Write a full scientific research report on your Reverse Genetics Project. Use other genetics studies published in high impact factor journals such as Genetics or Cell as models for how to structure your paper. Use the journal Genetics for reference format. Refer to the BISC_219/F10:Resources section of this wiki to download a copy of "Guide to Scientific Writing in BISC219".
| Section || At or Above Standard || Below Standard || Points
|| 1 pt. Gives accurate & appropriate content information to reader, stressing answer to experimental questions over tools or techniques. Lists your lab partner(s) as second author(s).
|| 0-0.5 pts. Did not give enough content information, or too much, or inaccurate information.
Does not include authorship.
|| 3 pts. Concisely summarizes in appropriate format: topic, experimental questions, general methods, major findings (strongest evidence leading to conclusions), conclusions & implications of study.
|| 0-2.5 pts. Omits key information; includes tangential information; misinterprets information and/or implications; uses incorrect format.
|| 7-10 pts. Identifies topic & central experimental questions; includes appropriate background information; uses a level of detail appropriate for novice audience. Includes a brief outline of methods. Writing style uses correct vocabulary, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and is clear and concise. Source citations in proper format (Genetics style) are included for all information not common knowledge
|| 0-6.5 pts. Does not correctly topic or identify experimental questions. Missing appropriate background information, an outline of methods, or reference citations for information not common knowledge. Inappropriate level of detail (either too much or missing information needed for target audience). Writing style is not clear or concise and/or uses incorrect vocabulary, grammar, spelling, or punctuation.
| 5-7.5 pt. Procedures are accurately, clearly & succinctly described.
|| 0-4.5 pts. Procedures incorrectly or unclearly described or omitted; uses too much detail.
|| 13-15 pts. Uses figures and tables formatted for maximum clarity and ease of interpretation. All figures & tables are numbered & have correctly formatted legends with appropriate information; all data is labeled. The text portion describes accurately, clearly, and succinctly the major findings & analyzes the data appropriately to show reader how conclusions are drawn.
|| 0-12.5 pts. Not all key figures and/or tables included. Figures &/or tables are difficult to read or to interpret due to missing information and/or poor design. The text portion omits key findings, describes the data inaccurately or unclearly, includes irrelevant information, or is repetitive.
|| 10-12.5 pts. Discussion focuses on experimental data & refers to it directly by fig. or table number. Major findings from results are referenced appropriately. Importance of findings, broader significance & context are adequately explained. Connections are made among experimental findings, background information & relevant research from outside sources. Appropriate conclusions are drawn and related to larger context. Writing style uses correct vocabulary, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and is clear and concise
|| 0-9.5 pts. Not all major findings evaluated for meaning & importance, or are incorrectly interpreted. Connections among experimental findings missing or incorrectly applied. Relationship between experimental findings, background information & relevant research missing or incorrectly interpreted. Conclusions incorrectly drawn, and/or not related to larger significance. Writing style is not clear or concise and/or uses incorrect grammar, spelling, punctuation & vocabulary.
|| 1 pt. Includes complete, properly formatted citation for each work cited in body of report. Cites all material used that is not commons knowledge. Uses an adequate number of reliable, appropriate sources including primary studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
|| 0-0.5 pts. Does not include complete, properly formatted citations for all references, lists works not cited in report, or fails to give reference citation for information not common knowledge. Does not use reliable or appropriate sources, or fails to use an adequate number of primary studies from peer reviewed journals.