本书是从世界科技出版公司原版引进的科技英语类的典范教材，也是原书Communicating Science： A Practical Guide for Engineers and Physical Scientists在国内的首次引进与出版。全书共10 章，内容涵盖科技英语交流的各方面，如研究报告（期刊论文、学术论文和内部交流报告）的撰写；评审和发表流程；学术交流会议演讲等。本书还邀请中国科学院大学的知名学者为其撰写中文导读，为广大科研从业人员和科技工作者的阅读、学习与使用提供指导。
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Research Reports： Journal Papers, Theses, and Internal 6
Reports 6
Chapter 3 Submitting a Paper and the Review Process 72
Chapter 4 Conference Presentations： Lectures and Posters 84
Chapter 5 Research Proposals 106
Chapter 6 Business Plans 124
Chapter 7 Patents 137
Chapter 8 Reports in the Popular Media 154
Chapter 9 Correspondence and Job-Hunting 163
Chapter 10 Writing Well： Organization, Grammar, and Style 185
Index 265
內容試閱：
Ray Boxman： The unlikely story of this book begins with my early
elementary school education in the days when students were issued stubby
pencils without erasers and paper that seemed to have hunks of wood
sticking out of it. I was known as Mr. X because of all of the corrections
I needed to make. Nonetheless, I was accepted by each of the universities
to which I applied, except the one that required a writing sample. Upon
completion of my Ph.D. thesis, the more junior of my supervisors reviewed
the thesis and commented that he liked it, but suggested that it should be
written in the present tense. I dutifully revised the text and submitted it to
my senior supervisor, who also commented that he liked it, but suggested
that it should be written in the past tense. In those days, way before the era
of personal computers and word processors, revisions involved a great deal
of retyping on a manual typewriter. I solved the dilemma by locking both
professors in one room, and announcing that I would not release them until
they agreed on the proper tense.
After receiving a faculty appointment at Tel Aviv University, I
improved my writing, with some helpful mentoring by senior faculty in
my department, notably the late Prof. Enrico Gruenbaum whose native
language was not English. I published many papers and thus did not
perish in academia.
In 1997, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering presented me with a
problem. Recently, the faculty had changed its regulations to require all
Ph.D. students to submit their theses in English. The motivation was to
widen the basis for finding referees. However, these referees complained
about the level of the English.
The Dean didnt know about my past identity as Mr. X. Also, his
motivation in tossing this hot potato to me may not have been totally pure.
Although I had certainly published and edited, and English is my native
language, I had no prior experience in teaching English or writing. The
university had a foreign languages division which previously had taught
the facultys Ph.D. students, but the faculty paid for this service. Because
of interdepartmental squabbling about the right to teach various electrical
engineering courses, I had a light teaching load, so throwing me the hot
potato would save the faculty some money.
I accepted the challenge and examined some of the students work, and
the referees comments. I quickly concluded that while there was an
English problem, there was a much bigger underlying problem of poor
organization and poor writing that was often connected to poor scientific
thinking. The result in any language would be poor.
The course I organized emphasized the organizational aspects of
writing theses and journal papers, using Weissberg and Bukers excellent
text Writing-up Research. Much to my surprise, the students loved the
course, as did their thesis supervisors. Frequently, I received feedback
from the students that this was the most valuable course in their doctoral
studies. Students reported comments from reviewers that their papers were
well written and well organized. Some students even received best-paper
awards. Furthermore, the students thesis supervisors felt that their burden
was lessened, and some even reported that they learned useful hints from
their students. I taught the course for sixteen years, until I reduced my
teaching load nearing retirement. Perhaps the Deans decision to throw
this hot potato to an engineer and the former Mr. X had some merit.
Edith Boxman adds： My introduction to scientific writing and editing
was proofreading Rays doctoral thesis. I swore I would never again read
any scientific paper by Ray or anyone else. However, in my own work, as
an economist and banker, I was frequently asked to translate and edit
documents written by my colleagues. These requests, I could not refuse,
especially since many of these colleagues were kind enough to edit the
documents I wrote in Hebrew. My threat in the early years of our marriage
never to review a scientific paper again was forgotten as I wrote business
plans for some of Rays commercial ventures and became increasingly
involved in developing materials for supplemental writing courses.
And from us both： In response to several requests from Rays
colleagues, we jointly developed a 12-hour short course on scientific
writing, which we subsequently presented at the Aachen Technical
University, Ariel University, Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare
Universita Degli Studi di Padova, Kazan State Technological University,
the Leibniz Institute for Plasma Science and Technology, Northwestern
University, University of Canterbury, University of Sydney and Xi an
Jiaotong University.
Our teaching experience provided the impetus and motivation for this
text. We wanted a short text that emphasizes the connection between
scientific thinking and writing. We wanted a text aimed at engineers and
scientists, written from an engineers perspective. We wanted a text that
every Ph.D. student would want to read before writing his or her thesis.
And we wanted a resource to which researchers would return as they
advanced in their careers. We hope that this text fulfills at least some of
these goals.
We are grateful for all of the help and encouragement we received
during the course of writing this book. First and foremost, we thank all of
our students. The adage that you learn from your students is certainly true
for us. Our students enthusiasm to learn has inspired us. Many of the
examples in this text are based on the exercises of students who gave their
permission to use their material anonymously. We thank RBs colleagues
in the Electrical Discharge and Plasma Lab, Issak Beilis, Nahum
Parkansky, and Dan Gazit, as well as students in the lab, whose work
inspired many of the examples in the text. We gratefully acknowledge
Orna Hamilis, who prepared the illustrations.
Many colleagues, family members, friends, and former students
suggested examples or reviewed all or parts of Communicating Science.
We thank Andre Anders, Benjamin Boxman, Jonathan Boxman, Lillian
Boxman, Ian Falkoner, Joyce Friedler, Evgeny Gidalevich, Rami Haj-Ali,
Daniel Haney, Azriel Kadim, Simon Kahn, Michael Keidar, Juergen Kolb,
Shalom Lampert, Emma Lindley, Zhiyuan Liu, Boris Melamed, Judith
Posner, Daniel Prober, Yossi Shacham, Zhiyuan Sun and Sharyn
Weisman, for their useful suggestions, and for catching embarrassing
mistakes. We, of course, take responsibility for those that remain.
Raymond and Edith Boxman
Herzliya, Israel, April 2016
購物車/收銀台(
0
) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
