“Degeneration of
neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement of a
MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration”
这
个标题太长,含有非标准的缩略语,内容重复,部分内容太具体。修改如下:“Region-specific neuronal degeneration
after okadaic acid administration”。此外,也可使用“MAP kinase-dependent
neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid
administration”,但要考虑目标杂志的要求,因为缩略语MAP使用广泛,读者可懂。
练习: 丁香园网友应邀对以下标题进行修改: “Carvedilol
produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related
reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with
chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction”
以下是网友“Qikaka”的修改建议: “Dose-related
effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and
survival in subjects with chronic heart failure”
一
些网友也贴出了自己文章的标题和摘要,询问是否合适。其中有不少标题写得十分不错,也有一些与其他相比需要更多修改。网友“Yelry”的这个标题就很
好,清晰地体现了研究领域:“Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of
nonthrombotic iliac vein compression”
First impressions: the importance of writing a good title
The
title of your paper is a “hook” that should be used to attract
readers—it is your opportunity to “sell” your paper to readers browsing a
table of contents or search results. A poor title will cause
potentially interested researchers to overlook your work and may attract
the wrong audience. By contrast, a good title will attract the relevant
researchers and increase the number of citations you receive. Journal
editors like this because number of citations relates to the impact
factor a journal gets. Therefore, it is important to get it right.
A
good title should be as brief as possible while still communicating the
main finding(s) of the paper. Avoid excessive detail and unnecessary
use of field-specific jargon and abbreviations. Your title must be
understandable by a broad scientific audience, some of whom may not have
a detailed knowledge of your particular field. How broad depends on the
particular target journal—consider the readership of your target
journal, which is usually explained on the journal’s website, and write a
title that can be easily understood by all, not only those in your
immediate field. The target journal’s instructions for authors should
also be consulted to ensure that character limits are complied with and
to identify whether a running (short) title is also required.
Example of a poor title: “Degeneration
of neurons in the CA3 and DG following OA administration: involvement
of a MAPK-dependent pathway in regional-specific neuronal degeneration”
This
title is too long, contains non-standard abbreviations and a
redundancy, and is too specific in parts. A better alternative would be:
“Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid
administration”. “MAP kinase-dependent neuronal degeneration after
okadaic acid administration” would probably also be acceptable,
depending on the target journal, because the abbreviation MAP is widely
used and understood.
Exercise: Scientists visiting an online life sciences network were asked to suggest a good alternative title for the following: “Carvedilol
produces dose-related improvements in LV function and dose-related
reductions in mortality and hospitalization rate in subjects with
chronic heart failure from systolic dysfunction”
Among the responses was the following suggestion: “Dose-related
effect of carvedilol in improvements in left ventricular function and
survival in subjects with chronic heart failure”
This title is
six words and 61 characters shorter, which represents a significant
reduction. The word “survival” is used to combine the two aspects of the
improvement (mortality and hospitalization) and the repetition of
“dose-related” has been removed. Finally, the abbreviation LV has been
defined in the new title.
Other researchers posted the titles and
abstracts for their own papers, asking whether the titles were
suitable. There were many excellent titles, some of which needed more
changes than others. The following title, from Yelry, is well written
and clearly defines the area of research: “Ascending venography in the diagnosis and management of nonthrombotic iliac vein compression”
Although
this is very clear, the author Yelry doesn’t convey the main findings
of the paper, which were actually quite significant: the method was
shown to be valuable for diagnosis and possibly able to separate two
groups of patients. Because this significance is not conveyed in the
title, Yelry could potentially lose some of the target audience.
Character limits for titles dictate how much information can be
included; however, the simple addition of “is valuable” after “ascending
venography” says much more about the paper than the original title
does. In this way, the key finding can be communicated.