WRITING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Use the following menu to jump to any of the required sections of a scientific paper or to the grading criteria:
Title Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Literature Cited Grading Criteria The most important parts of every scientific paper are the question(s) and the answer(s). All the formatting is designed to make it more efficient for readers to get the question(s) and answer(s). That's why the hypothesis is always presented at the end of the introduction and why the results and discussion are separated. Make absolutely sure that your question and answer are the stars of your papers. Organize your text to highlight the starring roles of the question and answer; all the rest is the supporting cast.
Your labs and your independent project paper should be written INDIVIDUALLY as scholarly scientific papers and follow the format acceptable to scientific journals. Here I give you some brief guidelines to help you. It will also be valuable to consult the scientific journal Ecology to examine its style. One book to consult on scientific writing is McMillan's Writing in the Biological Sciences; another good book is called the CBE Manual (Council of Biology Editors Style Manual) published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. There are writing hints and more writing references listed at the bottom of this page.
Labs will likely be around 4-5 pages of text; your project paper will likely be around 6-8 pages of text. Both labs and project reports must be typed, double-spaced with a wide side margin (c. 4 cm) for comments. Cite references in the text as (author year); do not use numbers or footnotes. See a recent issue of Ecology for proper citation format in the text and in your literature cited section.
Title
- Your title should be descriptive but concise.
- Look at titles in Ecology for lots of good examples.
Abstract
(return to menu)
- The Abstract must summarize the whole paper, from the rationale to the ecological conclusions. It must also be 250 words or less.
- Be brief and specific, and clearly label any speculations.
- Writing the abstract well is crucial. For many published papers, this may be all anyone ever reads; if it is poorly written, you can ensure that this is all anyone will read.
Introduction
(return to menu)
- The Introduction MUST explain the rationale for the study...why was it interesting, significant, or useful to answer the question that you posed. What questions are you attempting to answer? Why should anyone bother to read further? How does this relate to a broader picture (this will help make it interesting) and what specifically will you be addressing? What major findings have been published on this question? How does your study fit in? This is where many of your literature references will go.
- The last paragraph in the introduction must explicitly state the hypothesis(es) or question(s) the study was designed to answer. The question(s) and answer(s) are the whole point of the paper, after all! What is your hypothesis or (ideally) mutually exclusive, alternative hypotheses? Tell us how your approach will distinguish among them. What should the reader be looking for if the results support or refute the hypothesis?
Methods
(return to menu)
- What experimental or descriptive methods did you use to answer your questions?
- Briefly, describe how your methods were relevant to your question, e.g. "To determine if food was limiting, I sampled. . ."
- You should add sections on the study area and/or biology of the organisms since they are usually important for understanding your results.
- The Methods must explain not only the procedures followed in collecting the data, but also the statistical methods used to analyze those data. You can start your methods with a section labeled "Data collection methods," and end your methods with a paragraph or two labeled "Data analysis." Here is where you mention the results of the assumptions tests that were necessary and any transformations you had to do (e.g., "The data were normally distributed but were log transformed to achieve homogeneity prior to the ANOVA analysis.") and the subsequent statistical analyses you performed to answer your questions(s) (but don't describe the results here).
Results
(return to menu)
- The Results must contain text that states the "ecological conclusions" from each of your statistical tests. You should make these statements as concise as possible [e.g., "Moss abundance was higher on deciduous trees than on coniferous trees (X2 = 12.8; P=0.0012; Table 1)."] with the statistics supporting the conclusion rather than being the subject of a sentence. In the Results section, state only those conclusions that no one with any statistical experience would question given the data.
- Figures can be imbedded or attached at the end. Figures must have clear and understandable axis labels and no extraneous accompanying text. Note that figures for written reports do not have titles. Make your graphs look professional. YOU MAY NOT SIMPLY ATTACH RAW STATISTICAL OUTPUT TO YOUR PAPER. IF YOU DO, YOUR PAPER WILL BE RETURNED IMMEDIATELY AND LATE PENALTIES WILL BEGIN TO ACCRUE.
- Figure legend(s) should be placed either below the figure or on a separate page preceding the figure(s). Figure legends must describe the conclusion(s), the type of statistical test performed, the P-values, the sample size(s), and for bar graphs, the measure used to construct the error bars, or for scatter plots, the regression equation(s) and R2 value(s). Again, consult the journal Ecology for examples. There is also a good description of tables, table titles, figures and figure legends in McMillan, Ch. 4.
- The only statistical results that need to be presented in a TABLE are Chi2 data, two-way ANOVA and ANCOVA results. Other stats should be presented in the text (see the journal Ecology for examples) and/or figures. (Note that you don't need tables, only figures, for simple regression stats or t-tests.) The format I'd like you to use for ANOVA or ANCOVA tables is shown below. Include columns only for the variables, the degrees of freedom, the F-value, and the P-value. Titles of tables are generally brief and describe the response and factor variables. Only horizontal lines are used to set off header labels from the data (which I can't illustrate here); no vertical lines are included.
Table X. (Title) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Source
df F P Factor 1
x x.xxx < 0.001 Factor 2
x x.xxx 0.586 Factor 1*Factor 2
x x.xxx 0.003 Residual
x .
.
- Where the statistical results clearly answer one of your questions in a way that is unambiguous, you may make that connection in the Results section. Give your readers a brief checkpoint; remember that your readers are not as familiar with the subject as you and they need to be reminded of what the question was and why you did this part of the experiment. However, if the answer to the question requires any interpretation, you must save that answer for the Discussion.
Discussion
(return to menu)
- The Discussion should not repeat the ecological conclusions that you stated in the Results. It should interpret those conclusions in light of your hypothesis(es) or question(s). Usually, the data themselves give only an indirect answer to the question and we have to interpret (with all the inherent caveats) whether the data support the hypothesis(es) or how they answer the question(s). Discuss the caveats and/or any trends that are suggestive. In short, bring to bear in your interpretation all the insight you gained from being there. Don't be afraid to speculate as long as you clearly label the speculations. Speculation is exceedingly valuable for stimulating further thought.
- Be direct and succinct. These conclusions are what you want your readers to remember. Tell us your major findings first, then add your lesser findings.
- The Discussion should also compare your answers to those of others who have done similar work. Do your results support or contradict other results? Why or why not?
- The Discussion should include any problems you encountered and approaches you can suggest, based on your experience, that might work to avoid those problems. You must also suggest new questions that have arisen through your work and how one might answer those new questions.
Literature Cited
(return to menu)
- The literature from which you derived facts or ideas must be cited in the text [(author date) format] after the statements that used those sources. Then list the full citation in the Literature Cited section.
- Use the format illustrated in the journal Ecology (author, date, article title, journal title vol:pages). Notice the hanging indent format that is used in this section (one that I am unable to reproduce in the reference list below!); it makes the Literature Cited section a lot easier to read.
- Two outside references are adequate for your lab reports; five outside references are adequate for your independent project paper.
Writing Hints
(return to menu)
- Try explaining your ideas to someone and then write them down.
- Use first person when you can and use direct, active verbs; avoid long strings of prepositional phrases.
- Avoid jargon and clearly define any specialized terminology.
- I will be happy to preview any papers if you get them to me at least 3 days before they are due! The Writing Center on campus also has very good writing consultants. Use them (you've already paid for their services!).
References on Writing
(some of these, and others, are on reserve for Bio 492)
(return to menu)McMillan, V.E. 1997. Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. St. Martin's College Publishing Group, Boston, MA. 198 pp.
Council of Biology Editors Style Manual (CBE Manual). Amer. Inst. Biological Sciences: Washington, D.C. The book to consult on how to prepare a paper for publication in a scientific journal.
Day, R.A. 1988. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 3rd ed. Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ. 211 pp.
Miller, C. and K. Swift. 1980. A Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. Barnes and Nobel, N.Y.
Strunk, W. and E.B. White. The Elements of Style. MacMillan, N. Y. (An excellent book on how to write clearly and concisely. If you have any trouble writing, buy this.)
Turabian, K.L. A manual for writers of term papers, theses and dissertations. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Grading Criteria
We will be grading your written reports according to the following criteria. Each partner must independently write his/her own report. Partners may use the same figures, but you must write your own figure legends. In different years, the lab reports may be worth different amounts, so there are several versions of the point assignments shown. Your final project reports will also be graded on these same criteria, typically out of 100 points (with the abstract due earlier than the rest).
40 pt paper 50 pt paper 75 pt paper 100 pt paper Title
1 2 2 4 Abstract
4 5 7 10 Introduction
.
.
.
.
3 3 5 6 3 4 6 8 Methods
.
.
.
.
3 3 5 6 1 2 4 4 Results
. . . . 4 5 8 10 5 5 8 10 4 5 8 10 Discussion
.
.
.
.
4 5 6 10 3 4 6 8 Literature Cited
.
.
.
.
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Overall clarity/concision of language
3 3 4 6 Total
40 50 75 100
Title Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Literature Cited Grading Criteria
Return to top of page