[問題] 請問英文的寫法

看板PhD作者 (北市SOGO旁美容請進)時間15年前 (2008/12/29 14:59), 編輯推噓6(6推 0噓 20→)
留言26則, 12人參與, 5年前最新討論串1/1
要投稿期刊，文章己經送給專門在改的人改過了， 不過因為圖表太多， 要把其中一個表改成在文中的敘述。 此敘述主要是在一條河的上、中及下游， 對兩種氣體進行十次不同日期的偵測， 不知這樣敘述在文法上有沒有問題， 氣體的單位放的位置？ 還是連接時用的符號？ 因為這麼一小段， 要再送去給人改也很麻煩。 不知有沒有先進可以給小弟一些意見， 怕被reviewer嫌英文太破，謝謝。 (下述已改，請看下方一點有第二版) Carbon dioxide production rates (ug g-1 h-1) at up-stream of DaDu River in Oct. 25, 2003, Nov. 13, 2003, Jan. 13, 2004, May 1, 2004, Jul. 14, 2004, Jul. 31, 2004, Nov. 5, 2004, Jan. 25, 2005, Mar. 20, 2005, and May 29, 2005, were 1.74, 8.45, 1.86, 1.64, 2.13, 2.49, 2.57, 1.34, 1.90, and 1.87, respectively; mid-stream were 2.72, 2.82, 2.91, 4.49, 3.39, 2.92, 7.00, 4.91, 6.12, and 3.47; down-stream were 3.61, 3.38, 2.58, 3.74, 1.96, 2.11, 5.29, 4.59, 5.01, and 2.62; while methane production rates (ng g-1 h-1) at up-stream were 3.4, 1.6, 1.4, 5.2, 6.4, 7.4, 1.1, 1.2, 4.6, and 2.2; mid-stream were 8.0, 9.5, 6.0, 1.0, 3.4, 5.5, 2.26, 1.2, 3.6, and 3.5, down-stream were 6.6, 5.9, 5.9, 7.3, 1.8, 3.7, 2.4, 1.1, 2.7, and 2.4. 參照很多先進的意見，目前改成下面所述， 不知有沒有要再注意的， 尤其是兩個and的地方，謝謝。 The carbon dioxide production rates (ug g-1 h-1) in the up-stream area of DaDu River on Oct. 25, 2003, Nov. 13, 2003, Jan. 13, 2004, May 1, 2004, Jul. 14, 2004, Jul. 31, 2004, Nov. 5, 2004, Jan. 25, 2005, Mar. 20, 2005, and May 29, 2005, were 1.74, 8.45, 1.86, 1.64, 2.13, 2.49, 2.57, 1.34, 1.90, and 1.87, respectively; the mid-stream area were 2.72, 2.82, 2.91, 4.49, 3.39, 2.92, 7.00, 4.91, 6.12, and 3.47, and the down-stream area were 3.61, 3.38, 2.58, 3.74, 1.96, 2.11, 5.29, 4.59, 5.01, and 2.62, while during the same sampling time, the methane production rates (ng g-1 h-1) in the up-stream area were 3.4, 1.6, 1.4, 5.2, 6.4, 7.4, 1.1, 1.2, 4.6, and 2.2; the mid-stream area were 8.0, 9.5, 6.0, 1.0, 3.4, 5.5, 2.26, 1.2, 3.6, and 3.5, and the down-stream area were 6.6, 5.9, 5.9, 7.3, 1.8, 3.7, 2.4, 1.1, 2.7, and 2.4. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.74.98
推
12/29 16:01, , 1F
in upstream DaDu River on Oct. 25, 2003, ..........
12/29 16:01, 1F
→
12/29 16:03, , 2F
those in midstream were.....; those downstream were
12/29 16:03, 2F
→
12/29 16:03, , 3F
upstream, downstream為形容詞或副詞midstream為名詞
12/29 16:03, 3F
推
12/29 16:37, , 4F
...可以用成表格嗎@@
12/29 16:37, 4F
→
12/29 16:41, , 5F
因為圖表超過一篇的數量限制，所以沒辦法
12/29 16:41, 5F
→
12/29 16:56, , 6F
這實在不是很好的做法
12/29 16:56, 6F
※ 編輯: roam 來自: 140.112.74.98 (12/29 17:01)
→
12/29 17:05, , 7F
本來是個表…寄出去回來的意見要少一個，決定犧牲它了...
12/29 17:05, 7F
推
12/29 17:49, , 8F
看得頭都昏了，可以想辦法併再那個圖中嗎？
12/29 17:49, 8F
→
12/29 18:04, , 9F
如果期刊很堅持，那要再好好想辦法。如果只是referee個人
12/29 18:04, 9F
→
12/29 18:05, , 10F
建議圖表要少一個，那其實可以拒絕referee的建議，並不是
12/29 18:05, 10F
→
12/29 18:05, , 11F
所有referee的要求你都要照辦。
12/29 18:05, 11F
→
12/29 20:18, , 12F
是不是可以考慮只提供資料的統計特性，如平均或值距即可?
12/29 20:18, 12F
推
12/29 20:51, , 13F
強烈建議弄成表格 如果是數量限制 可以合併fig或table
12/29 20:51, 13F
→
12/29 20:52, , 14F
就像Nature/Science裡面常有的 一個圖裡有三四個圖以上
12/29 20:52, 14F
→
12/29 21:24, , 15F
感覺起來不是文法問題 過長的句子無論中國人還是外國人都很
12/29 21:24, 15F
→
12/29 21:25, , 16F
難掌握 如果可以分長兩句 先說明測量的時間 再說明數據
12/29 21:25, 16F
→
12/29 21:26, , 17F
或許會比較容易看懂 .. 純建議 聽聽就好
12/29 21:26, 17F
→
12/29 23:05, , 18F
因為很多圖都是一個圖有四到八個小圖了，這個是最簡單的表
12/29 23:05, 18F
→
12/29 23:08, , 19F
所以才改掉這個表... 他們說不能超過…我應該會照辦吧…
12/29 23:08, 19F
→
12/29 23:09, , 20F
現在是才剛開始的小咖，還不敢持不同的意見。
12/29 23:09, 20F
→
12/29 23:10, , 21F
我再研究一下…明天做決定，謝謝各位先進的提議，感恩。
12/29 23:10, 21F
→
12/30 05:49, , 22F
強烈建議弄成表格+1
12/30 05:49, 22F
推
12/30 08:07, , 23F
光是看到這段,人家就有理由把你 reject。 何必呢 ?
12/30 08:07, 23F
推
12/30 22:24, , 24F
弄成表格吧 表格過多可以再融合 這段文字很容易被R
12/30 22:24, 24F
→
11/11 21:29, , 25F
本來是個表…寄出去回來 https://muxiv.com
11/11 21:29, 25F
→
01/06 22:07, 5年前 , 26F
建議圖表要少一個，那其 https://muxiv.com
01/06 22:07, 26F
‣ 更多 roam 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #19M7LeeE (PhD)