mirror of
https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills.git
synced 2026-03-27 07:09:27 +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:
Vinayak Agarwal
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
|
||||
# Venue Writing Styles: Master Guide
|
||||
|
||||
This guide provides an overview of how writing style varies across publication venues. Understanding these differences is essential for crafting papers that read like authentic publications at each venue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated**: 2024
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Style Spectrum
|
||||
|
||||
Scientific writing style exists on a spectrum from **broadly accessible** to **deeply technical**:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Accessible ◄─────────────────────────────────────────────► Technical
|
||||
|
||||
Nature/Science PNAS Cell IEEE Trans NeurIPS Specialized
|
||||
│ │ │ │ │ Journals
|
||||
│ │ │ │ │ │
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
General Mixed Deep Field Dense ML Expert
|
||||
audience depth biology experts researchers only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Style Reference
|
||||
|
||||
| Venue Type | Audience | Tone | Voice | Abstract Style |
|
||||
|------------|----------|------|-------|----------------|
|
||||
| **Nature/Science** | Educated non-specialists | Accessible, engaging | Active, first-person OK | Flowing paragraphs, no jargon |
|
||||
| **Cell Press** | Biologists | Mechanistic, precise | Mixed | Summary + eTOC blurb + Highlights |
|
||||
| **Medical (NEJM/Lancet)** | Clinicians | Evidence-focused | Formal | Structured (Background/Methods/Results/Conclusions) |
|
||||
| **PLOS/BMC** | Researchers | Standard academic | Neutral | IMRaD structured or flowing |
|
||||
| **IEEE/ACM** | Engineers/CS | Technical | Passive common | Concise, technical |
|
||||
| **ML Conferences** | ML researchers | Dense technical | Mixed | Numbers upfront, key results |
|
||||
| **NLP Conferences** | NLP researchers | Technical | Varied | Task-focused, benchmarks |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## High-Impact Journals (Nature, Science, Cell)
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
High-impact multidisciplinary journals prioritize **broad significance** over technical depth. The question is not "Is this technically sound?" but "Why should a scientist outside this field care?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Writing Principles
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Start with the big picture**: Open with why this matters to science/society
|
||||
2. **Minimize jargon**: Define specialized terms; prefer common words
|
||||
3. **Tell a story**: Results should flow as a narrative, not a data dump
|
||||
4. **Emphasize implications**: What does this change about our understanding?
|
||||
5. **Accessible figures**: Schematics and models over raw data plots
|
||||
|
||||
### Structural Differences
|
||||
|
||||
**Nature/Science** vs. **Specialized Journals**:
|
||||
|
||||
| Element | Nature/Science | Specialized Journal |
|
||||
|---------|---------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| Introduction | 3-4 paragraphs, broad → specific | Extensive literature review |
|
||||
| Methods | Often in supplement or brief | Full detail in main text |
|
||||
| Results | Organized by finding/story | Organized by experiment |
|
||||
| Discussion | Implications first, then caveats | Detailed comparison to literature |
|
||||
| Figures | Conceptual schematics valued | Raw data emphasized |
|
||||
|
||||
### Example: Same Finding, Different Styles
|
||||
|
||||
**Nature style**:
|
||||
> "We discovered that protein X acts as a molecular switch controlling cell fate decisions during development, resolving a longstanding question about how stem cells choose their destiny."
|
||||
|
||||
**Specialized journal style**:
|
||||
> "Using CRISPR-Cas9 knockout in murine embryonic stem cells (mESCs), we demonstrate that protein X (encoded by gene ABC1) regulates the expression of pluripotency factors Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog through direct promoter binding, as confirmed by ChIP-seq analysis (n=3 biological replicates, FDR < 0.05)."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Medical Journals (NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ)
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
Medical journals prioritize **clinical relevance** and **patient outcomes**. Every finding must connect to practice.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Writing Principles
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Patient-centered language**: "Patients receiving treatment X" not "Treatment X subjects"
|
||||
2. **Evidence strength**: Careful hedging based on study design
|
||||
3. **Clinical actionability**: "So what?" for practicing physicians
|
||||
4. **Absolute numbers**: Report absolute risk reduction, not just relative
|
||||
5. **Structured abstracts**: Required with labeled sections
|
||||
|
||||
### Structured Abstract Format (Medical)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Background: [1-2 sentences on problem and rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
Methods: [Study design, setting, participants, intervention, outcomes, analysis]
|
||||
|
||||
Results: [Primary outcome with confidence intervals, secondary outcomes, adverse events]
|
||||
|
||||
Conclusions: [Clinical implications, limitations acknowledged]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Evidence Language Conventions
|
||||
|
||||
| Study Design | Appropriate Language |
|
||||
|-------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| RCT | "Treatment X reduced mortality by..." |
|
||||
| Observational | "Treatment X was associated with reduced mortality..." |
|
||||
| Case series | "These findings suggest that treatment X may..." |
|
||||
| Case report | "This case illustrates that treatment X can..." |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## ML/AI Conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR)
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
ML conferences value **novelty**, **rigorous experiments**, and **reproducibility**. The focus is on advancing the state of the art with empirical evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Writing Principles
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Contribution bullets**: Numbered list in introduction stating exactly what's new
|
||||
2. **Baselines are critical**: Compare against strong, recent baselines
|
||||
3. **Ablations expected**: Show what parts of your method matter
|
||||
4. **Reproducibility**: Seeds, hyperparameters, compute requirements
|
||||
5. **Limitations section**: Honest acknowledgment (increasingly required)
|
||||
|
||||
### Introduction Structure (ML Conferences)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[Paragraph 1: Problem motivation - why this matters]
|
||||
|
||||
[Paragraph 2: Limitations of existing approaches]
|
||||
|
||||
[Paragraph 3: Our approach at high level]
|
||||
|
||||
Our contributions are as follows:
|
||||
• We propose [method name], a novel approach to [problem] that [key innovation].
|
||||
• We provide theoretical analysis showing [guarantees/properties].
|
||||
• We demonstrate state-of-the-art results on [benchmarks], improving over [baseline] by [X%].
|
||||
• We release code and models at [anonymous URL for review].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Abstract Style (ML Conferences)
|
||||
|
||||
ML abstracts are **dense and numbers-focused**:
|
||||
|
||||
> "We present TransformerX, a novel architecture for long-range sequence modeling that achieves O(n log n) complexity while maintaining expressivity. On the Long Range Arena benchmark, TransformerX achieves 86.2% average accuracy, outperforming Transformer (65.4%) and Performer (78.1%). On language modeling, TransformerX matches GPT-2 perplexity (18.4) using 40% fewer parameters. We provide theoretical analysis showing TransformerX can approximate any continuous sequence-to-sequence function."
|
||||
|
||||
### Experiment Section Expectations
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Datasets**: Standard benchmarks, dataset statistics
|
||||
2. **Baselines**: Recent strong methods, fair comparisons
|
||||
3. **Main results table**: Clear, comprehensive
|
||||
4. **Ablation studies**: Remove/modify components systematically
|
||||
5. **Analysis**: Error analysis, qualitative examples, failure cases
|
||||
6. **Computational cost**: Training time, inference speed, memory
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## CS Conferences (ACL, EMNLP, CHI, SIGKDD)
|
||||
|
||||
### ACL/EMNLP (NLP)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Task-focused**: Clear problem definition
|
||||
- **Benchmark-heavy**: Standard datasets (GLUE, SQuAD, etc.)
|
||||
- **Error analysis valued**: Where does it fail?
|
||||
- **Human evaluation**: Often expected alongside automatic metrics
|
||||
- **Ethical considerations**: Bias, fairness, environmental cost
|
||||
|
||||
### CHI (Human-Computer Interaction)
|
||||
|
||||
- **User-centered**: Focus on humans, not just technology
|
||||
- **Study design details**: Participant recruitment, IRB approval
|
||||
- **Qualitative accepted**: Interview studies, ethnography valid
|
||||
- **Design implications**: Concrete takeaways for practitioners
|
||||
- **Accessibility**: Consider diverse user populations
|
||||
|
||||
### SIGKDD (Data Mining)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Scalability emphasis**: Handle large data
|
||||
- **Real-world applications**: Industry datasets valued
|
||||
- **Efficiency metrics**: Time and space complexity
|
||||
- **Novelty in methods or applications**: Both paths valid
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Adapting Between Venue Types
|
||||
|
||||
### Journal → ML Conference
|
||||
|
||||
When converting a journal paper to conference format:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Condense introduction**: Remove extensive background
|
||||
2. **Add contribution list**: Explicitly enumerate contributions
|
||||
3. **Restructure results**: Organize as experiments, add ablations
|
||||
4. **Remove separate discussion**: Integrate interpretation briefly
|
||||
5. **Add reproducibility section**: Seeds, hyperparameters, code
|
||||
|
||||
### ML Conference → Journal
|
||||
|
||||
When expanding a conference paper to journal:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Expand related work**: Comprehensive literature review
|
||||
2. **Detailed methods**: Full algorithmic description
|
||||
3. **More experiments**: Additional datasets, analyses
|
||||
4. **Extended discussion**: Implications, limitations, future work
|
||||
5. **Appendix → main text**: Move important details up
|
||||
|
||||
### Specialized → High-Impact Journal
|
||||
|
||||
When targeting Nature/Science/Cell from a specialized venue:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Lead with significance**: Why does this matter broadly?
|
||||
2. **Reduce jargon by 80%**: Replace technical terms
|
||||
3. **Add conceptual figures**: Schematics, models, not just data
|
||||
4. **Story-driven results**: Narrative flow, not experiment-by-experiment
|
||||
5. **Broaden discussion**: Implications beyond the subfield
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Voice and Tone Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
### Active vs. Passive Voice
|
||||
|
||||
| Venue | Preference | Example |
|
||||
|-------|-----------|---------|
|
||||
| Nature/Science | Active encouraged | "We discovered that..." |
|
||||
| Cell | Mixed | "Our results demonstrate..." |
|
||||
| Medical | Passive common | "Patients were randomized to..." |
|
||||
| IEEE | Passive traditional | "The algorithm was implemented..." |
|
||||
| ML Conferences | Active preferred | "We propose a method that..." |
|
||||
|
||||
### First Person Usage
|
||||
|
||||
| Venue | First Person | Example |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|---------|
|
||||
| Nature/Science | Yes (we) | "We show that..." |
|
||||
| Cell | Yes (we) | "We found that..." |
|
||||
| Medical | Sometimes | "We conducted a trial..." |
|
||||
| IEEE | Less common | Prefer "This paper presents..." |
|
||||
| ML Conferences | Yes (we) | "We introduce..." |
|
||||
|
||||
### Hedging and Certainty
|
||||
|
||||
| Claim Strength | Language |
|
||||
|---------------|----------|
|
||||
| Strong | "X causes Y" (only with causal evidence) |
|
||||
| Moderate | "X is associated with Y" / "X leads to Y" |
|
||||
| Tentative | "X may contribute to Y" / "X suggests that..." |
|
||||
| Speculative | "It is possible that X..." / "One interpretation is..." |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Style Errors by Venue
|
||||
|
||||
### Nature/Science Submissions
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Too technical: "We used CRISPR-Cas9 with sgRNAs targeting exon 3..."
|
||||
✅ Accessible: "Using gene-editing technology, we disabled the gene..."
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Dry opening: "Protein X is involved in cellular signaling..."
|
||||
✅ Engaging opening: "How do cells decide their fate? We discovered that..."
|
||||
|
||||
### ML Conference Submissions
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Vague contributions: "We present a new method for X"
|
||||
✅ Specific contributions: "We propose Method Y that achieves Z% improvement on benchmark W"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Missing ablations: Only showing full method results
|
||||
✅ Complete: Table showing contribution of each component
|
||||
|
||||
### Medical Journal Submissions
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Missing absolute numbers: "50% reduction in risk"
|
||||
✅ Complete: "50% relative reduction (ARR 2.5%, NNT 40)"
|
||||
|
||||
❌ Causal language for observational data: "Treatment caused improvement"
|
||||
✅ Appropriate: "Treatment was associated with improvement"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Checklist Before Submission
|
||||
|
||||
### All Venues
|
||||
- [ ] Abstract matches venue style (flowing vs. structured)
|
||||
- [ ] Voice/tone appropriate for audience
|
||||
- [ ] Jargon level appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Figures match venue expectations
|
||||
- [ ] Citation style correct
|
||||
|
||||
### High-Impact Journals (Nature/Science/Cell)
|
||||
- [ ] Broad significance clear in first paragraph
|
||||
- [ ] Non-specialist can understand abstract
|
||||
- [ ] Story-driven results narrative
|
||||
- [ ] Conceptual figures included
|
||||
- [ ] Implications emphasized
|
||||
|
||||
### ML Conferences
|
||||
- [ ] Contribution list in introduction
|
||||
- [ ] Strong baselines included
|
||||
- [ ] Ablation studies present
|
||||
- [ ] Reproducibility information complete
|
||||
- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
|
||||
|
||||
### Medical Journals
|
||||
- [ ] Structured abstract (if required)
|
||||
- [ ] Patient-centered language
|
||||
- [ ] Evidence strength appropriate
|
||||
- [ ] Absolute numbers reported
|
||||
- [ ] CONSORT/STROBE compliance
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## See Also
|
||||
|
||||
- `nature_science_style.md` - Detailed Nature/Science writing guide
|
||||
- `cell_press_style.md` - Cell family journal conventions
|
||||
- `medical_journal_styles.md` - NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ guide
|
||||
- `ml_conference_style.md` - NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR conventions
|
||||
- `cs_conference_style.md` - ACL, CHI, SIGKDD guide
|
||||
- `reviewer_expectations.md` - What reviewers look for by venue
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user