% CI: lower, upper)"
贝叶斯分析中使用"uncertainty interval"
准确报告p值："p < 0.001"而非"p = 0.000"
区分统计显著性与实际重要性

Computational Methods

计算方法

Use "implementation" not "coding"
"Algorithm" for theoretical description, "implementation" for code
Report computational resources when relevant
Specify software versions and packages

用"implementation"而非"coding"
"Algorithm"用于理论描述，"implementation"用于代码实现
相关时报告计算资源
指定软件版本和包

Review Structure

审阅结构

When reviewing academic writing, structure feedback as:

Reference Issues
- Citation formatting problems
- Placeholder citations
- Missing bibliography entries
- Inconsistencies in citation style
Attribution Concerns
- Passages requiring verification
- Suggestions for better paraphrasing
- Unclear sourcing of ideas
Style Improvements
- Clarity and conciseness suggestions
- Active voice conversions
- Simplified sentence structures
- Removed unnecessary qualifiers
Formatting Issues
- Line length violations
- Formatting inconsistencies
- Spelling (UK vs US English)

审阅学术写作时，按以下结构组织反馈：

引用问题
- 引用格式错误
- 占位符引用
- 缺失参考文献条目
- 引用风格不一致
署名问题
- 需验证的段落
- 优化改写的建议
- 思路来源不清晰
风格改进
- 清晰性与简洁性建议
- 主动语态转换
- 简化句式结构
- 删除不必要的限定词
格式问题
- 行长度违规
- 格式不一致
- 拼写（英式vs美式英语）

When to Apply This Skill

适用场景

Use these standards when:

Reviewing academic manuscripts
Editing research papers
Preparing submissions to journals
Writing methods sections
Drafting discussion sections
Revising based on reviewer comments

Maintain scientific rigour whilst improving readability. Always provide specific, actionable feedback with examples.

在以下场景应用本标准：

审阅学术手稿
编辑研究论文
准备期刊投稿
撰写方法部分
起草讨论部分
根据审稿意见修改

在提升可读性的同时保持学术严谨性。始终提供具体、可执行的反馈并附上示例。