first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-polishing/references/published-article-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Published Article Patterns
+
+Use this file when polishing should improve scientific argument, not just English.
+The patterns below are distilled from curated Nature and Nature Communications
+research articles across materials, energy systems, construction decarbonization
+and machine learning. Do not copy their wording. Use the patterns to diagnose
+and reshape the user's manuscript.
+
+## Abstract pattern
+
+Strong abstracts usually move in six steps:
+
+1. name the field-scale problem or opportunity
+2. show why existing approaches are incomplete
+3. state the specific intervention or method
+4. give the decisive result with scale, comparison or constraint
+5. explain why the result changes what is possible
+6. close with scope, application or boundary
+
+Polishing rule: if an abstract starts with the method, add the problem and gap
+first. If it ends with enthusiasm, replace it with a bounded implication.
+
+## Introduction pattern
+
+High-performing introductions often use `scale -> bottleneck -> prior attempts ->
+missing capability -> present study`.
+
+- `Scale`: quantify why the problem matters, preferably with field-level stakes.
+- `Bottleneck`: name the physical, computational, clinical or practical barrier.
+- `Prior attempts`: acknowledge existing strategies fairly.
+- `Missing capability`: explain what those strategies still cannot do.
+- `Present study`: state what the paper does, not what it hopes to do.
+
+Polishing rule: keep the gap narrow enough that the study can actually fill it.
+Avoid novelty claims that depend on weakening prior work.
+
+## Results pattern
+
+Results sections usually work best as an evidence ladder:
+
+1. overview of the system, workflow or design space
+2. validation that the platform works under controlled conditions
+3. primary performance result
+4. comparison with baselines or current practice
+5. mechanism, interpretation or diagnostic analysis
+6. scale-up, generalization or real-world application
+
+Each Results paragraph should begin with the question or test, then report the
+observation, then give the quantitative or comparative support. Interpretation
+should be brief unless the paragraph is explicitly bridging into Discussion.
+
+## Discussion pattern
+
+Effective Discussion writing starts from the central advance and then widens:
+
+- what the study demonstrates
+- why the evidence is credible
+- how it changes an existing workflow, design rule or conceptual boundary
+- what constraints remain
+- what future work is enabled, without promising untested outcomes
+
+Do not turn the Discussion into a second Results section. Use it to state what
+the results mean and where that meaning stops.
+
+## Conclusion pattern
+
+Nature-style conclusions are compact. They usually combine:
+
+1. the contribution in one sentence
+2. the mechanism, performance or feasibility evidence that supports it
+3. the scale or application implied by the work
+4. one boundary condition, if the claim could otherwise overreach
+
+Polishing rule: remove new data from conclusions. Preserve confidence, but add
+scope control.
+
+## Title pattern
+
+Strong titles are concrete and searchable. They often combine:
+
+- object or system
+- action or capability
+- application, scale or consequence
+
+Prefer titles that reveal the central scientific move. Avoid titles that sound
+like grant aims, slogans or broad fields.
+
+## Sentence-level pattern
+
+Published prose often looks simple because each sentence does one job:
+
+- background sentence: field stake or known fact
+- gap sentence: unresolved limitation
+- method sentence: what was done
+- result sentence: observed effect plus condition
+- comparison sentence: baseline or previous state
+- implication sentence: meaning with scope
+- limitation sentence: boundary or dependency
+
+When polishing, label each sentence by job. If two jobs compete in one sentence,
+split it or subordinate one job.
+
+## Overclaim checks from article patterns
+
+Flag and soften claims when:
+
+- a laboratory or simulation result is written as an immediate field-wide solution
+- a single material, model or system is described as universally applicable
+- correlation is rewritten as mechanism
+- a comparison lacks a fair baseline
+- a future application is stated as an achieved outcome
+
+Good Nature-leaning prose can be ambitious, but the ambition must be attached to
+evidence, scale and boundary.