我最近准备写自己第一篇SCI文章了，但愿能顺利接受，呵呵
简单谈一下我的写作体会
1. 那就是专业表达方面，其实我想自己在写文章之前，肯定已经看过大量的与论文相关方面的文献了，这样自己写到哪方面，可以从文献中相应部分找出典型的部分，至少也得10篇左右，看他们的表达方法，这里要说的是最好找那些母语是英语国家的人发表的文章，如果不是，呵呵，没准可能会误入歧途了。
2. 再有就是abstract 部分，我觉得句型很重要，一般的杂志大都有一些相对固定的说法和格式，多研究已发过的文章，其句型并不一定符合语法规则的，但却真的需要模仿。
3. introduction 部分，自己可得下功夫了，不能简单的复制粘贴，我想最好还是自己认真总结，仔细揣摩表达方法。我曾帮导师审过一篇文章，里面这部分基本都是从已发表两篇文章copy下来了。这样的态度，文章我想十有八九会被据的。
4. 谈基本功，这对我们才是至关重要的，我想最好平时有个本子，把平时自己看文献是感兴趣的地道的表达方法记下来，最好过几天背一遍，记到自己心里，再好不过了
5。 自己写完文章后，最好多找几个人帮着看看，有些表达自己怎么看都觉得正确，可到别人眼里，毛病一眼就看出来了，多集思广益嘛，呵呵
先简单写这些体会吧
I am so glad to see all the insightful remarks here. In my humble opinions, what may be helpful are -
1. Read more papers composed by "native English speaker", then you will learn their writing style without noticing.
2. Choose a good thesaurus AND a good dictionary. They will lend you the most precise understanding of terms.
3. Most importantly, focus on the idea you are trying to convey in your essay, as that is what matters!
要么不学英语的语法,要么就学懂薄冰的那本英语语法.呵呵.
1、宣传自己——说明论文的重要性
流程：
a）问题X是重要的。
b）前人的工作A、B曾经研究过这个问题。
c）A、B有一些缺陷。
d）我们提出了方法D。
e）对D进行实验，和A、B进行比较。
f）实验证明D比A、B优越。
g）解释为什么D是更优的，而其他的思路（比如E）是不行的。
h）阐述D的有效性和局限性。
i）D的进一步发展的讨论。
结束语：文章的总结，要回答研究出什么,简洁指出。
1由研究结果所揭示的原理及其普遍性 2研究中有无例外或本论文尚难以解决的问题
3与以前已经发表的论文的异同 4在理论与实上的意义5对进一步研究的建议
看完大家的回贴，收获不小! 再把偶的两点看法和大家一起交流!
1. 外文科技期刊一般都要求IMRAD结构，即Induction,Material&Mathod,Results and Disscussion
2. 老板始终要求我们多读同领域欧美国家作者的文献，并把经典的表达句子摘录下来，自己写文章时候活用
没有语法错误、拼写错误，不代表是一篇地道的英语论文。
我自己写的英文文章不多，但看得不少，给我的我感觉是中国写的英文文章与老外还是有明显区别：，中国写的容易读懂，老外写得就得费些力气。这是由中外思维习惯决定的，中国是按中国人思维写的，所以我们很容易读懂，而我们与老外的思维习惯不一样，所以他们写的东东，得转换一下思维才会领悟。
SCI 投稿语言技巧
一、投稿信
1. Dear Dr. Defendi ML:
I am sending a manuscript entitled “” by – which I should like to submit for possible publication in the journal of - .
Yours sincerely
2. Dear Dr. A:
Enclosed is a manuscript entitled “” by sb, which we are submitting for publication in the journal of - . We have chosen this journal because it deals with - . We believe that sth would be of interest to the journal’s readers.
3. Dear Dr. A:
Please find enclosed for your review an original research article, “” by sb. All authors have read and approve this version of the article, and due care has been taken to ensure the integrity of the work. No part of this paper has published or submitted elsewhere. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and we have attached to this letter the signed letter granting us permission to use Figure 1 from another source.
We appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.
二、询问有无收到稿件
Dear Editors,
We dispatched our manuscript to your journal on 3 August 2006 but have not, as yet, receive acknowledgement of their safe arrival. We fear that may have been lost and should be grateful if you would let us know whether or not you have received them. If not, we will send our manuscript again. Thank you in advance for your help.
三、询问论文审查回音
Dear Editors，
It is more than 12 weeks since I submitted our manuscript (No: ) for possible publication in your journal. I have not yet received a reply and am wondering whether you have reached a decision. I should appreciated your letting me know what you have decided as soon as possible.
四、关于论文的总体审查意见
1. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revision are list below.
2. This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying and certain statements require further justification. There are given below.
3. Although these observation are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in PNAS. We suggest that the authors try submitting their findings to specialist journal such as –
4. Although this paper is good, it would be ever better if some extra data were added.
5. This manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal of – because the main observation it describe was reported 3 years ago in a reputable journal of - .
6. Please ask someone familiar with English language to help you rewrite this paper. As you will see, I have made some correction at the beginning of the paper where some syntax is not satisfactory.
7. We feel that this potentially interesting study has been marred by an inability to communicate the finding correctly in English and should like to suggest that the authors seek the advice of someone with a good knowledge of English, preferable native speaker.
8. The wording and style of some section, particularly those concerning HPLC, need careful editing. Attention should be paid to the wording of those parts of the Discussion of and Summary which have been underlined.
9. Preliminary experiments only have been done and with exception of that summarized in Table 2, none has been repeated. This is clearly unsatisfactory, particularly when there is so much variation between assays.
10. The condition of incubation are poorly defined. What is the temperature? Were antibody used?
五、给编辑的回信
1. In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that –
One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1. This has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3, paragraph 1 (line 3-8) and 2 (line 6-11). These do not affect our interpretation of the result.
2. I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lake toxicity data. I admit that I did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.
3. Thank you for your letter of – and for the referee’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “”. We have studied their comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with their approval.
4. I enclosed a revised manuscript which includes a report of additional experiments done at the referee’s suggestion. You will see that our original findings are confirmed.
5. We are sending the revised manuscript according to the comments of the reviewers. Revised portion are underlined in red.
6. We found the referee’s comments most helpful and have revised the manuscript
7. We are pleased to note the favorable comments of reviewers in their opening sentence.
8. Thank you for your letter. I am very pleased to learn that our manuscript is acceptable for publication in Cancer Research with minor revision.
9. We have therefore completed a further series of experiments, the result of which are summarized in Table 5. From this we conclude that intrinsic factor is not account.
10. We deleted the relevant passage since they are not essential to the contents of the paper.
11. I feel that the reviewer’s comments concerning Figures 1 and 2 result from a misinterpretation of the data.
12. We would have include a non-protein inhibitor in our system, as a control, if one had been available.
13. We prefer to retain the use of Table 4 for reasons that it should be clear from the new paragraph inserted at the end of the Results section.
14. Although reviewer does not consider it is important to measure the temperature of the cells, we consider it essential.
15. The running title has been changed to “”.
16. The Materials and Methods section now includes details for measuring uptake of isotope and assaying hexokinase.
17. The concentration of HAT media (page12 paragraph 2) was incorrectly stated in the original manuscript. This has been rectified. The authors are grateful to the referees for pointing out their error.
18. As suggested by both referees, a discussion of the possibility of laser action on chromosome has been included (page16, paragraph 2).
19. We included a new set of photographs with better definition than those originally submitted and to which a scale has been added.
20. Following the suggestion of the referees, we have redraw Figure 3 and 4.
21. Two further papers, published since our original submission, have been added to the text and Reference section. These are:
22. We should like to thank the referees for their helpful comments and hope that we have now produced a more balance and better account of our work. We trust that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication.
23. I greatly appreciate both your help and that of the referees concerning improvement to this paper. I hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.
24. I should like to express my appreciation to you and the referees for suggesting how to improve our paper.
25. I apologize for the delay in revising the manuscript. This was due to our doing an additional experiment, as suggested by referees.
多看文献，培养英式的思维很重要。英语文章中，尤其是科技文献中长句子的使用非常多，可以说英语是“句中句”，且其中每个句子都有独立的意思，这一点跟汉语有很大不同。其次，国人更习惯于用主动语态，而我们看到的科技文献中使用被动语态势占据大多数。
总之，常看，加模仿对我们的写作是有帮助的。
这些仅是鄙人的一些观点，仅供参考！
多看文献，培养英式的思维，直接用英语写，用英语思维写，否则就是中翻英，惨不忍睹了。其实有时候可以借鉴国外的同行怎么写的。
最关键的还是要多看原版的科技文章，看看别人怎么用词的，就会慢慢的纠正自己的错误用法。
比如，我以前翻译“看看”用的就是Hava a look，实际上这个就是不符合外国人的用法，人家都用的是take a look。再有我们喜欢用how do you think，其实这个也不是人家老外的用法，总之一条就是多看，多读，多写，水平自然会提高的，^_^
对我们来说，写出地道的本土英语确实不容易。我感觉，我们写的英语总是非常口语话。另外就是找不到某个精确的词去表达自己想要表达的意思。有时候，我们用的一些词，虽意思相近，可人家可能根本不用。所以在写科技论文时，应该多参考外国人写的，另外，遇到单词表述时，最好看看别人是怎么表述的，免的犯错。
我觉得科技英语最重要的是要对专业词汇的掌握，即时你英语再好，没有足够的专业词汇知识是没有用的
一定要知道你这个专业用英语怎么说
你这个专业最重要的概念用英语怎么表达
这些都挺重要的
呵呵，我的观点或许会让你们大跌眼镜。
当然，这个观点是一个语言演化的观点。就像long time no see也逐渐被老外所接受一样，其实语言归根结蒂是交流的产物，而它是最能体现错误重复一千遍也变成正确的典型例子了。以前语文课本里拿来举例说是病句的什么“觊觎”“染指”，现在用得可滥了……大家也都一笑而过了。包容，其实是多元价值的体现。
不过话还是说回来。在科技文献里，有这么几点比较原则性的东西：1 语态多用被动，突出研究的内容；2 时态多用过去时，因为是你做过的东西发表；3 措辞相对严谨，就像福楼拜说的那样，只有唯一的一个词可以说明当时的状况。科技文献毕竟不能用来开玩笑，也不是要你拿来做语言进化用的，还是按老外的观点来咯。：）
今年我们硕士论文答辩时，很多同学的abstract出现了许多问题。主要集中在：使用第一人称如we think，i consider 等，科技论文一定要用被动；一些同学直接用软件翻译，不符语法机构；时态问题，最好用过去时；用词不准，且应用专业术语；要想写好英语科技论文，一定要多看native相关专业文献
如何发表和写作SCI文章
这本书也不错：
Writing for Science and Engineering
下载：www.ccebook.cn/books/Writing-Science-Engineering-Presentations-Reports.html
1.专门的英语科技词汇不能搞错，严格核对．
2.既然汉译中是不可避免的,但要尽量避免叙述重复.
3.其实多看看英语国家的科技论文,文章的结构可以借鉴.
以下是我在写科技英语类论文时认为比较有价值的几点：
（1）用词精确，传递信息，表达意义。科技论文非常重视词语的“精”、“准”。
以我以前写的几篇文章为例：
例一
改前：Our measurement are not precise because the experimental apparatus was in poor condition.
改后：Our measurement are not precise because the scale was not working properly.
我给老外改时，他说“the experimental apparatus was in poor condition”太含糊，不准确，你没有说“poor”的具体方面；
体会之一：这次老外才点头，说这才像科技论文。我第一次体会了科技论文和一般英语论文的差别。
例二
改前：Water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen.
审稿人说：comprised一词不正确，它表示“包括”，多用动态。正确应为：
改后：Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
体会之二：以前贯用了“金山词霸”等软件写英语文章，如今看来，同义词不仅要看译后的中文意思，还是深入到它的本质内涵。
（2）用尽量少的同义词——这也是我在发表SCI时，Reviewer提醒的。
改前：Data security is ... . Information security ... .
改后：Data security is ... . Data security ... .
体会之三：原来英语写作中，老师经常要我们使用同义词来避免上下文用词重复，使文章不单调；但是，科技论文要“客观、直接”，过多地用同义词，反而容易误导读者。
（3）用词要平易简单——这是我第一次感受到科技论文的文风
改前：In that case, Eq(1) holds based on the fact that ...
改后：In that case, Eq(1) holds because ...
改前：... during the cause of ...
改后：... while ...
体会之四：原来英语写作中，老师希望我们写长句，复杂句型；但这不是科技论文的风格。以前我老是习惯的用for the purpose of，现在知道了，在科技论文中就要用for，否则太花哨了。
（4）多用具体名词，少用抽象名词
最近一次投的SCI中，评审老师又回复我说：英语的名词在具体与抽象的选择中，具体名词应该成为首选，而抽象往往不能清晰准确。
改前：The existing nature of Mount St. Helens' volcanic ash spewage was handled through the applied use of computer modeling capabilities.
改后：With Cray computers, we modeled how much ash spewed from Mount St. Helens.
体会之五：改前的名词nature, spewage , capabilities过于虚泛、含混，为了显耀深奥而故弄玄虚是不良文风，而使用具体的词才能使语言形象、清晰。
（5）把握好句子的长度和复杂度
一次SCI专家讲座中，提到“科技论文的句子不要太长，太复杂；有长句的话，可以拆分为几个短句处理”。
改前：It is desirable that, if danger becomes even greater, it will be possible to apply the brakes automatically under specific conditions.
改后：If danger becomes even greater, it is desirable to apply the brakes automatically under specific condition.
体会之六：改前我写的It is desirable 和 it will be possible两个类似的结构放在一起，很累赘，老师叫我删掉一个。
以上，我给大家讲了我自己写科技文章时的一点体会和走的路程，许多时候我们学的理论很多，但是真的用上时，却发现还是会时刻在犯同样的错误，也许是练得太少。希望能多投多练，这样科技论文的水平一定会不断提高的。
最后和大家分享一点：Practice makes perfect. 我觉得自己“练”是最最主要的，不怕第一次写得拙，就像李扬说的“I like a losing face.”
正在学习，但我的体会是：
一是主语一般多用第三人称，少用第一人称
二是时态多用一般时，少用过去时或将来时
三是语态多用被动，少用主动
三是词语多用正式词语，少用口语化的词语。
想写好科技论文，首先你得知道英文的科技论文是啥样的。没捷径，多读吧，这东西就算你不用心去记也有潜移默化的效果，熟读唐诗三百首，再笨的也能哼哼点儿打油诗出来。当然能主动去记忆，去用就更快了。体会大家都说得差不多了，就提两个比较少有人说的：
第一个语态问题，过去要求用被动，现在越来越多的也用主动语态，所以不是一个很大的毛病。
第二个是文章的题目，俺只要看到"A Study of.."之类的题目开头就知道是非英语国家的。这个A Study of ...完全多余，在英语国家研究人员的文章题目上绝对看不到这个。想写得好，从题目开始抓。