導讀：SCI論文是進行國際科學交流的重要方式，準確地表達作者的研究意圖對科研成果的闡述至關重要，然而，對於非英語母語的寫作者而言，經常會在SCI論文寫作中產生一些會引起歧義的表達。在此，LetPub具有豐富SCI論文審稿經驗的美籍編輯在長期的審稿工作中總結了一些常見易混淆詞語的用法，希望能給大家帶來幫助。
準確用詞
英文論文寫作過程中，往往會遇到不同英文單詞都可以表達同一個中文意思，但根據其詞性以及本身含義，在英語中所表達的含義不盡相同，LetPub在多年的英文科技論文編輯經驗中，搜集了一些中國作者在英文寫作中經常出現的錯誤，以下列出最常見的「研究」、「需求」、「暗示」三組詞來舉例：
Imply vs. Infer
Writers or speakers imply. Listeners or readers infer.
通常見到的是「作者及報告人暗示…」，「聽眾或讀者推斷…」當你使用imply的時候，你只是暗指某些事情而不是直接說出來。Imply這個詞起源於古法語詞，本意為「擁抱」，由此你可以聯想到某個隱含的情境，實際要表達的部分這裡是隱去了的。當你使用infer的時候，通常是你基於某種情境推斷出了一些未被表達出來的意思。Infer來源於一個拉丁詞「引進」。這會讓你聯想到讀者或聽眾對某個句子中未明顯陳述的內容加入自己的解釋。用infer來代替imply的錯誤使用非常普遍，在未來十年左右的時間這種現象可能還會被認可，但是現在已經有一些細心的作者或報告人堅持去區分開他們的用法。
Research vs. study
這兩詞之所以容易混淆是因為它們即可作為動詞又可作為名詞。如果你問別人「'studies'和'researches'這兩個詞是一樣的意思嗎」，你可能會獲得肯定的回答，但是僅僅當這兩個詞同為動詞的時候該答案才是正確的。作為名詞使用時，二者其實有著細微的差別.
demand vs. need
"Demand"一詞常用於經濟學中，用來描述人們對某種事物的需求，更具體地也可以說成，人們是否有購買的欲望以及欲望的程度。人們對事物的需求可以分為兩種，一種是人們實際需要的事物，另一種僅僅是渴望得到的，但不一定需要的事物。"Need"通常指的是人們有多麼需要某種事物，指的是一種需要的程度，而不涉及人們是否需要以及是否渴望得到它。
重視中西方文化差異
英語論文寫作過程中，往往會遇到一些中西文化的差異，而如果這些差異沒有引起寫作者重視時，很可能就是導致審稿人閱讀文章產生疑惑的原因之一。以下列出最常見的 「國籍與種族」兩組詞來舉例：
nationality vs. ethnicity
(noun) vs. (noun)
nah shun AL ih tee vs. eth NIH sih tee
("al" rhymes with "pal") ("eth" rhymes with "Seth")
Nationality
The state of being a citizen of a specific country or otherwise a member of a national group.
Ethnicity
The state of belonging to a group with a shared ancestral, national or cultural tradition
In common usage in the U.S., "nationality" and "ethnicity" mean very different things. "Nationality" means "What country's on your passport and birth certificate?" and "ethnicity" means "Who were your ancestors." In my case, my nationality is American and my ethnicity is mostly Italian and Irish.
In other English-speaking countries, however, "nationality" and "ethnicity" are almost interchangeable. (This is probably because most countries are believed to have been founded and principally populated by one group of people. This would be various specific Celts for Ireland, Scotland and Britain proper, Franks for France, Indians in India, etc. This belief is not always true, but it is usually there. The people in the U.S., however, have always considered themselves to come from more than one ancestral group. (Back in the 1700s, having Germans and Britons and Dutchmen in the same room counted as a highly diverse meeting, and the concept of ethnic diversity has expanded since.) So nation and ancestry were more clearly two separate things for Americans than for other people.)
To U.S. readers, talking about the "nationalities" of participant in a medical study does not make sense may be confusing because they will be thinking about citizenship and passports and not about shared genes or even shared recipes and eating habits.
正確使用逗號
英文論文寫作過程中，逗號的使用往往會改變一句句子所要表達的意思，這種現象往往在一些複合從句的表達中出現，最常見的示例如下：
Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Clauses
An author sent me this:
● Local residents, impacted by ecological restoration projects, should be compensated.
● Local residents impacted by ecological restoration projects should be compensated.
Would that be okay if I remove commas here? Thanks.
Actually, that would change the meaning. In its current form, the words "who are" are implied before "impacted."
Local residents, who are impacted by ecological restoration projects, should be compensated.
This means that 1. all local residents are impacted by ecological restoration projects and 2. they should be compensated. Here, "who are impacted by ecological restoration projects" is called a non-restrictive clause because it is only describing the residents.
Local residents who are impacted by ecological restoration projects should be compensated.
This means that 1. some local residents are affected by these projects and some are not. 2. only those who are affected should be compensated.
Here, "who are impacted by ecological restoration projects" is a restrictive clause, because it restricts the meaning of the sentence to only some local residents and not others.
So the question is this: Is the original writer telling us that all the local residents referred to in this paper are impacted by the projects and therefore due compensation or arguing that only some of them deserve (or need) compensation? It should be pretty clear from the rest of the paper.
簡單詞不「簡單」
英文論文寫作過程中，往往一些常見、簡單的單詞在使用時，會被忽略其用法的一些限制，最常見的示例如下：
「and」 vs. 「or」
What is "and" in the affirmative may be "or" in the negative: Our results indicated X, Y, and Z, but they did not indicate A, B, or C.
Like vs As
「like versus as」的爭議根本還在於傳統上like是一個介詞而as是連詞。儘管如此，人們像連詞一樣使用like（像我一樣）已經至少100年了，而語法學家對這種用法也反對了100年。1954年，一個溫斯頓香菸的廣告將這個爭論引入公眾的視野。溫斯頓說，他們的香菸味道不錯「like a cigarette should」，這讓的用法激起了語言愛好者的憤怒，因為該廣告應該這樣表達他們的香菸味道不錯「as a cigarette should.」
有效區分like and as的方法是使用like的時候後面通常沒有動詞。當使用like的時候，後面跟隨的內容一般都比較簡潔。如果跟隨的子句中包含動詞，則應該使用as。當使用as的時候，後面跟隨的內容往往更為複雜。
你遵守這個規則與否可能取決於你對語法的挑剔程度。結果是，你可能經常聽到的句子其實是錯的，如：It's like I'm looking at my twin.而很多人不知道這句話是錯的。所以我的建議是，除非你已經準備好接受語法學家們狂暴的抨擊，否則不要將like作為連詞使用，尤其是在寫作的時候。
As if Versus As Though
最後需要說明的是，As if 和 as though之間其實沒有明顯的差異。有資料顯示說，As if通常指不太可能發生的情況—my cousin being Batman（我的堂弟是蝙蝠俠）—as though則用來說明更可能會發生的情況—my neighbor is a maniac（我的鄰居是個瘋子）—但這不是一個明確的規定。
——轉載自生物探索
參考資料
1. O'Connor, P. Woe Is I: The Grammarphobes Guide to Better English in Plain English. New York: Riverhead Books, 2003.
2. Lynch, J. The Guide to Grammar and Style.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/l.html (accessed April 9, 2007).
3. Morris, W. and Morris, M. Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. Second edition. New York: Harper & Rowe, 1985, p. 52.
4. Burchfield, R. W, ed. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Third edition. New York: Oxford, 1996, p. 458.
5. Garner, B.A. Garner's Modern American Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 496.
6. "Use and misuse of 'like.'" The Chicago Manual of Style Online, 16th edition. Section 5.181. The University of Chicago
Press.http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch05/ch05_sec181.html?para=(accessed September 2, 2013).