国外留学生作业有哪些？

 

2.选题（开题）报告Research proposal

硕士生和博士生一般需要提交选题报告。选题报告一般包含研究背景、研究现状与意义、研究内容目标与思路、已有研究成果、研究计划和参考文献列表等内容。
选题报告是进一步开展工作的前提，因此其写作质量要求不亚于最终的学位论文。
 
3.标准研究论文 Regular Article， Standard Article
 
这是最常见的原创论文形式，一般会发表在正规期刊上。正规期刊会使用同行评审来衡量论文是否值得发表。在一些大型部门，标准研究论文会作为内部报告公开发表或处理成保密论文。例如，NACA Reports就是内部报告。
一般情况下，提交的论文涉及以前没有发表过的原始研究结果，也没有同时提交到其它地方发表（但一部分内容可能出现在会议文集上）。
这类论文一般包含假设、背景研究、方法和结果等内容，并且对发现进行解释，对可能的含义进行讨论。标准研究论文的长度往往不设限（虽然也有期刊规定其长度限制）。
 
4.综述文章Review paper

大部分期刊都设有一个综述论文栏目。综述论文的作者往往由编辑依据他人的推荐邀请，一般是特定领域的资深学者撰写综述论文。
综述论文主要有三种类型：文献综述(literature reviews)、系统综述(systematic reviews)和荟萃分析(meta-analyses)。
这类论文一般介绍某一领域的进展、对所涉及的科学分支给予批判性评价和建设性分析，并指出尚有哪些问题值得进一步研究。
这类文章通常不要求受邀作者提供自己的研究结果。一般情况下，综述文章较长，但也有期刊发表短评（short reviews）。
 
5.快报 Letter，Letter to Editor, Fast Track paper，Rapids or Express articles

不少期刊都设有快报栏目（也有期刊只发表快报）。相比于标准论文，这类稿件的审稿周期短，被录用后刊登速度快。这类文章的具体要求与期刊有关，一般对质量有较高的要求。
快报论文一般较短。大多数期刊对快报的长度会有所限定。虽然如此，除有高质量要求外，还需要写得非常清晰。假定你的稿件以快报形式投稿，而评审结果认为需要扩充以说清楚一些问题，那么有的期刊会要求改成标准研究论文。
 
6.透视文章Perspective

一般情况下，透视是一篇简短的文章，给处理一个常见问题提供独特且全新的视角。
一般是针对一篇刚发表的论文，由杂志邀请该领域的权威写一篇短文作为透视，介绍该论文的原创性以及如何改变了对相关问题的认识。这类文章与下面介绍的共同关注类似。
透视文章的内容也可以是对某个领域的基本概念或流行观点的学术评论。针对这种情况，透视文章通常提出个人观点，评判与某一领域相关的广泛概念，可以是对一个单一概念或几个相关概念的评论。
也有一些期刊，透视（perspective）则指满足某种要求的综述评论文章。以著名期刊Journal of Fluid Mechanics为例, 透视文章是由一位受邀的著名专家撰写的对某一特定主题研究状态的批判性分析，通常约为50-70页长，要求结构合理。一个没有专业知识就进入特定领域的读者就可以从这类文章获得并理解关键结果和当前的主要研究问题。
 
7.共同关注Focus on （某个领域或方向）

共同关注一般是受邀专家针对期刊上刚发表的特别有趣的一篇论文写的评论和讨论，以便向更广泛领域的科学读者解释这篇论文的背景、重要性和含义，强调这篇论文的主要发现和突破，以及该论文的研究对未来研究有什么影响。
 
8.技术性要点Technical notes

技术性要点是描述新进展或初步重要结果的短文，往往出现在一些偏应用的期刊上。例如，如美国的航空航天杂志——AIAA Journal就发表技术性要点。AIAA Journal的这种文章不需要摘要，但包含结果的介绍和描述。
 
9.观点文章Opinion articles

观点文章一般较短，作者通常基于建设性评判和使用证据支持，对特定研究中使用的解释、分析或方法给出自己的观点，评论一个理论或假设的优缺点。
这类文章一般用于促进对当前科学问题的讨论。
 
10.短评Commentaries

这类短文用于吸引人们对以前发表的文章、书籍或报告的注意或提出评判，解释为什么应对它们感兴趣，以及它们对读者有什么启发。
 
11.案例研究Case study

生命科学和人文科学专业可能有这样的留学作业。
以生命科学为例，临床病例研究用来展示来自医疗或临床实践的真实患者病例的细节。提出的案例通常是对该领域现有知识有重大贡献的案例。文章一般会讨论一种疾病的症状、体征、诊断和治疗。
在生命科学领域，还有一类相近的论文是临床试验文章（clinical trial）。临床试验描述方法、实施和对照研究的结果，通常是针对大的患者群体进行的。
 
12.书评Book Reviews

大多数留学专业都有书评作业。书评用于对最近出版的一部学术书籍提供见解和意见。书评一般是短文，也存在对某一主题的出版物进行总结的书评。
 
13.勘误、更正或更新 Erratum or  Article Updates

在这类留学作业中，作者对已出版的自己的论文进行改错、修正或添加附加信息。但不是所有期刊都会接受作者自己对已发表的原文错误进行勘误。
如果发现自己的文章有严重错误，作者一般选择撤稿，而不是勘误。
如果对已发表的论文工作有较大的改进或者拓展，则可以考虑另外发表一篇论文，在论文中顺便指出原先文章的不足或错误。
 
14.会议论文Conference Papers

会议论文包含应邀综述论文、原创全文和墙报论文。
大多数应邀综述论文对会议的主题之一进行综述。好的会议通常会有几篇这样里程碑式的论文，通常信息丰富。这些论文是该领域每个初学者的推荐文献。
会议原创全文往往很短，通常会带来尚未发表的新成果。原则上，每篇会议论文都应该能够通过不那么苛刻的评审，但是在实践中，这些论文的质量差异很大。
一般情况下，应邀综述论文和会议原创论文一般会出现在会议文集之中，部分论文的扩充版可能会在某正式期刊上作为专辑论文发表。
虽然在大多数情况下，会议论文被视为不如正式期刊论文，但也有一些学科方向的某些会议论文被认为比期刊论文更重要。
不少会议还允许与会者现场发表墙报（conference poster）。墙报的优势在于，参与者可以在鼓励直接讨论的氛围中以自己的速度观看和讨论材料。
会议论文作者需要参加会议，即除了提交会议论文，还需要在会议上做报告（或进行墙报交流）。会议论文的缺点是，准备时间往往不足，优点是可以与同行进行当面交流，且将最新的结果进行交流，加速了新知识的传播。
 
15数据论文Data paper

学术期刊一般要求论文简洁，很少能容纳大量的由观测、实验或计算得来的数据。
正常情况下，少的数据可以放在paper的文字中，稍多一些数据可以用表格形式呈现，逻辑型数据可以按专业习惯绘制成曲线和云图等。
但存在一些期刊，需要将数据以数据形式公开。此时，一些大的期刊给一篇论文提供发表相关的补充系列（Supplementary material）的地方，在这些系列中允许发表更详细的数据（一般采用电子形式）。
 
16仪器与软件的说明书类论文Instrument and software manuals

我们不难理解这种手册式文章是什么。目前，这类论文很少见。
 
17论述Essays

这种形式的论文是一种解释性的工作，通常从作者个人的角度来处理其主题。
 
18信息类文章News

这类文章是一个简短的新闻类文章。往往用于对一个重大研究进展进行新闻式报道。
 
 

附上一篇优质的国外留学生作业范文：
 
Critically discuss Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
 
What are the implications for a firm that does not conduct CSR?
 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is often mistaken for a 21st century buzz phrase when in fact it has been part of the business lexicon for decades. While some argue that the concept dates back to the Industrial Revolution, the first substantive work was written by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book The Practice of Management. Despite the passage of time, there is still no universal definition of CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility, what it is and how it is implemented, is different depending upon the country a business operates within, the regulatory system they are answerable to and even the industry within which they work. These complications aside, it is necessary to fix on the well-rounded definition of CSR in order to critically discuss the concept in this paper. The definition offered by the International Organization for Standardization will be used, as it is general in nature and applicable to most businesses, regardless their country of operation:
 
“Social responsibility is the responsibility of an organisation for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behaviour that:
 
contributes to sustainable development, including the health and the welfare of society
 
takes into account the expectations of stakeholders
 
is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour; and
 
Is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships.” (International Organization for Standardization, 2010)
 
The one weakness in this definition is the proposition that CSR is about compliance with applicable law. In Dahlsrud’s (2008) analysis of 37 CSR definitions, he identified five critical dimensions. The first dimension is the environment and its consideration in business operations and the second is the social dimension which covers businesses taking into account their impact on society. Both of these dimensions are central to our working definition. The third dimension identified is the economic dimension which looks for a commitment to integrating CSR into business operations is also present as is the fourth dimension which related to how businesses should manage all stakeholder groups in a socially responsible manner (Dahlsrud, 2008). The final dimension, voluntariness, is what is missing from the ISO definition. Dahlsrud (2008) defines voluntariness as businesses making decisions and undertaking activities that are above what is legally required whereas the ISO definition (International Organization for Standardization, 2010) states that mere compliance is acceptable. It is argued that merely complying with the law is better described as good corporate governance and not of itself an act of corporate social responsibility (Ashley and Crowther, 2012; Bênabou and Tirole, 2010).
 
Central to the CSR debate is the notion of how society defines the role of business, and the resulting responsibilities. The classic roles and responsibilities assigned to business are to harness capital and other resources in production, to provide employment and meaningful jobs, to conduct research, development and innovation, to provide goods and services for sale, to create wealth for shareholders, employees, customers and society at large. (Fitzgerald and Cormack, 2011) These core, growth and profit motivated responsibilities do touch on some dimensions of CSR, but comparing these to the responsibilities endowed by CSR shows the amount of change necessary to move towards a socially responsible business model.
 
One extreme of the CSR debate, often referred to as the neo-classical or traditional conflict approach (Redman, 2005), argues that the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits (Friedman, 1970). The other end of the spectrum is what Redman terms the “true believers” (2005, 78) approach to CSR. This is where a firm has environmental and social commitments in place that are not profit motivated. However, true corporate altruism is rare with evidence suggesting that organisations are more likely to adopt an ‘enlightened self-interest’ approach to CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006). This is an approach that ties socially responsible activities to profit making activities (Redman, 2005).
 
Enlightened self-interest has been one of the driving forces behind corporate responsibility in relation to the environment and utilization of scare resources. Inputs to production, from raw products to fossil fuels, are becoming scare and businesses have needed to adapt to these changes or risk extinction (Ashley and Crowther, 2012). So while environmental impacts are now of greater concern to business, it could be argued that this is more the survival of the business than a deliberately socially responsible endeavor (Ashley and Crowther, 2012).
 
At the same time, society now holds greater expectations of the business community (Scherer and Palazzo, 2011). With higher levels of education (for the most part) and thus knowledge, there is less of a tendency to believe the rhetoric of business. Ashley and Crowther argue that customers are not looking for perfection of business practices, but “the do expect honesty and transparency” (2012, pg.3).
 
The rise and rise of social media has also created a fast and ubiquitous means for people to call businesses to account for (perceived) socially irresponsible acts (Fitzgerald and Cormack, 2011). The media also has the ability to provide focus and extensive coverage on businesses who have engaged in dubious practices (Fitzgerald and Cormack, 2011). Companies who use third world (often slave) labour are being named and shamed, and forced to reassess their supply chain practices (Ashley and Crowther, 2012).
 
Despite these inroads, the last decade has seen examples where self-regulation and responsible corporate behaviour have failed spectacularly (Lynch-Wood et al, 2009), causing such events as the Global Financial Crisis. Few, if any, parts of society remain unaffected by these events. The response by policy makers and legislators has been swift and punitive. The net result being greater compliance and reporting requirements across most organisations and industries. Now there exists little distinction between what would have been considered a CSR organisation and one that practices good corporate governance (Money and Scheper, 2007; Mason and Simmonds, 2014).
 
It would be disingenuous to deny that the CSR movement has not had a positive impact on the business community. However, the overwhelming amount of progress in socially responsible action has been sparked by the depletion of natural resources and the need for businesses to diversify operations, changes in society and societal expectations of business and government legislative response to corporate failings. Being socially responsible is now just good business, an essential component of operational and strategic decision making (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Whichever way it is has been achieved, there are consequences that still exist for organisation that do not conduct CSR.
 
Both the perception and reality of company performance can be enhanced by adopting CSR. Some pundits argue the payoff is long term, others argue that there is no payoff at all (McWilliams et al, 2006). Above profitability, there are a number of risks organisations face if they do not engage in CSR behaviour. It should be noted that the following is not an exhaustive list, merely the ones with the greatest potential impact.
 
Reputational damage has always been a key outcome of socially irresponsible business activities (Walker and Dyck, 2014). Reputation can be defined as the aggregate perception of an organisations internal and external stakeholders (Walker and Dyck, 2014) and represents a firm’s single greatest intangible asset. Once reputation is lost, or at least impacted significantly, it is difficult to get back. Changes to the speed with which reputation damaging information can spread is also of concern to socially irresponsible organisations as it is much more difficult to hide or deny wrong doing (Ashley and Crowther, 2012).Further to this, Walker and Dyck’s (2014) research showed a positive correlation between a firm’s reputation and those with corporate social responsibility.
 
Employee engagement and attracting talent appears to go hand in hand with socially responsible corporate practices (Bhattacharya et al., 2008). The global economy has been described as a ‘knowledge economy’ (Fitzgerald and Cormack, 2011), with the greatest corporate assets residing in the intellectual endeavor of staff. Bhattacharya et al. (2008) also argue that CSR is a way for a firm to show their values in practice and thereby emotionally engaging employees to achieve all of the organisation’s goals.
 
Engaged staff, at all levels of the business, are crucial to complete in a market place that is increasingly saturated by products and services. Differentiating the offering of one business from another (Servaes and Tamayo 2013) is becoming more difficult to achieve, but CSR related activities provide a point of product differentiation. Environmentally sounds goods (such as recyclable plastics) and Fairtrade food stuffs (such as coffee) are two examples of familiar products that have been differentiated by organisations acting in a more socially responsible manner. Firms who fail to innovate in this way will become followers instead of leaders, and potentially impact their profitability (Blowfield and Murray, 2008).
 
Smarter product and service development needs to start with managers and leaders thinking outside their traditional product and service offerings (Blowfield and Murray, 2008). The move to a more socially responsible business imperative has opened up new markets and opportunities within which an organisation can expand and prosper (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Those organisations closed to CSR will miss these opportunities and run the risk of being left behind. Even if opportunities are identified, access to capital may become increasingly difficult for non-CSR firms.
 
With the rise of Socially Responsible Investment, organisations that do not engage in CSR can limit their access to capital and hence, their growth potential (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Furthermore, organisations run the risk of greater regulatory intervention if they do not change to more socially responsible ways.
 
The recent trend towards regulation of business activities has highlighted the fact that if governments and policy makers identify failures in self-regulation, they are more than willing to step in and regulate business behaviour (Lynch-Wood et al, 2009). Legislation changes and compliance requirements are both restrictive and costly to organisations. If organisations fail to go above and beyond the current compliance requirements, they risk more being imposed on their activities (Bênabou and Tirole, 2010).
 
These risks all have the potential to significantly impact an organisations profitability and in extreme cases, long-term survival. These considerations also should be cause enough for businesses to reconsider their default position on CSR initiatives. Whatever the short-comings of the CSR movement, and the ideologically motivated debates about definition, society and the global economy are radically changed. Being socially responsible is now the only way to do business.
 
Corporate Social Responsibility is a sound business concept, but long fought debates around its definition have reduced the impact that it may have had on the business community. The fact remains that even if organisations conduct themselves in a socially responsible manner, there is some level of profit-motivated self-interest underpinning these decisions. The greatest headway in moving (forcing?) organisations to be more socially responsible has been societal and environmental changes external to the firm. Global industry and populations have led to the degradation of raw materials and fossil fuels which has made it necessary for many industries to reconsider how they do business. Sustainable development has become core to business operations in most sectors and is now more a case of good business practice than falling under the CSR banner. Society has also seen the impact that business has on their natural environment and communities in general, and is now willing and capable of calling organisations into account for irresponsible, unethical behaviour. In summary, forces external to the organisation have had a greater influence in moving organisations towards the CSR ideal than the CSR movement itself. Regardless of how more socially responsible business practices are achieved, the change is positive and widespread. Substantial risk still remains for those businesses who do not adopt CSR practices. The implications include reputational risk, the inability to attract and retain staff and the possibility of increased regulation. Failing to embrace CSR also has the potential to impact the long-term suitability of an organisation, reducing access to capital, missing opportunities for growth and the failure to differentiate your brand from the rest of the pack. The conclusion being that being socially responsible is no longer optional, it is simply the way good business is done.
 
References
Ashley, P. and Crowther, D. (2012), Territories of social responsibility. 1st ed. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower.
 
Bênabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2010), Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, 77: 1–19.
 
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sankar, S., Korschun, D., (2008), “Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Win the War for Talent”, MIT Sloan Management Review, (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/using-corporate-social-responsibility-to-win-the-war-for-talent/)
 
Blowfield, M. and Murray, A. (2008), Corporate Responsibility: a critical introduction, OUP.
 
Dahlsrud, A. (2008), “How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1), pp 1-13.
 
Drucker, P. (1954), The Practice of Management, Allied Partners, New York.
 
Fitzgerald, N. and Cormack, M. (2011), The Role of Business in Society. An Agenda for Action, Joint Initiative by the Conference Board, Harvard University CSR Initiative and the International Business Leaders Forum on behalf of the Clinton Initiative. ( http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_12_CGI%20Role%20of%20Business%20in%20Society%20Report%20FINAL%2010-03-06.pdf )
 
Friedman, M. (1970), “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, pp 122-126.
 
International Organisation for Standardization 2010, Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility (ISO 26000).
 
Lynch-Wood, G., Williamson, D. and Jenkins, W. (2009), “The over-reliance on self-regulation in CSR policy”, Business Ethics: A European Review, 18 (1), pp 52-65.
 
Mason, C., and Simmons, J. (2014), “Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, 119, pp 77-86.
 
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., and Wright, P.M. (2006), “Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications”, Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1), pp 1-18.
 
Money, K. and Schepers, H. (2007), “Are CSR and Corporate Governance Converging?” Journal of General Management, 33 (2).
 
Porter, M.E., and Kramer, M.R.(2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, December 2006, pp 78-93.
 
Servaes, H. and Tamayo, A. (2013), “The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Firm Value: The Role of Customer Awareness”, Management Science,59,(5), pp. 1045–1061.
 
Redman, E., (2005), “Understanding the Corporate Social Responsibility Continuum”,
 
LBJ Journal of Public Affairs , 18, pp 72-84.
 
Walker, K. and Dyck, B. (2014), “The Primary Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethicality in Corporate Reputation: An Empirical Study”, Business and Society Review,119 (1), pp 147–174.