还在乱用学术表达常用句式？这些错误让论文降档！

还在用“in this paper, we will discuss...”开头却被导师批注“冗余”？

还在写“it is well known that...”却被质疑“缺乏严谨性”？

还在依赖“there is no doubt that...”却被审稿人打回“主观臆断”？

如果你对以上任何一个问题点头，那你可能正在犯学术表达的“隐形错误”——这些看似“专业”的句式，实则是论文降档的“隐形杀手”。很多科研新人以为“堆砌学术词汇”就是“专业”，却忽略了学术写作的核心逻辑：精准、严谨、简洁。你可能花了数月做实验、整理数据，却因为一句“用错的话”让审稿人失去耐心，甚至直接把论文打入“冷宫”。

学术写作不是“模板填空题”，但很多人却把“常用句式”当成了“万能公式”。这些错误看似微小，却会从逻辑严谨性、读者体验、学术可信度三个维度摧毁你的论文价值。

学术论文的核心是“讲故事”——从问题提出到方法验证，再到结论推导，每一句话都应该是“逻辑链条”上的一环。但乱用句式会直接打断这个链条：

• 用“in order to solve this problem, we propose...”却没有铺垫“问题的紧迫性”，导致读者疑惑“你为什么要解决这个问题？”；
• 用“the results show that...”却没有说明“结果是如何支撑结论的”，让审稿人觉得“你的推导是空中楼阁”；
• 用“as can be seen from Figure 1...”却没有解释“Figure 1的核心数据是什么”，导致图表和文字“两张皮”。

真实案例：某生物系研究生在论文中写道：“In this study, we investigated the effect of X on Y. The results show that X increases Y by 20%. Therefore, X is a potential therapeutic target.” 导师直接批注：“为什么X增加Y就能成为靶点？中间的机制推导缺失！” 这句话的问题在于，“therefore”连接的两个分句逻辑断层——“结果”和“结论”之间没有“机制分析”的桥梁，导致整个论证失去说服力。

学术期刊的审稿人平均每篇论文只花6-8分钟看初稿（数据来源：Elsevier作者指南）。如果你的论文充满“无效句式”，只会让他们快速失去耐心：

• 用“it is important to note that...”却只是重复前文已经说过的内容；
• 用“there are several studies that have shown...”却没有提炼“这些研究的核心观点”；
• 用“in conclusion, we can summarize that...”却只是把摘要换了个说法。

典型错误：“It is well known that climate change has a significant impact on ecosystem stability. There are many studies that have reported this phenomenon. For example, Smith et al. (2020) found that rising temperatures reduce biodiversity in tropical forests. Jones et al. (2021) also showed that ocean acidification affects coral reefs. Therefore, it is clear that climate change is a serious problem.” 这段话中，“it is well known that”和“there are many studies that”都是冗余表达——审稿人想看到的是“你对这些研究的批判性分析”，而不是“罗列别人的结论”。

学术写作的“可信度”来自“精准的表达”——任何模糊、绝对或主观的句式，都会让审稿人质疑你的科研态度：

• 用“there is no doubt that...”会被认为“过于绝对”（科研中没有“100%的确定”）；
• 用“we believe that...”会暴露“主观臆断”（应该用“the data suggest that...”代替）；
• 用“this method is better than others”却没有“对比实验数据支撑”，会被质疑“缺乏严谨性”。

血泪教训：某计算机系博士生在论文中写道：“Our algorithm is obviously superior to existing methods because it runs faster.” 审稿人直接反驳：“‘obviously’是你的主观判断，拿出具体的时间对比数据！” 最终这篇论文因为“缺乏客观证据”被拒稿——而实际上，他的算法确实比现有方法快30%，只是因为“obviously”这个词，让审稿人觉得“他在夸大其词”。

为了让你快速定位问题，我们整理了学术写作中最常见的10个句式错误——对照下表，看看你中了几个：

当你意识到“句式错误”的严重性后，接下来要做的就是掌握学术表达的底层逻辑——不是“背诵模板”，而是“理解每句话的作用”。下面我们将从“引言、方法、结果、讨论”四大模块，拆解每个部分的“句式密码”，让你的论文“句句专业”。

引言的核心是“说服读者：你的研究值得关注”。这部分的句式要围绕“问题→ gap→ 你的贡献”三个层次展开，避免“平铺直叙”。

• 错误：“In this paper, we study the effect of AI on education. It is well known that AI is changing education. We propose a new model. The results show it is effective.”
• 正确：“Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in education, but existing models often fail to account for individual student differences (Smith et al., 2023). To address this gap, this paper proposes a personalized AI tutoring model that integrates learning analytics and adaptive feedback. Our experiments demonstrate that the model improves student performance by 15% compared to traditional methods, providing a new framework for personalized education.”

1. 提出问题：用“现状+挑战”开头，引发读者共鸣

• “Despite significant progress in [领域], [具体挑战] remains a critical barrier to [目标]...”
• “Recent advances in [技术] have enabled [成就], but they still struggle with [问题]...”

2. 指出gap：用“现有研究的不足”突出你的研究价值

• “Most previous studies have focused on [A], but few have explored [B]...”
• “While [方法X] is effective for [场景1], it fails to address [场景2] due to [原因]...”

3. 说明贡献：用“具体成果”代替“空洞口号”

• “This paper makes three key contributions: first, [贡献1]; second, [贡献2]; third, [贡献3]...”
• “We validate our approach through [实验设计], and the results show that [核心结论]...”

方法部分的核心是“让读者能重复你的实验”。这部分的句式要“客观、具体、可操作”，避免“模糊化表达”。

• 不要用“we used a standard method”——读者想知道“具体是哪个标准？版本号是什么？”；
• 不要用“the experiment was conducted under normal conditions”——要写“the experiment was conducted at 25°C with a pH of 7.0”；
• 不要用“data were analyzed using software”——要写“data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 with a significance level of p < 0.05”。

1. 描述实验材料：

• “Human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells were obtained from [供应商名称] and cultured in [培养基名称] at 37°C with 5% CO₂.”

2. 描述实验步骤：

• “Total RNA was extracted using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA was synthesized with the Reverse Transcription Kit (Takara)...”

3. 描述数据分析：

• “Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 9.0. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of three independent experiments. Differences between groups were assessed by Student’s t-test, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.”

结果部分的核心是“展示数据，而不是解释数据”（解释是讨论部分的事）。这部分的句式要“直接、精准、可视化”，避免“主观评价”。

很多人把结果写成“Figure 1 shows A, Figure 2 shows B...”，这是错误的——结果部分要“把数据串联成逻辑”，让读者明白“这些数据说明了什么”。

1. 先总后分：先概括“整体结果”，再分述“细节数据”

• “Overall, treatment with X significantly reduced tumor growth in mice (Figure 1A). Specifically, the tumor volume in the X-treated group was 40% smaller than that in the control group at day 21 (p < 0.01, Figure 1B).”

2. 突出“显著性”：用“statistically significant”“p < 0.05”等词强调数据的可靠性

• “There was no significant difference in cell viability between the low-dose and control groups (p > 0.05), but the high-dose group showed a 25% decrease in viability (p < 0.05, Figure 2C).”

3. 引用图表要“精准”：直接点明图表的“核心信息”，不要让读者“自己找”

• “Figure 3 illustrates the correlation between X expression and patient survival: patients with high X expression had a median survival time of 36 months, whereas those with low X expression had a median survival time of 18 months (log-rank test, p < 0.001).”

注：图表是结果部分的“核心武器”。如果你想学习“如何让图表更专业”，可以参考学术图表制作指南（Nature旗下的权威教程）。

讨论是论文的“灵魂”——这部分要“解释你的结果意味着什么”，而不是“重复结果”。句式要围绕“结果解释→ 与前人对比→ 局限性→ 未来方向”展开，体现你的“批判性思维”。

1. 不要“过度解读”：用“could”“may”代替“must”“will”

• 错误：“This result proves that X is the key regulator of Y.”
• 正确：“This result suggests that X may be a key regulator of Y, although further studies are needed to confirm this.”

2. 不要“忽视前人研究”：用“对比”突出你的“创新点”

• 错误：“Our results are better than previous studies.”
• 正确：“Consistent with Smith et al. (2022), we found that X increases Y. However, unlike their study, we further identified that Z is the intermediate molecule mediating this effect, which fills the gap in the mechanism research.”

3. 不要“回避局限性”：用“诚实”赢得审稿人信任

• 错误：“This study has no limitations.”
• 正确：“One limitation of this study is that we only used cell lines, and animal models would provide more in vivo evidence. Future studies could address this by using mouse models to validate our findings.”

掌握了“基础句式”后，你还需要“打磨细节”——这些细节看似微小，却能让你的论文从“合格”变成“优秀”。下面是3个“进阶技巧”：

学术写作中的“连接词”是“逻辑的路标”——它们能告诉读者“这句话和上一句话的关系”。常见的连接词分类如下：

示例：“Although our study found that X increases Y, this effect was only observed in young mice (Figure 4). Furthermore, we found that Z expression was significantly higher in young mice than in old mice, suggesting that Z may mediate the age-dependent effect of X. Taken together, these results indicate that the effect of X on Y is age-specific.”

学术写作中“被动语态”的使用比例高达60%以上（数据来源：Corpus of Academic Written English）——因为它能“隐藏主语”，让读者聚焦于“研究内容”而非“研究者”。

错误 vs 正确：

• 错误：“We measured the concentration of X. We found that it was 5 mM.”
• 正确：“The concentration of X was measured. It was found to be 5 mM.”

注意：被动语态不是“万能的”——在“提出创新点”或“说明研究贡献”时，用“主动语态”更有力量：

• 正确：“We propose a new framework that addresses the limitations of existing methods.”

学术写作的“专业性”体现在“用词精准”——避免用“大而空”的词汇，而是用“具体、有针对性”的词汇。

在提交论文前，对照以下清单进行“最后检查”——这些步骤能帮你“避免低级错误”，让审稿人对你的论文“第一印象满分”：

1. 引言部分：是否用“问题→ gap→ 贡献”的逻辑展开？

2. 方法部分：是否“具体到可重复”？有没有模糊的“standard method”？

3. 结果部分：是否“用数据说话”？有没有“主观评价”？

4. 讨论部分：是否“解释了结果的意义”？有没有“重复结果”？

5. 连接词：是否用对了“逻辑关系”？有没有“逻辑断层”？

6. 词汇：是否用了“精准词汇”？有没有“模糊词汇”？

7. 图表：引用图表时是否“点明核心信息”？有没有“被动模糊”的表达？

1. 时态：引言用“现在时”（介绍领域现状），方法用“过去时”（描述实验过程），结果用“过去时”（陈述研究发现）；

2. 缩写：首次出现时是否“全称+缩写”（如：Artificial Intelligence (AI)）？

3. 引用：是否符合期刊要求的格式（APA/MLA/Chicago）？

4. 标点：有没有“逗号误用”或“句号缺失”？

5. 字数：是否符合期刊的“字数限制”？

学术写作不是“天生的能力”，而是“可以训练的技能”——你不需要“背诵100个模板”，只需要“理解每句话的作用”。记住：学术表达的核心是“精准传递信息”，而不是“堆砌专业词汇”。

当你把“句式错误”从论文中清除，用“逻辑”和“数据”构建你的“故事”，你会发现：审稿人不再质疑你的“表达”，而是聚焦于你的“研究价值”——这才是论文“脱颖而出”的关键。

现在，拿起你的论文，对照我们的“自查表”修改吧——下一篇“高分论文”的作者，就是你！

如果你想进一步提升学术写作能力，可以参考《学术写作指南》（北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校写作中心的权威资源），或加入我们的“学术写作社群”（公众号回复“写作”获取入口），与更多科研人一起进步！