A formal research article or less formal lab reports are the principal ways scientific data is conveyed to the rest of the scientific community and preserved for future examination. Each scientific journal has its own idiosyncrasies regarding particulars of the research article's format, but the most common elements of a scientific article, in order of presentation, are:
- List of Authors
- Materials and Methods
- Results, including figures and tables
The requirements for each section are outlined below. NOTE: This information is given in the order that you might actually write up your research, rather than the order in which the parts are presented in the final article. If you want more information, you can find parts of this text in an on-line collection of instructional materials used in the Purdue University Writing Lab (http://owl.english.purdue.edu). Other parts are inspired by Robert A. Day’s book, “How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper” from Oryx Press, a copy of which can be borrowed from the teaching faculty.
This is often the subject of many heated discussions and hurt feelings when only one report can be submitted to describe many people’s work. Since each of you will submit your own report, questions about who the authors will be, in what order, and what responsibilities each will have are moot. However you should list the name of your partner on your report since she contributed to the work.
Figures and tables
Some readers begin by scanning the figures first. The figures, with the legends, should provide a self-explanatory overview of your data. Decide what the data show, then create figures which highlight the most important points of your paper.
Tables are used to present repetitive data that is numerical. Graphs or illustrations, collectively called figures, are used to present numerical trends, raw data (like a picture of a gel), or a model that explains your work.
When you prepare your figures and tables, keep in mind that it is significantly more expensive for journals to publish figures and tables than text, so try to present the data in a way that is worthy of such added expense. The table below is an example of an ineffective table.
Temperature Repeats Cortical Cells Ion Flow
24°C 5 + +
24°C 5 - -
The information in Table 1 could be presented in one sentence, such as: “In ten experiments carried out at 24°C, ion flow was detected only in the presence of cortical cells.” This is a clearer and more concise way to present the information. In addition, all tables and figures must have numbers, titles and legends.
Figure and table legends
Legends to the figures and tables explain the elements that appear in the illustration. Conclusions about the data are NOT included in the legends. As you write your first draft, state in a short simple sentence, what the point of the figure or table is. In later drafts, make sure each element of the figure or table is explained. Your figure legends should be written in the present tense since you are explaining elements that still exist at the time that you are writing the paper.
To write the results section, use the figures and tables as a guide. Start by outlining, in point form, what you found, going slowly through each part of the figures. Then take the points and group them into paragraphs, and finally order the points within each paragraph. Present the data as fully as possible, including stuff that at the moment does not quite make sense.
Verbs in the results section are usually in the past tense. Only established scientific knowledge is written about in the present tense, “the world is round,” for example. You cannot presume that your own data are part of the body of established scientific knowledge, and so when you describe your own results, use the past tense, “a band of 1.3 kb was seen,” for example. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. It is acceptable to say, “Table 3 shows the sizes of the DNA fragments in our preparation.” It is also acceptable to say, “In a 1991 paper, Ebright and coworkers used PCR to mutagenize DNA.”
Materials and methods
This is like a cooking recipe. Include enough detail so that someone can repeat the experiment. It is important that the reader be able to interpret the results knowing the context in which they were obtained.
The Materials and Methods section should be written in the past tense, since your experiments are completed at the time you are writing your paper.
This is the section of the paper for you to show off your understanding of the data. You should summarize what you found. Explain how this relates to what others have found. Explain the implications.
Introduce what your question is. Explain why someone should find this interesting. Summarize what is currently known about the question. Introduce a little of what you found and how you found it. You should explain any ideas or techniques that are necessary for someone to understand your results section.
The abstract is a very short summary (usually around 150-250 words) of what the question is, what you found, and why it may be important.
The importance of abstracts is increasing as more scientists are using computers to keep up with the literature. Since many search engines can only search for words in a paper’s title and abstract, these may be the only parts that many people read. The abstract may also be the way a journal’s editor decides whether to send your paper out for peer review or reject it as uninteresting and not generally relevant. Consequently, a well written abstract is extraordinarily important.
The title should be short (about 10 words), interesting, and it should describe what you found. Avoid very broad titles (e.g., 'DNA recombination'), and try to specify your own unique result within the limited space, while still maintaining readability of your title.
See MIT libraries information on citing sources, here. In your report, you should include only those references that pertain to the question at hand. Journals vary considerably in their preferred format for the reference list. For this class, you should list the references alphabetically by the first author’s last name. Include all the authors, the paper’s title, the name of the journal in which it was published, its year of publication, the volume number, and page numbers. Please carefully follow the punctuation and format requirements. A typical reference should look like
Pavletich NP, Pabo CO. Zinc finger-DNA recognition: crystal structure of a Zif268-DNA complex at 2.1 A. Science 1991; 252:809-817
In the body of your report, this article would be cited as follows:
“The crystal structure of the Zif268-DNA complex has been solved (Pavletich 1991).”
If two or more articles can be cited for this finding, then they are listed alphabetically, separated by a comma.
The following table describes the features of reports that are excellent, good, and that need substantial improvement, respectively from left to right. Your own reports will be evaluated with these features in mind.
||To give content information to reader
- Not enough content information or too much
||To concisely summarize the experimental question, general methods, major findings, and implications of the experiments in relation to what is known or expected.
- Key information is presented completely and in a clear, concise way
- All information is correct
- Organization is logical
- Captures any reader’s interest
- Sufficient information is presented in proper format
- Would benefit from some reorganization
- Understandable with some prior knowledge of experiment
- Some key information is omitted or tangential information is included
- Some information is misrepresented
- Some implications are omitted
- Incorrect format is used
||To identify central experimental questions, and appropriate background information. To present a plausible hypothesis and a means of testing it.
- Relevant background information is presented in balanced, engaging way
- Your experimental goals and predictions are clear and seem a logical extension of existing knowledge
- Writing is easy to read
- All background information is correctly referenced
- Relevant background information is presented but could benefit from reorganization
- Your experiment is well described and a plausible hypothesis is given
- With some effort, reader can connect your experiments to background information
- Writing is understandable
- Background information is correctly referenced
- Background information is too general, too specific, missing and/or misrepresented
- Experimental question is incorrectly or not identified
- No plausible hypothesis is given
- Writing style is not clear, correct or concise
- References are not given or properly formatted
|Materials & Methods
||To describe procedures correctly, clearly, and succinctly. Included a correctly formatted citation of the lab manual.
- Sufficient for another researcher to repeat your experiment
- Lab manual cited
- Procedures could be pieced together with some effort
- Lab manual cited
- Procedures incorrectly or unclearly described or omitted
- Lab manual not cited
||To present your data using text AND figures/tables.
- Text tells story of your major findings in logical and engaging way
- Figures and tables are formatted for maximum clarity and ease of interpretation
- All figures and tables have numbers, titles and legends that are easy for the reader to follow
- Text presents data but could benefit from reorganization or editing to make story easier for reader
- Text includes interpretation of results that is better suited for discussion section
- Figures and tables are formatted to be clear and interpretable
- All figures and tables have numbers, titles and legends
- Text omits key findings, inaccurately describes data, or includes irrelevant information
- Text difficult to read due to style or mechanics of writing
- Text difficult to read due to logic or organization
- Figures and tables missing information, improperly formatted or poorly designed
- Figures and tables have inadequate or missing titles or legends
||To evaluate meaning and importance of major findings
- Appropriate conclusions drawn from findings
- Connections made between experimental findings
- Connections made between findings and background information
- Future directions considered
- Writing is compelling
- Appropriate conclusions drawn from findings
- Experimental limitations considered
- Writing is clear
- Conclusions omitted, incorrectly drawn or not related to hypothesis.
- Relationship between experimental findings and background information is missing or incorrectly drawn
- Writing style and mechanics make argument difficult to follow
||To give credit work on which your own is based
- Complete list of reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journal article(s)
- Properly formatted in body of report and in reference section
- Adequate list or reliable sources
- With minor exceptions, properly formatted in body of report and in reference section
- List is incomplete or includes sources not cited in body of report
- List includes inappropriate sources
- List not properly formatted
- References not properly cited in body of report
|Writing Style and Mechanics
- Appropriate for audience
- Consistent passive or active voice
- Too simple or too advanced
- Irregular use of passive and active voice
- Says what you mean
- Scientific vocabulary used correctly
- Ambiguous or incorrect
- Scientific vocabulary misused
- Sentences and paragraphs well structured
- Punctuation correct or only minor errors
- Grammar correct or minor errors
- Spelling correct
- Sentences repetitive or awkward
- Paragraphs not logical
- Periods, commas, colons and semicolons misused.
- Significant number of run-on sentences, sentence fragments, misplaced modifiers, subject/verb disagreements
- Significant number of spelling errors
- Past tense for describing new findings
- Present tense used for accepted scientific knowledge and figure legends.
- All sections included and properly formatted
- Misleading verb tenses
- Some sections missing
- Abstract not single spaced
- Figures missing legends
- References not properly formatted