Category: Scientific Research

1. 特定的组构
   

   狗的体内存在细胞，有机化合物；石头体内没有细胞、有机化合物。

2. 新陈代谢
   

   狗需要主动从外界获取能量，为体内的化学反应（也就是新陈代谢）提供能量；石头不需要主动从外界获取能量，便可存在。

3. 稳态和应激性
   

   狗体内的新陈代谢需要在一定的物理、化学条件（温度、pH等）下才能进行，这叫做稳态；狗有许多调节机制去维持这种条件的相对稳定，并且当环境发生某些改变时也能做到，这叫做应激性。石头体内存在化学反应，但是石头的稳定存在的最佳环境是不发生任何化学反应去改变石头的状态；当环境发生改变时，石头不会主动应答，也就是不存在应激性。

4. 生殖和遗传
   

   狗会主动产生子代，也就是进行生殖；产生的子代与亲本具有相似的性状，这叫做遗传。石头不会主动进行生殖活动，也就不存在遗传。

5. 生长和发育
   

   狗会生长，他的细胞会从小变大，从少变多，狗也会发育，比如他的组织器官的形态建成、性成熟、衰老等。石头可能会变大，但是不存在发育。

6. 进化和适应
   

   狗不断生殖，也就是在不断进化，因为生殖产生子代必然会引入突变，无论是简单的SNV还是SV；通过发生这些突变，会生成一些新的性状，在群体范围内，带有不适应环境的新性状的个体被淘汰，适应的个体存活，使得群体朝着更加适应该环境的方向进化。石头没有生殖，所以没有进化；石头无论存在于哪里，都不会根据环境去调整自己，所以不存在适应。

7. 综述
   

   综上所述，狗和石头之间存在巨大的差别，而这种差别是广泛存在于生物和非生命体之间的。

8. 运动
   

   狗可以并且会自发运动，而石头不会自发运动；

9. foobar

设置编号样式

点击【多级列表】按钮→点击“定义新的多级列表”→点击“更多”；

地方

Name	Feature
Endnote	English
医学文献王	中文
Zotero	browser plugin
Refbase	耳闻

 

The Three Rs tenet (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) guides scientists on the ethical use of animals in science.

• Replacement refers to methods which avoid or replace the use of animals in an area where animals would otherwise have been used
• Reduction refers to any strategy that will result in fewer animals being used
• Refinement refers to the modification of husbandry or experimental procedures to minimize pain and distress

The Five Freedoms Are:

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst (by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour).
2. Freedom from discomfort (by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area).
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease (by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment).
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour (by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind).
5. Freedom from fear and distress (by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering).

related information:

http://www.ccac.ca/en_/standards/guidelines
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/three-rs.html
http://3rs.ccac.ca/en/about/animal-welfare.html

1. 杂志模板格式不太正确，需要调整？
   Edit -> Output Styles -> Edit “Journal_name”;

PhD2Published has several informative posts about writing journal articles, and more recently has featured a post outlining a potentially revolutionary collaborative peer review process for this kind of publishing. Todays post offers an alternative perspective; that of the journal article peer reviewer. Doing peer reviews provides important experience for those writing their own papers and may help writers consider what they should include based on what peer reviewers are looking for.

At some point in your scholarly career, you likely will get asked to review an article for a journal. In this post, I explain how I usually go about doing a peer review. I imagine that each scholar has their own way of doing this, but it might be helpful to talk openly about this task, which we generally complete in isolation.

Step One:  Accept the invitation to peer review. The first step in reviewing a journal article is to accept the invitation. When deciding whether or not to accept, take into consideration three things: 1) Do you have time to do the review by the deadline? 2) Is the article within your area of expertise? 3) Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline? Once you accept the invitation, set aside some time in your schedule to read the article and write the review.

Step Two: Read the article. I usually read the article with a pen in hand so that I can write my thoughts in the margins as I read. As I read, I underline parts of the article that seem important, write down any questions I have, and correct any mistakes I notice.

Step Three: Write a brief summary of the article and its contribution. When I am doing a peer review, I sometimes do it all in one sitting – which will take me about two hours – or I read it one day and write it the next. Often, I prefer to do the latter to give myself some time to think about the article and to process my thoughts. When writing a draft of the review, the first thing I do is summarize the article as best I can in three to four sentences. If I think favorably of the article and believe it should be published, I often will write a longer summary, and highlight the strengths of the article. Remember that even if you don’t have any (or very many) criticisms, you still need to write a review. Your critique and accolades may help convince the editor of the importance of the article. As you write up this summary, take into consideration the suitability of the article for the journal. If you are reviewing for the top journal in your field, for example, an article simply being factually correct and having a sound analysis is not enough for it to be published in that journal. Instead, it would need to change the way we think about some aspect of your field.

Step Four: Write out your major criticisms of the article. When doing a peer review, I usually begin with the larger issues and end with minutiae. Here are some major areas of criticism to consider:

–          Is the article well-organized?

–          Does the article contain all of the components you would expect (Introduction, Methods, Theory, Analysis, etc)?

–          Are the sections well-developed?

–          Does the author do a good job of synthesizing the literature?

–          Does the author answer the questions he/she sets out to answer?

–          Is the methodology clearly explained?

–          Does the theory connect to the data?

–          Is the article well-written and easy to understand?

–          Are you convinced by the author’s results? Why or why not?

Step Five: Write out any minor criticisms of the article.  Once you have laid out the pros and cons of the article, it is perfectly acceptable (and often welcome) for you to point out that the table on page 3 is mislabeled, that the author wrote “compliment” instead of “complement” on page 7, or other minutiae. Correcting those minor errors will make the author’s paper look more professional if it goes out for another peer review, and certainly will have to be corrected before being accepted for publication.

Step Six: Review. Go over your review and make sure that it makes sense and that you are communicating your critiques and suggestions in as helpful a way as possible.

Finally, I will say that, when writing a review, be mindful that you are critiquing the article in question – not the author. Thus, make sure your critiques are constructive. For example, it is not appropriate to write: “The author clearly has not read any Foucault.” Instead, say: “The analysis of Foucault is not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.” Also, be careful not to write: “The author is a poor writer.” Instead, you can say: “This article would benefit from a close editing. I found it difficult to follow the author’s argument due to the many stylistic and grammatical errors.” Although you are an anonymous reviewer, the Editor knows who you are, and it never looks good when you make personal attacks on others. So, in addition to being nice, it is in your best interest.

1

2003,10（21）而不是2003，10（1）

2.