The opening ceremony is different from the opening ceremony in front of the lab, avoiding the hot direction, but no one can say hello (although I don't know anyone when I say hello ...), which is fair competition.
To sum up, my experience is that,
Scientific research experience+preliminary foundation+rigorous logic.
express emotion
I started doing scientific research as an undergraduate, and in the fifth year I published a five-point article. After the master's period, the first and * * * add up to 10, with a total of about 50 IF articles, and the citation ended in the first half of the year 1 14.
However, with the introduction of representative system, piling up articles is of little use. Therefore, the five articles in this application are all related to the research direction of the project, of which three are above 5 points and two are around 3 points (3 are the first and 2 are * * *).
The purpose is mainly reflected in this direction. I have rich research experience and mastered relevant research techniques.
At the time of introduction, I can reasonably say that my previous research was mainly in this direction, published xxxx, conducted in-depth research on a certain issue and published xxxx, and I have rich research experience and accumulation in this direction.
Some people say that the youth plan focuses on the preliminary work, but I think it will be more beneficial to support my narrative by organizing the scattered work in the preliminary period organically, and it is best to organize it into a line story.
In other words, it is necessary to reflect your research experience, not to pile up SCI for publishing articles, but to focus on a certain problem in a series of studies, which is conducive to reflecting the quality of focused scientific research.
Early foundation
This is mainly the result of previous experiments.
Although this part has a lot of water in many funds, I am still conservative when I write it myself. In confirming the basic phenomenon of the research and exploring the relevant mechanism, I used the real research data repeated four or five times. I have done it once or twice on some possible problems, but the trend of the results has not been completely determined. The existing results show that this is a possible mechanism.
That is to say, the results before the experiment, the results obtained, do not blow, do not make up.
But my experience is that some results are true at first sight, and some WB tapes look fake. But based on some uncertain results, it can be released, because research is to find certainty from uncertainty.
But you can't make up a good one just because the result is not good. Because your previous experiments are beautiful and can be made directly, there is no reason for the fund Committee to support you. You ate them all.
Therefore, the preliminary experimental results need some key data to support your theory, but also believe some imperfect data, which are often more real.
Rigorous logic
Should be the most important part.
Whether the story is told well or not, the logical main line is the most important.
In the past, I thought that the foundation of the national natural project was eight-part essay with single logic. But when writing, I found that the logic of eight-part essay is the most direct and easy to understand.
From the format of medical application, it is often the key link to discuss the occurrence and development of a disease. Then we mainly explore a key change in this link, and influence this change through exploration, intervention, treatment and other means, thus affecting this key link and improving the understanding of the disease and the progress of the treatment concept.
Therefore, application is also this logic, starting with major diseases, discussing key links, and finally studying the most critical changes.
Grasping this main line, we will find that diseases and links are often clear to everyone, and the changing parts are often unfamiliar. Therefore, the first two parts focus on the key points in less space, and finally throw a question, which leads to the revised part.
The discussion of the change part is also from the known to the unknown, from your results to the results you want to explore, and finally the overall outcome.
If you can draw a clear mechanism diagram for research, you can let experts see your logic and increase readability.