ja jeg overvejer at skrive min første artikkel,og det bliver som nogen måske ved om dsbSchwensen skrev:JA TAK OLE!ole. skrev:jeg overvejer snart at skrive noe på dansk om det her er lidt på tysk
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Sand_Bed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
kigget lige på det engang til,indtil videre har jeg skrevet 8 sider med ca 237 stikord det hele skal skæres ned til ca halv A4 format og i en overskuelig række følge samt underbygget med links jo ældre ens referense er des mindre chance er det for at forfatteren ikke har modifiseret konklusionen dvs efterforskningen ikke er så meget up too date mer.men det betyder jo ikke at det er værdiløst snarere tværtimod meget værdifuldt da man kan opsnappe i tråden hvordan ideer har ændret sig fra den orginale problem stilling.
Da jeg aldrig har lært nogen steder fra om hvordan man skriver en artikkel søgte jeg råd hos en af mine favorit forfattere Ron shimek,det er jo også relevant da han nærmest også er the dsb guru med over 20års erfaring indenfor systemet i tilæg har jeg bedt om tilladelse at bruge hans billeder og citater til min artikkel.
for dem der kunne have interesse her er hans svar
Hi Ole,
Not much to tell, here. There is nothing odd about research papers.
There are couple of things that one does have to keep in mind, though. Unlike the commercial press, the authors of a scientific paper have to pay for the publication, and they pay by the word. So, the papers tend to short, and as concise as possible.
The standard paper format is:
1) Abstract (a short synopsis of what the researcher(s) think is important about thier paper.
2) Introduction (a discussion of the question being asked, often with the historical background).
3) Materials and Methods (how the work discussed in the paper was done).
4) Results (what was found).
5) Discussion (why the results are important).
6) Conclusions.
7) References Cited.
Most people read the abstract first. If they want to learn more, they then will read the introduction and discussion. Then they will read the results to see if they support the discussion and answer the questions posed in the introduction. The materials and methods are generally skimmed unless you are really interested in the topic.
What you need to realize is that there is always a context, so if you think what the authors are saying is relevent, you need to backtrack and read the supporting literature; that is where the "References Cited" section is important, as they tell you whose papers and work the authors think are important.
And...
There is always an agenda. What are the authors trying to prove or disprove? This may or may not be obvious, but it is always there.
I hope this helps.
