A primary way that scientists communicate with one another is through scientific papers.  We will model our Biocore lab reports on the format most commonly used by scientific journals.  Your lab reports should follow the guidelines described below unless the lab manual or your TA specifically tells you otherwise.  Some lab reports have a modified format or require only a subset of the standard sections listed below.

The figure below indicates the four main sections (Intro, Methods, Results and Discussion) that form the body of a scientific paper. Each section of the paper (except for “Title”) should begin with one of these terms as a heading These main sections are bookended on the front end with a Title and Abstract summarizing the whole document and on the back end by a Literature Cited and Appendices (optional) in support of the document.

Other classes and some scientific journals deviate from this format, and you should always consult the guidelines specified before preparing a paper for another class (or submitting a manuscript for publication).

• Title
• Authorship
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods and Materials
• Results (including figures and tables)
• Discussion
• Literature Cited

 

View lab report structure diagram as a pdf

 

The Methods and Results are specific to your hypothesis and the experiment you performed.

Then the Discussion starts more narrowly focused on whether you support or reject your hypothesis, but then broadens to integrate your findings into the existing literature, and finishes with a conclusion that is based on the experimental evidence you present.

Title

The title is a clear, specific statement of the subject of your report. Think of the words in your title as key search terms. It introduces the reader to your paper and lets them know what to expect.

Titles should:

• Be concise and informative and need not be complete sentences.
• Avoid filler words like “Studies on” or “Investigations of” and opening words like A, An, or The.
• Be as specific as possible.
• Avoid abbreviations and jargon.
• state the results.

*If your report constitutes the results of an experiment where you manipulated variables and analyzed the result, include the independent and dependent variables, the direction of your results, as well as the study organism/ subject in your title.

How will titles be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Title, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Authorship

In scientific journal articles, the first author listed is the primary author, and subsequent authors are listed according to the magnitude of their contribution to the study.  Research mentors such as principal investigators (PI’s) of labs, are typically listed last.  If all authors have made equivalent contributions to the article, then the paper will state that authors’ names are listed in alphabetical order.

In Biocore you will work within teams to do independent research projects, but we usually ask for individual lab reports because we want to give you many opportunities to work on your writing and thinking skills.  At other times we will ask you to submit group posters and PowerPoint presentations.  Here is how you should list teammates for various Biocore assignments:

• Individual papers or mini-posters:  List yourself first as the primary author under your title, then list teammates as contributors at the top of the page in alphabetical order. Also list your lab section and TA.
• Group posters or PowerPoint presentations: We assume that all of you have made equivalent contributions to these collaborative group assignments, so include all researchers’ names as authors in alphabetical order.

Abstract

*Not all Biocore lab reports require abstracts! Research proposals generally do not require abstracts, but check assignment description for details.

The abstract forces the author to distill the essence of the paper to a very brief summary (100-200 words).  Think of the abstract as the two-minute version of your entire experiment. Many readers use the abstract to decide whether they want to find and read the entire paper.

You must be concise. One way to do this is to summarize, in one or two sentences each:

1. the rationale behind the experiment (goal of your experiment, model system, most important background information)
2. your hypothesis
3. the approach you took (how and what you actually tested)
4. results or expected results
5. conclusions/implications

Other tips:

• Always write the abstract last, after you thoroughly understand the experiment and its meaning.
• Abstracts should be understandable without referring to the rest of the paper.
• You do not cite references in an abstract. General and/or specifically applicable knowledge is assumed or is cited elsewhere in your paper.

How will abstracts be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Abstract, see the Biocore the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Introduction

This section provides guidelines on how to construct a solid introduction to a scientific paper including background information, study question, biological rationale, hypothesis, and general approach. If the Introduction is done well, there should be no question in the reader’s mind why and on what basis you have posed a specific hypothesis.

Broad Question: based on an initial observation (e.g., “I see a lot of guppies close to the shore. Do guppies like living in shallow water?”).  This observation of the natural world may inspire you to investigate background literature on previous research by others or gather some initial data/ observations as a pilot study. Broad questions are not always included in your written text, but are essential for establishing the direction of your research.

Background information:  key issues, concepts, terminology, and definitions are needed to understand the biological rationale for the experiment. The background often includes a summary of findings from previous, relevant studies that introduce the study system, the independent and dependent variable. Remember to cite references, be concise, and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. Your concise summary of background information should lead to specific scientific knowledge gaps that still exist.  (e.g., “No studies on lake guppy distribution to date have examined whether guppies do indeed spend more time in shallow water.”)

Testable Question:  these questions are much more focused than the initial broad question, are specific to the knowledge gap identified, and can be addressed with data.  (e.g., “Do guppies spend different amounts of time in water less than 1 meter deep as compared to their time in water that is greater than 1 meter deep?”)

View testable question diagram as pdf

Biological Rationale (BR): The BR explains why you expect your independent variable(s) to affect your dependent variable(s) in the way your hypothesis indicates. After you have summarized the background information relevant to the study, the “BR” provides the logic and reasoning for your hypothesis and experimental approach, describing the biological mechanism that connects your independent and dependent variables and the assumptions that provides evidence for why your hypothesis should be supported.  The biological rationale is based on your interpretation of the scientific literature, your personal observations, and the underlying assumptions you are making about how you think the system works. If you have written your biological rationale logically and clearly, your reader should see your hypothesis in your introduction section and say to themselves— “Of course this hypothesis is supportable. It seems very logical based on the rationale presented.”

Steps for Developing a BR—Based on your background information:

1. Dependent Variable(s)- List key aspects of the dependent variable (DV) that are known (based on the scientific literature) and those that are unknown that you may need to assume or may be associated with a knowledge gap.
2. Independent Variable(s)- List key aspects of the independent variable (IV) that are known (based on the scientific literature) and those that are unknown that you may need to assume or may be associated with a knowledge gap.
3. Connection between DV and IV- List what is known and what you are assuming about the ways (mechanisms or relationships) in which the IV influences the DV, either directly or indirectly, either in the system you are studying, in a similar system, or a more distant dissimilar system. If possible, note literature that support any assumptions. The biological link between your IV and DV(s) is central piece of your BR.
4. Based on #3, articulate the specific knowledge gap you hope to fill in this study.
5. Generate a draft hypothesis based on steps 1-4.

Once you have done steps 1-5, start to sketch out your reasoning using a conceptual or graphic model

In Biocore, we will ask you to construct two different types of models as you are learning to develop your BR:

1. Conceptual Model– a logical flow of ideas utilizing boxes and arrows to indicate how variables are connected and support your hypothesis. Conceptual models are helpful for developing logical thought progression but are generally not included in a paper or final presentation.
2. Graphic or Visual Model– A cartoon or graphic depiction for how variables interact to result in your predicted outcome. Graphic models are often included in scientific posters and Powerpoint presentations, and sometimes in scientific papers.

See following sections for examples of Biological Rationale in the form of Conceptual and Graphic Models

Conceptual Model

In the Conceptual Model example below, the biological rationale is depicted as a logical flow of statements beginning with a testable question and ending with a hypothesis.

View conceptual model as a pdf

Graphic or Visual Model

Graphic or Visual Model uses cartoon diagrams and symbols to communicate the predicted interaction among variables and the mechanism by which they interact. Visual models use shorthand literature citations (superscript numbers) to indicate literature references that are further discussed in an oral presentation (poster or PowerPoint) or written narrative (paper).

More on Biological Rationale:

• A thorough rationale defines your knowledge gap about the system that has not been revealed in scientific literature or from previous observation. The knowledge gap is the knowledge we are attempting to create. The interpretation of your experimental data and the integration of literature will fill or partially fill the knowledge gap. In order to fill the knowledge gap, you may need to make assumptions about how your system operates. Assumptions are aspects of the system that you are not testing directly, but you think are particularly important since they drive the direction of your specific hypothesis or general predictions. Sometimes students confuse the knowledge gap and assumptions. Data gathered during the experiment can address the knowledge gap but generally do not provide direct evidence to support or refute assumptions.
• Defining the BR is probably the most critical task for a writer, as it tells your reader why your research is biologically meaningful. It may help to think about the rationale as a link between your independent and dependent variables, because the rationale answers these questions—how is this investigation related to what we know, what assumptions am I making about what we don’t yet know, AND how will this experiment add to our knowledge? 
• Expect to spend time and mental effort on your BR. You may have to do considerable digging into the scientific literature to define how your experiment fits into what is already known and why it is relevant to pursue.
• Be open to the possibility that as you work with and think about your data, you may develop a deeper, more accurate understanding of the experimental system. You may find the original rationale needs to be revised to reflect your new, more sophisticated understanding.
• As you progress through Biocore and upper level biology courses, your rationale should become more focused and matched with the level of study i.e., cellular, biochemical, or physiological mechanisms that underlie the rationale. Achieving this type of understanding takes effort, but it will lead to better communication of your science.

Hypothesis / Predictions: specific prediction(s) that you will test during your experiment. For manipulative experiments, the hypothesis should include the independent variable (what you manipulate), the dependent variable(s) (what you measure), the organism or system, the direction of your results, and comparison to be made. See the following examples.

If you are doing a systematic observation, your hypothesis presents a variable or set of variables that you predict are important for helping you characterize the system as a whole, or predict differences between components/areas of the system that help you explain how the system functions or changes over time.

Note that hypotheses/ predictions you develop in Biocore lab are much more specific than the general hypotheses that guide the research questions you encounter in scientific literature or in faculty research labs. That is because the research projects you do in Biocore are short-term, small(er) in scale or context specific, and therefore require greater specification to be testable within our class context.

Experimental Approach: Briefly gives the reader a general sense of the experiment, the type of data it will yield, and the kind of conclusions you expect to obtain from the data. Do not confuse the experimental approach with the experimental protocol. The experimental protocol consists of the detailed step-by-step procedures and techniques used during the experiment that are to be reported in the Methods and Materials section.

***Some Final Tips on Writing an Introduction***

• As you progress through the Biocore sequence for instance, from organismal level of Biocore 381/382 to the cellular level in Biocore 383/384, we expect the contents of your “Introduction” paragraphs to reflect the level of your coursework and previous writing experience. For example, in Biocore 384 (Cell Biology Lab) biological rationale should draw upon assumptions we are making about cellular and biochemical processes.
• Be Concise yet Specific: Remember to be concise and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. As you write, keep asking, “Is this necessary information or is this irrelevant detail?” For example, if you are writing a paper claiming that a certain compound is a competitive inhibitor to the enzyme alkaline phosphatase and acts by binding to the active site, you need to explain (briefly) Michaelis-Menton kinetics and the meaning and significance of Km and Vmax. This explanation is not necessary if you are reporting the dependence of enzyme activity on pH because you do not need to measure Km and Vmax to get an estimate of enzyme activity.
• Another example: if you are writing a paper reporting an increase in water flea heart rate upon exposure to caffeine you need not describe the reproductive cycle of water fleas unless it is germane to your results and discussion. Be specific and concrete, especially when making introductory or summary statements.

Where do you discuss Pilot Studies?
Many times it is important to do pilot studies to help you get familiar with your experimental system or to improve your experimental design. If your pilot study influences your biological rationale or hypothesis, you need to describe it in your Introduction. If your pilot study simply informs the logistics or techniques, but does not influence your rationale, then the description of your pilot study belongs in the Materials and Methods section.

How will introductions be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Introduction, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Example Introductions

*Note: If you are a Biocore 382 student—do not worry if you don’t understand the scientific content in these two examples. We will get there! These examples are provided to refer to as you progress through the curriculum

Methods and Materials

This section is often the easiest to write since it is simply a clear explanation of the specific procedures, techniques, and materials you used.  In some cases (e.g., the projects carried out in the Biocore Prairie), it is necessary to include procedures carried out by previous classes as well.  Provide enough details that a knowledgeable reader (e.g., a Biocore peer who is not enrolled in lab) could replicate the experiment.  This will also allow him/her to evaluate whether to trust your findings.  In the case of field investigations, include a description of the type of community and the location of the site studied.

Mathematical manipulations or statistical analyses applied to the data should be explained under a subheading, but keep these brief.  Although calculations are not normally included in a scientific paper, we sometimes ask you to include examples to check whether you are doing them correctly.  If this is the case, put them in an appendix at the end of the paper.

Focus on essentials that affect the results.  For example, in a genetics experiment with flies, it is important to state whether the females used for the crosses were virgins; it is not necessary to list the type of food or anesthetic used. However, these details would be important if your experiment was testing how different diets affected fruit fly activity level or some other physiological parameter. In cases where detailed protocols are given in the lab manual, merely cite the appropriate chapter of the lab manual, note any details relevant to the experiment but not specified in the protocol (e.g., identify the particular strain of organism you and your teammates used when several were available), and describe any manipulations you made that are not outlined in the manual. Include only what is vital for the reader’s understanding of how the results were obtained.  (E.g., Drawing white poker chips out of a 1 quart Babcock Vanilla flavored ice cream container to get two numbers to pace out and place quadrats is not as important as the fact that quadrat placement was random.) If you are having trouble deciding what to put in and what to leave out, consult with your TA, peers, or other instructional staff for guidance before handing in your final paper.

Organize the procedures in the Methods & Materials section logically:

• Use subheadings, including one called “data analysis”
• Describe your schedule of procedures in chronological order (if it makes sense to do so)
• When writing a final paper, use the past tense for this section (because you refer to procedures that you carried out in the past).  When writing a proposal, use future tense.
• Report final concentrations (in molar, millimolar, micromolar etc). rather than final volumes (see table below). Readers can replicate concentrations, but often find it difficult to discern concentrations when only volumes are reported.

*Note: Not all papers require the inclusion of pilot studies in the Methods section.  Discuss this with your instructors.

How will methods/materials be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Methods & Materials, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Results

The Results section is a logically organized presentation of your observational and numeric data.  This is an opportunity to emphasize points or trends that you will be focusing on in your discussion. In many cases the organization and subheadings of this section should be consistent with those of the Methods and Materials section.

Before you start writing, make sure you have discussed the data and have shared your plan for analysis with your group members. Your group should share a common data set and, therefore, should be working with the same mean, standard deviation, and other descriptive statistics. As long as all group members have the same raw data set, you may choose to display the data differently.

There are usually two parts to this section:

• text
• tables and figures

Text: The key purpose of the text in the results section is to point out and emphasize patterns in your data. You may choose to illustrate some of these patterns, especially those that pertain to your hypothesis, in figures or tables. However, each figure and table needs accompanying text to point out the obvious—or sometimes the not so obvious.

• Briefly describe, but do NOT make conclusions about (i.e., interpret) your data here—save that for the Discussion section.
• Point out any trends. (Trends are relationships between one variable and another. e.g., as variable one changes, variable 2 tends to change in a consistent way.)
• Note differences or similarities between treatment groups.
• If you perform statistical analyses, report any significant biological differences you found, followed by pertinent statistical summary information (test score such as a “t” or “F” value, degrees of freedom, one or two-tailed p-value; see Biocore Statistics Primer for more info).

Refer your reader to “Table 1” or “Figure 1” as you explicitly identify relationships, patterns, or general trends that you see in the data.  Remember that relationships that are obvious to you may not be obvious to someone who has not carried out the experiment.

• Never write a sentence that just tells the reader where the data are. Point out to your reader the general trends in the data, then refer to the figure or table parenthetically.
• When using the term “significant” in your results section recognize that it has a specific connotation in science that reads “statistically significant.” Therefore, use the term “significant” when explaining differences you observe only if you found statistically significant differences.

The Results section should not be controversial since you are merely reporting findings, not saying what you think they mean.  Avoid judging your data as “good” or “bad.”  Data are facts and facts simply are what they are.  Remember: you are not graded on whether your experiment “worked” or on your results; you are graded on how you handle them.  Always report what you saw, not what you think you should have seen.

See the following excerpt from a good Results section describing data from a systematic study.

Tables and Figures:

Tables and figures are key elements of a scientific paper.

• Tables are organized lists of numbers, ideas, or other data.
• Figures are graphs, charts, diagrams, or photos.

Why use tables and figures?  First, they offer a concise way to present a large amount of information.  Second, they carry the bulk of the experimental evidence needed to support your conclusions.  Third, they offer the reader a chance to assess your data and determine whether or not your conclusions are valid.  Finally, the values in them can be used by other scientists who wish to build on your work.  Usually, summarized (e.g., averages and measures of variation) rather than raw data are included in a paper.  Always make it clear whether you are presenting actual data or averages.  (In some cases we will ask you to include raw data as an appendix.) Please refer to the Biocore Statistics Primer for directions on producing figures in Excel.

Each table or figure should be referred to in the text of your paper at least once.  If you have nothing to note about a particular table or figure, leave it out.  Identify and number tables or figures according to the order they appear in the text (Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.).  This way the reader will know exactly what data you are discussing.

Tables and figures should be neat, logically organized, and informative.  If properly prepared, they can stand independently of the paper.  Always remember that readers are not familiar with your data.  A table or figure that seems self-explanatory to you may not seem so to a reader.

Here are some rules for presentation of graphs and tables:

• Present your final data in table or graphical form. The choice of table or figure should be based on the type of data you have. If you are trying to show trends or simple comparisons it may be best to use a figure. If you have long lists or many comparisons to be made across groups a table may be more appropriate. [DO NOT present the same data in both table and graphic form.]
• The most common way to present graphical data is either an XY scatterplot for continuous data or a bar chart for categorical data/ results of statistical comparison of the means of two or more groups.
• Keep it simple! The amount of time it takes a reader to interpret a figure is inversely proportional to how well those data are presented. Do not overuse transformations or ratios if they are unnecessary for accuracy and clarity of your results.
• Clearly label all axes or columns including units (e.g. Time (min.), Concentration (mM), Mass (mg)). Describe any symbols you use in your graphs using a KEY (see figures below for examples of keys).
• Table and figures should always have a brief text description called a LEGEND that fully describes them so that they can stand alone. (See figures below for examples of figure legends.)
  • POOR LEGEND: Enzyme activity vs. salt (Avoid using the term vs)
  • BETTER: Average alkaline phosphatase activity for concentrations of NaCl from 0.1 to 1 mM. The substrate for the reaction was ATP at a concentration of 2 mM for a total reaction time of 3 minutes. Columns represent mean values (N=3) with error bars representing ± 1 SE.

• Put table legends above a table. Put figure legends below or to the side of a figure.
• Do NOT create titles for figures or tables. Instead of a title, use a simple legend numbering each table and figure consecutively is sufficient. Do not use titles like “Chart 1” that are automatically generated by Excel.
• For graphs that present an average value as a single point or bar, include error bars and state what they represent. Usually, this will be 1 standard deviation (SD) or 1 standard error (SE) on either side of the mean (see figure 1 below for an example).
• For tables presenting means, include some measure of variation (SD or SE). (See Table 1 above for an example of this).
• State the number of samples used to calculate an average. If you measured the height of 12 purple cone flower plants and reported an average height of 0.82m, indicate the number of samples used to generate that statistic as n=12.
• Do not connect the points on a line graph unless you really mean to say that the values in between the points shown should follow the line drawn. Trend lines have very limited predictive value or validity when connecting 3 points or less. 

Drawing a diagram or presenting a photomicrograph:  Drawn diagrams or photographs taken from a microscope and their legends should contain enough information that a reader can understand (as near as possible) what you actually observed and the conditions surrounding the observation.  Diagrams must be large enough to show significant details of what you observed.  In practice, this generally means that each diagram should cover at least a quarter of an 8.5×11” page.  Indicate the type of microscopy used and the total magnification in your legend.  Include a scale on your drawing.  Define the experimental conditions and include notes on the process of your investigation.  See Figures A-7, A-13, and A-14 in the World of the Cell’s “Principles & Techniques of Microscopy” for examples of good figure legends.

Example of Good Results bar graph

Example of Good Results scatterplot

Example of Good Table

Writing a figure legend for a drawing or micrograph:

If you are including an image (drawing or photomicrograph) in your paper, highlight attributes of the image that are important for your paper and to your reader. If the reason for including the image is to highlight anatomy, you may want to label structures and include a description of movement or other important observations in the figure legend. When writing a figure legend to accompany a photo or drawing, include enough information so that a reader can understand (as near as possible) what you actually observed and the conditions surrounding the observation. This means that you should indicate the type of microscopy used (phase contrast, bright field, fluorescence, etc.) and any notes regarding the preparation (e.g., mounted in ProtoSlow, water or saliva, with coverslip, types of stains used, etc.).  Also indicate the total magnification in your legend.  Diagrams must be large enough to show significant details of what you observed.  It is important to include a scale on your drawing.

Click on the three purple icons in the diagram below for more information about each element.

In the figure descripton above, the writer has indicated the type of microscopy (phase contrast microscopy, magnification 100X) and the total magnification (100X).

How will results (including text & figures/tables) be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Results, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Discussion

This is where you interpret your results for the reader.  It is the most important part of your paper and often one of the most difficult to write. The discussion section is NOT a restatement of your results, but rather where you provide your insight on the investigation through logical analysis. Key elements of your discussion section include:

• BROAD STUDY QUESTION that your research is trying to address
• SUPPORT/REJECT HYPOTHESIS
• INTERPRET the dependent variable measured (if multiple variables are measured you  interpret each variable independently and then INTEGRATE variables for overall interpretation of data)
• Formulate argument for your conclusions, emphasizing how your data do or do not support your biological rationale & by comparing with relevant findings in the literature
• NEW KNOWLEDGE that your investigation has generated: highlight the knowledge gap that your data help address, and the implications of your work. Introduce at least one new paper from the scientific literature to help you discuss or support your findings.
• EVALUATE confidence in experimental design and reliability of data
• NEW QUESTIONS and FUTURE STUDIES that the new knowledge inspires
• UNEXPECTED OBSERVATIONS are unique observations not collected in rigorous way but still intriguing and could inspire new investigations
• CONCLUSION brief statement as summary.

The organization of your discussion section is not fixed but rather it is driven by the reliability of the data you collect. The discussion should complement the logic set up with your biological rationale in the Introduction.

The following is not an appropriate discussion section: “Our data supported the hypothesis. The results were what we expected (see Results section).”  Instead, state specifically what you observed in your data, and the conclusions you feel confident you can make based on the evidence you gathered. The Discussion should formulate and support a logical argument, leading the reader through the specific conclusions drawn from the data to their more general implications beyond the experiment.

Elements in the Discussion Section

Broad Study Question

What is the broad question that your research is trying to address? State your question clearly in the opening paragraph.

 Support or Reject Hypothesis:

• If you have conducted a manipulative study, restate your hypothesis and whether you support or reject your hypothesis referencing appropriate data. (Note that finding no difference between two treatments is a result).
• Critically evaluate your biological rationale, experimental design, data collection, and explicit/implicit assumptions throughout. After this evaluation, you should be able to support or reject your hypothesis….OR you may feel that you did not fully test your hypothesis after all. A key step here is to look at your controls and variation in your measurements. How much variation surrounds your controls? How reliable and accurate are your measurements?
• Special Note about Inconclusive results: You may find that you have very LOW RELIABILITY of results because of malfunction, error or confounding variables. In this case, you may still feel your hypothesis is true, but you were not able to test it as expected. Instead, report your results as inconclusive, describing why you could not test your hypothesis and how you would revise your investigation in future studies.
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: finding no difference between treatments is NOT an inconclusive result–No difference is a very valid result that contributes to a conclusion for either supporting or rejecting a hypothesis!

• Philosophical Note: DO NOT USE THE WORD PROVE. You cannot “prove” your hypothesis correct or incorrect. Science cannot prove anything, it can only provide evidence to support or reject your hypothesis. Without getting too philosophical, the role of science is not to find proof but rather to move closer to truth by eliminating hypotheses that are not true. Therefore, you will not be ‘proving your hypothesis’, but rather supporting or rejecting your hypothesis given the construct of your experiment and the data you have gathered. If you have carried out a systematic observation and may have not posed a formal hypothesis but you can provide answers to the general questions you posed about the system, or describe the system moreprecisely based on the data you collected.

Interpreting Data: If you feel that your protocol allowed you to test your hypothesis,

• Interpret each piece of data presented in the results independently and evaluate the reliability of the data.
• Discuss how these data are similar (confirm) or contrast with what is reported in literature you presented in the introduction OR new literature you discovered after you completed your experiment. Explain the trends you feel are important to support your conclusion(s) and evaluate how this supports or contradicts the biological assumptions you outlined in your biological rationale. Be prepared to detach yourself from your original biological rationale in explaining or being critical of your results.
• Combine and integrate the multiple types of reliable data you collected and discuss how together they inform the broad question (only combine data you are confident in).

Generating New Knowledge

Describe how your experiment contributes to the knowledge gap you identified in your introduction. Cite similar, contrary and/or supportive literature.

• If your data supported your hypothesis: guide your readers through the steps in your reasoning referring back to your biological rationale to provide context.  Present the arguments that explain how your experimental approach and the pieces of evidence (data) convince you of your conclusion. Explain how do your findings add to those that others have observed.  Compare your findings with information from the literature (this often requires a post-experimental literature search), citing appropriate references that support for your results. These references include many that you cited in your Introduction section; briefly summarize them but avoid redundancy.
• If your results are contrary to your hypothesis, you need to speculate the reasons for this difference, continue your literature search to explain your alternative results.  Are your results consistent or inconsistent with others findings—why or why not? Distance yourself from the project while writing and be reasonably critical of your data. What evidence do you have that your biological rationale is acting? Is the mechanism you propose in effect? Evaluate the key biological assumptions in your biological rationale which were not correct.
• Implications of your findings- How does your experiment add to the current body of knowledge? Speculate on the implications of your findings. It is essential that you refer back to your biological rationale. Implications are specific, reasonable extensions of your results or the meaning of your results for the larger picture.  Be careful, however, with your choice of words: state implications as logical possibilities rather than as fact.  Your results may lead to new insights about relationships in nature.  An unexpected result (if it holds up on repeating the experiment) may yield insight to guide a more effective experimental approach.

Evaluate Confidence in Experimental Design and Data Reliability/Quality

• Evaluate the strengths and weakness of your experiment and your confidence (or lack of) in your experimental design. Explain how these factors allow you to gauge the strength of your conclusion(s). Always address whether your protocol allowed you to truly test your hypothesis (see special note about inconclusive results in ‘support or reject hypothesis’ section above). In some cases you may discover unexpected inaccuracies in your data or that the methods you used were not appropriate or precise enough to address your question or test your hypothesis. Address the errors, unresolved issues and speculate how the experimental approach might be improved. Inconclusive results may show that you weren’t asking a relevant question in the first place or that the experiment was not able to test the question you posed.  This, in turn, can generate specific new questions and experimental approaches. Avoid making a laundry list of mistakes you made in carrying out your experiment.  Only mention errors if they help explain unexpected data values and/or lead you to conclude that your methods did not allow you to test your hypothesis.
• Evaluate reliability of data – Once you have established that your experimental design was appropriate to address your original question, you must also evaluate how well you carried out your intended design and what that means to your data reliability (e.g. evaluating whether the variation you see between samples is natural variation or experimenter’s error). How good are your data? Consider the variability in your data (variance, standard deviation, standard error). Did you have enough replicates? Did you have a large degree of experimental error? What are the implications of variability? Do not over-interpret your data. Recognize the magnitude of the variation within your data and the level of departure you would need to conclude true differences. In most cases you are trying to attach meaning to a group of numbers generated by some procedure.  Help your readers make sense of these numbers by explaining how the patterns and relationships you observed reflect the biological concepts or issues you set out to explore.  How do your data fit with your biological rationale?

New Questions and Future Studies: Science is built on an iterative cycle of questions, experiments, results and conclusions. Often it is appropriate to suggest the next step in the investigation.  Be sure to include the reasoning that leads to your insights.  Your experiment will likely provide many opportunities to ask new questions and suggest future studies.

Final Conclusion: End your paper strongly with a clear, brief conclusion that relates directly to the question, hypothesis, or knowledge gap you stated in the Introduction.

If you get stuck: The hard work of making meaning of data will be easier if you have a clear idea of what it was that you set out to do in the first place.  Re-read your question and biological rationale.  Do your results allow you to answer the question you posed in light of your biological rationale? A second reading of your BR after examining your data will often solve much of the confusion you may be experiencing.  Be sure to discuss your results thoroughly with your research team. They may have some insight, intriguing literature for comparison, or thoughts about the data that could benefit your interpretation.

Other things you can do:

• Take a look at the example of good discussions on the next pages.
• Make a conceptual diagram for yourself or with your team. This is especially useful for seeing new connections, structuring ideas, and finding interactions at multiple levels.
• Explain the experiment and its significance to a friend who knows nothing about it. If you understand the full content, context, results and relevance of your experiment, you should be able to explain what was done and what it means. This should help provide some organization to your paper.

How will discussions be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Discussion, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.

Parenthetical Citations Within Text

• Cite all information that you use from published or unpublished sources in the body of your paper and provide full citations in the Literature Cited section at end of the paper.
• Parenthetical author-date format within a sentence or at the end of a block of text. Provide the last name of the author(s) and the date the work was published, both enclosed by parentheses. Example: Global warming is a looming threat to biodiversity (Peters and Lovejoy 1992).
• More than one source, list them in chronological order: e.g. (Jones 1992; Smith and Jacobs 1993; Torrez 1995). If a work has more than two authors, you may list the first followed by et al. (latin for “and others”) and the date: (Jones et al. 1995).  However, the names of all of the authors must be included in the list of citations at the end of the paper.
• Unpublished information: If you cannot find a published citation you can site personal communication in the body of your text – NOT in the literature cited. The format for unpublished information or data communication to you by a colleague is the source followed by “personal communication” or “unpublished data”: e.g. (Maria Rodriguez, personal communication 2002; Biocore 382 class, unpublished data). ***Use these sparingly as sources usually are not formal and cannot be verified easily. DO NOT base the major foundation of your study on personal communication unless the information gained is unique and not found elsewhere.

Literature Cited

List all works cited in the text – and no others – alphabetically in the References section at the end of your paper.  The specific format used for references varies depending on each journal’s conventions, web-site format and the type of source to which you are referring.  We would like you to use the format demonstrated below which follows the Name-Year system. Each reference should include the names of all the authors, the date the article or book was published and/or the date the website was accessed and its title.  Regardless of the exact format used, make sure that you are consistent!

Here are some examples to follow:

Journal

Format as follows:

Author(s). year of publication. Title of the article (with only the first word capitalized). title of journal plus volume (issue): Inclusive page numbers.

Internet Sources

A full discussion of number and types of internet resources is beyond the scope of this manual.

However, the following is a general guide for most articles that are published on the internet. As with all resources, especially those found on the internet, you must be wary of the source and its validity. If it doesn’t have an author or publication/ posting date BEWARE!

Format as follows:

Author(s). Year of publication. Title of the work. Title of the complete work or website or on-line journal plus volume (issue) if available/ applicable. Website URL or address (except for online journal or personal email). Date you accessed the web page.

*Note: Do not write out a website address (URL) as a parenthetic citation within the text of your paper—instead include the author and year of publication (e.g. Macreal 2001), just as you do with all other publications. Whenever possible, list the author. If you can’t find an author, list the organization that provided the information. If you can’t find the name of the organization, question the quality of your source.

Biocore Lab Manual

You will be citing one of your Biocore lab manuals in many of your research papers.  To do this, look at the lab manual chapter to find the author(s) you wish to cite and the example format below.  NOTE: This is an example for the Biocore Prairie chapter of the Biocore 382 lab manual.

Book Citations

Format as follows:

First author’s last name, First initials, subsequent authors’ name separated by commas, year of publication, title of book (italicized, with only the first word capitalized), edition number (if it is not the first edition), the publisher, the city of publication, and the state (omit the state for well known cities like New York).