mirror of
https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills.git
synced 2026-01-26 16:58:56 +08:00
Enhance citation management and literature review guidelines
- Updated SKILL.md in citation management to include best practices for identifying seminal and high-impact papers, emphasizing citation count thresholds, venue quality tiers, and author reputation indicators. - Expanded literature review SKILL.md to prioritize high-impact papers, detailing citation metrics, journal tiers, and author reputation assessment. - Added comprehensive evaluation strategies for paper impact and quality in literature_search_strategies.md, including citation count significance and journal impact factor guidance. - Improved research lookup scripts to prioritize results based on citation count, venue prestige, and author reputation, enhancing the quality of research outputs.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
|
||||
# Nature/Science Abstract Examples
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of well-crafted abstracts for high-impact multidisciplinary journals. These demonstrate the flowing paragraph style with broad accessibility expected at Nature, Science, and related venues.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 1: Molecular Biology / Cell Biology
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic**: CRISPR gene editing discovery
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
The ability to precisely edit DNA sequences in living cells has transformed
|
||||
biological research and holds promise for treating genetic diseases. However,
|
||||
current genome editing tools can introduce unwanted mutations at off-target
|
||||
sites, limiting their clinical potential. Here we describe prime editing, a
|
||||
versatile and precise genome editing method that directly writes new genetic
|
||||
information into a specified DNA site using a reverse transcriptase fused to a
|
||||
CRISPR nickase. Prime editing can make all 12 types of point mutations, as
|
||||
well as small insertions and deletions, with minimal off-target editing and
|
||||
without requiring double-strand breaks or donor DNA templates. In human cells,
|
||||
we used prime editing to correct the primary genetic causes of sickle cell
|
||||
disease and Tay-Sachs disease, and to install protective mutations that
|
||||
reduce risk of prion disease. Prime editing expands the scope and capabilities
|
||||
of genome editing and may address approximately 89% of known human genetic
|
||||
disease variants.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works**:
|
||||
- Opens with broad significance (genetic disease treatment)
|
||||
- States the problem clearly (off-target mutations)
|
||||
- Describes the approach accessibly ("writes new genetic information")
|
||||
- Includes specific results (all 12 point mutations, specific diseases)
|
||||
- Ends with quantified impact (89% of variants)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 2: Neuroscience
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic**: Memory consolidation mechanism
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Sleep is essential for memory consolidation, yet how the sleeping brain
|
||||
transforms labile memories into stable long-term representations remains
|
||||
poorly understood. We used multi-site electrophysiology in freely behaving
|
||||
mice to record the activity of thousands of neurons across hippocampus and
|
||||
cortex during learning and subsequent sleep. We discovered that specific
|
||||
neurons that encode a newly learned memory reactivate in precisely timed
|
||||
sequences during slow-wave sleep, with hippocampal reactivation preceding
|
||||
cortical reactivation by 10-15 milliseconds. Optogenetic disruption of this
|
||||
temporal coordination impaired memory retention by 78%, whereas artificial
|
||||
enhancement of the temporal relationship strengthened memories beyond normal
|
||||
levels. These results reveal that the temporal ordering of hippocampal-cortical
|
||||
replay is not merely correlative but causally necessary for memory
|
||||
consolidation. Our findings suggest new therapeutic approaches for memory
|
||||
disorders based on optimizing the temporal dynamics of sleep.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works**:
|
||||
- Connects to well-known phenomenon (sleep and memory)
|
||||
- States what was unknown
|
||||
- Describes approach (multi-site recordings)
|
||||
- Key finding with specific number (10-15 ms)
|
||||
- Causal evidence (disruption and enhancement experiments)
|
||||
- Broader implications (therapeutic approaches)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 3: Climate Science
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic**: Carbon cycle feedback
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Arctic permafrost contains approximately 1,500 billion tonnes of organic
|
||||
carbon—twice the amount currently in the atmosphere. As the Arctic warms,
|
||||
this carbon may be released to the atmosphere, accelerating global warming
|
||||
through a positive feedback loop. However, the magnitude and timing of this
|
||||
feedback remain highly uncertain because microbial decomposition rates in
|
||||
thawing permafrost are poorly constrained. Here we present a 15-year
|
||||
field experiment across 25 sites spanning the Arctic, tracking carbon
|
||||
fluxes in warming permafrost under natural conditions. We find that
|
||||
microbial respiration increases exponentially with temperature until soils
|
||||
reach 3°C, then plateaus due to substrate limitation—a threshold effect
|
||||
not captured by current Earth system models. Our results suggest that
|
||||
permafrost carbon feedback will be 30-50% lower than current projections
|
||||
during this century, providing more time to limit warming, but will
|
||||
accelerate dramatically if deep permafrost begins to thaw.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works**:
|
||||
- Opens with striking number (1,500 billion tonnes)
|
||||
- Clear problem statement (feedback uncertainty)
|
||||
- Specific methodology (15 years, 25 sites)
|
||||
- Novel finding (threshold at 3°C)
|
||||
- Implications both reassuring and cautionary
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 4: Physics / Materials Science
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic**: Room-temperature superconductivity
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Superconductivity—the flow of electricity without resistance—has been
|
||||
confined to extremely low temperatures since its discovery over a century
|
||||
ago, limiting practical applications. The recent demonstration of
|
||||
superconductivity in hydrogen-rich materials at high pressure has raised
|
||||
hopes for higher transition temperatures, but achieving room-temperature
|
||||
superconductivity at ambient pressure has remained elusive. Here we report
|
||||
superconductivity at 21°C (294 K) in a nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride
|
||||
(Lu-N-H) compound at pressures of approximately 1 GPa—nearly ambient
|
||||
conditions. Electrical resistance drops to zero below the transition
|
||||
temperature with a sharp transition width of 2 K, and we observe the Meissner
|
||||
effect confirming bulk superconductivity. Density functional theory
|
||||
calculations suggest that nitrogen incorporation stabilizes the high-symmetry
|
||||
structure that enables strong electron-phonon coupling. These results
|
||||
establish a pathway toward practical room-temperature superconductors.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works**:
|
||||
- Opens with accessible explanation of significance
|
||||
- Historical context (century-old limitation)
|
||||
- Precise results (21°C, 1 GPa, 2 K transition width)
|
||||
- Multiple lines of evidence (resistance + Meissner effect)
|
||||
- Theoretical explanation briefly included
|
||||
- Forward-looking conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Example 5: Evolution / Ecology
|
||||
|
||||
**Topic**: Rapid evolution in response to climate
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Climate change is driving rapid shifts in the geographic distributions of
|
||||
species, but whether organisms can adapt quickly enough to keep pace with
|
||||
warming remains a critical question for biodiversity conservation. Here we
|
||||
document real-time evolution in wild populations of a widespread forest tree,
|
||||
Scots pine, along a 1,000 km latitudinal gradient in Scandinavia. By combining
|
||||
whole-genome sequencing with phenotypic measurements across 25 common gardens,
|
||||
we detect signatures of selection at 47 loci associated with cold tolerance,
|
||||
phenology, and drought resistance over just 50 years—approximately
|
||||
five tree generations. Alleles conferring warmer-adapted phenotypes have
|
||||
increased in frequency by 4-12% across northern populations, matching
|
||||
predictions from models of climate-driven selection. However, migration of
|
||||
warm-adapted genotypes from the south appears limited by geographic barriers.
|
||||
These results demonstrate that trees can evolve rapidly in response to
|
||||
climate change but suggest that assisted gene flow may be necessary to
|
||||
prevent local maladaptation.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this works**:
|
||||
- Opens with pressing question (climate adaptation)
|
||||
- Specific system (Scots pine) and scale (1,000 km)
|
||||
- Methods described briefly (genomics + common gardens)
|
||||
- Quantitative results (47 loci, 4-12% frequency shift, 5 generations)
|
||||
- Mechanism identified (limited migration)
|
||||
- Conservation implications stated
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Elements Across Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Structure (Implicit)
|
||||
1. **Hook**: Why this matters broadly (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Gap**: What was unknown or problematic (1 sentence)
|
||||
3. **Approach**: What was done (1 sentence)
|
||||
4. **Findings**: Key results with numbers (2-3 sentences)
|
||||
5. **Significance**: Why this matters going forward (1 sentence)
|
||||
|
||||
### Style Features
|
||||
- **Active voice**: "We discovered," "We find," "We report"
|
||||
- **Specific numbers**: Exact values, not vague quantities
|
||||
- **Accessible language**: Minimal jargon, explained when needed
|
||||
- **Compelling opening**: Broad hook before technical details
|
||||
- **Strong close**: Implications or future directions
|
||||
|
||||
### Word Count
|
||||
- Nature: 150-200 words (examples above: 185-210 words)
|
||||
- Science: ≤125 words (would need tightening)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Too technical opening**:
|
||||
> "The CRISPR-Cas9 system with guide RNA targeting PAM sequences..."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Better opening**:
|
||||
> "The ability to precisely edit DNA in living cells..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Vague results**:
|
||||
> "Our method significantly outperformed existing approaches..."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Better results**:
|
||||
> "Our method reduced off-target editing by 78% compared to standard Cas9..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Weak significance statement**:
|
||||
> "These findings may have implications for the field..."
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **Better significance**:
|
||||
> "These findings suggest new therapeutic approaches for memory disorders..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## See Also
|
||||
|
||||
- `nature_science_style.md` - Comprehensive Nature/Science writing guide
|
||||
- `venue_writing_styles.md` - Style comparison across venues
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user