What's Your Question?
The Best Science Publications to Follow
Whether you’re browsing science articles online or reading an in-depth interview in a glossy magazine, following science publications is a great way to continue your education, learn about new technology or even study an exciting subject. Check out this guide to the best science publications to follow.
Available online or delivered right to your mailbox, “Discover Magazine” is filled with news articles about science, colorful photos and interesting interviews. Read about health and medicine, the mind and body, technology, space, physics and even the environment in a format designed to entertain and enlighten. “Discover Magazine” offers a large variety of short science articles for readers to enjoy.
Filled with science news, cutting-edge research and scientific articles, “Science Magazine” offers both online and printed options. View the latest technological journals, learn about robotics and space exploration and pick up tips to stay healthy throughout your life. Science articles are divided into categories that include climate issues, biology, medicine and ecology.
Designed to explore the inner workings of anything that involves technology, “Wired” is known for its cutting-edge articles on computers, business and the world of technological discoveries. Check out articles on innovation in the auto industry, gene editing and viral videos, or explore the excitement of new tech gear, both online and in print format. “Wired” offers short science articles that dip into anything that affects technology in today’s market.
Unmistakable bright yellow borders give “National Geographic” a look that collectors cherish. Known for its incredible wildlife photography, “National Geographic’s” online and print magazines also feature scientific articles designed to shine a light on the natural world (including animals, plants and people across the entire planet). Check out the children’s version of the magazine for younger readers who love science.
Follow “Popular Mechanics” to pick up practical advice on projects that you can accomplish on your own. This science magazine is made for those who love DIY projects, with short scientific articles and insights on everything from modern industry trends to technology. Read opinions from experts in robotics, automotive engineering and inventing, or check out article about the military, space, tools and gadgets, both online and in a printed format. “Popular Mechanics” is a science magazine for anyone who wants to keep up with the world today.
MORE FROM QUESTIONSANSWERED.NET
Accessibility Quick Links
Site search, sign in access, breadcrumbs, writing a scientific report.
A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem. It might also include recommendations and conclusion of the research.
In this guide:
Elements of a scientific report, scientific reports for employers or clients.
- References Used for this Guide
Table of Contents
Introduction, materials and methods (experimental).
The title page will include the following:
- Usually 4-12 words in length.
- Should be short, specific and descriptive, containing the keywords of the report.
- Always publish under the same name.
- Include author addresses.
- Indicate the corresponding author and their contact details.
- The date when the paper was submitted.
A Table of Contents is only required for length reports (usually 6 pages or more).
The Abstract is a self-contained synopsis of the report - an informative summary of what you did and what you found out.
The Abstract should include the following:
- Objectives (as outlined in the Introduction) and scope of the investigation.
- A brief reference to the Materials and Methods.
- A summary of the results and conclusions - a brief but thorough statement of the outcome/s of the experiment.
If there is a hypothesis, you may state what it is and whether it was supported or refuted.
The following should not be included in the Abstract:
- Literature citations.
- Formulae and abbreviations, references to tables.
Although the Abstract comes first in a report, it is best to write it last, after you have the results and conclusions.
This provides a summary of the analysis to be undertaken. The purpose of the Introduction is to put the reader in the picture and place the research/experiment within a context.
The following may be included in the Introduction:
- Background about the analysis to be carried out.
- A brief review of previous research (relevant literature) to give a background - paraphrase relevant facts from the scientific literature, citing the sources to support each statement.
- Reason/s why the research was undertaken.
- Statement of the hypothesis (an idea or concept that can be tested by experimentation) if there is one.
- An explanation of the different techniques and why they are used.
- A statement of the objective/s - what you hope to achieve.
The Introduction is the what and why of the experiment, and should answer the following questions:
- What was the purpose or objective of the experiment/research?
- Why was the experiment/research conducted in a particular manner?
- Why was it important in a broader context?
The Introduction should not include any results or conclusions.
The Materials and Methods, sometimes called Experimental, is a description of the materials and procedures used - what was done and how. Describe the process of preparation of the sample, specifications of the instruments used and techniques employed.
The Method should include such things as sample size, apparatus or equipment used, experimental conditions, concentrations, times, controls etc.
While the Method does not need to include minute details (e.g. if you followed a set of written instructions, you may not need to write out the full procedure - state briefly what was done and cite the manual), there needs to be enough detail so that someone could repeat the work.
Do not keep using the word "then" - the reader will understand that the steps were carried out in the order in which they are written.
The Method must be written in the past tense and the passive voice.
This section states what you found.
The following will be included in your Results:
- Pictures and spectra.
- Tables and graphs whenever practical.
- Brief statements of the results in the text (without repeating the data in the graphs and tables). When writing about each picture, graph or table, refer to it parenthetically e.g. (Figure 1).
- If possible give a section of related results and then comment on them rather than presenting many pages of unrelated results and then discussing them at the end. Subheadings can be used to divide this section so that it is easier to understand.
Massive quantities of data or raw data (not refined statistically) can be presented in appendices.
Include only your own observed results in this section.
The following should not be included in your results:
- What you expected to find or what you were supposed to have observed.
- References to other works (published data or statements of theory).
Use the Discussion section of the report for these.
The Results section should be written in the past tense and passive voice, avoiding the use of "I" and "we".
State your interpretation of your findings, perhaps comparing or contrasting them with the literature. Reflect on your actual data and observations.
Explain or rationalise errant data or describe possible sources of error and how they may have affected the outcome.
The Discussion must answer the question "What do the results mean?" It is an argument based on the results.
This is the summing up of your argument or experiment/research, and should relate back to the Introduction.
The Conclusion should only consist of a few sentences, and should reiterate the findings of your experiment/research.
If appropriate, suggest how to improve the procedure, and what additional experiments or research would be helpful.
Cite any references that you have used, ensuring that each item in the reference list has an in-text citation, and every in-text citation has a full reference in the reference list at the end of your paper.
Ensure that the references are formatted according to the style required by the journal (or your lecturer/supervisor), and be careful with spelling (the author whose name you misspell may be asked to review the paper!)
If a scientific report is being prepared for an employer or client, the following additional elements may be included:
Covering Letter or Memo
A formal covering letter (if the the report is for someone outside your organisation) or memo (if the report is for someone within your organisation) which accompanies the report will include the following:
- Identification of the report topic.
- Identification of the person authorising the report, and date of authorisation.
- Key findings.
- Acknowledgement of any assistance received.
This would be situated at the beginning of the report (before the Abstract).
The Executive Summary will
- explain the purpose of the report.
- describe the methods used in the investigation.
- give the main conclusions and recommendations (if applicable).
Because the readers of the report will not necessarily be scientists, the Executive Summary should be in simple language, avoiding the use of technical jargon.
If the report is of an investigative nature, the final section (after Conclusion) will be any recommendations that you make on the basis of the scientific results.
If other people or organisations assisted in any way with the experiments/research (e.g. funding, facilities, guidance etc.), they should be thanked at the end of the document (after Conclusion and Recommendations).
References used for this guide
Dintzner, M. R.; Niedziela, R. F. Elements of laboratory report writing. http://chemistry.che.depaul.edu/LabReport/ (accessed August 2004).
Emerson, L.; Hampton, J. Writing Guidelines for Science and Applied Science Students , 2nd ed.; Thomson/Dunmore Press: Southbank, Vic., 2005.
Lobban, C. S.; Schefter, M. Successful Lab Reports: A Manual for Science Students ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992.
What this handout is about.
This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.
Background and pre-writing
Why do we write research reports.
You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?
To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.
So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:
- They want to gather the information presented.
- They want to know that the findings are legitimate.
Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.
How do I do that?
Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:
Methods and Materials
This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.
The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.
Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.
Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.
What should I do before drafting the lab report?
The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:
- What are we going to do in this lab? (That is, what’s the procedure?)
- Why are we going to do it that way?
- What are we hoping to learn from this experiment?
- Why would we benefit from this knowledge?
- Consult your lab supervisor as you perform the lab. If you don’t know how to answer one of the questions above, for example, your lab supervisor will probably be able to explain it to you (or, at least, help you figure it out).
- Plan the steps of the experiment carefully with your lab partners. The less you rush, the more likely it is that you’ll perform the experiment correctly and record your findings accurately. Also, take some time to think about the best way to organize the data before you have to start putting numbers down. If you can design a table to account for the data, that will tend to work much better than jotting results down hurriedly on a scrap piece of paper.
- Record the data carefully so you get them right. You won’t be able to trust your conclusions if you have the wrong data, and your readers will know you messed up if the other three people in your group have “97 degrees” and you have “87.”
- Consult with your lab partners about everything you do. Lab groups often make one of two mistakes: two people do all the work while two have a nice chat, or everybody works together until the group finishes gathering the raw data, then scrams outta there. Collaborate with your partners, even when the experiment is “over.” What trends did you observe? Was the hypothesis supported? Did you all get the same results? What kind of figure should you use to represent your findings? The whole group can work together to answer these questions.
- Consider your audience. You may believe that audience is a non-issue: it’s your lab TA, right? Well, yes—but again, think beyond the classroom. If you write with only your lab instructor in mind, you may omit material that is crucial to a complete understanding of your experiment, because you assume the instructor knows all that stuff already. As a result, you may receive a lower grade, since your TA won’t be sure that you understand all the principles at work. Try to write towards a student in the same course but a different lab section. That student will have a fair degree of scientific expertise but won’t know much about your experiment particularly. Alternatively, you could envision yourself five years from now, after the reading and lectures for this course have faded a bit. What would you remember, and what would you need explained more clearly (as a refresher)?
Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.
How do i write a strong introduction.
For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.
The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.
For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.
As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.
Not a hypothesis:
“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”
“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”
Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.
Justify your hypothesis
You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?
Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.
This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.
Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.
Organization of this section
Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:
“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”
Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.
How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?
As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.
Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.
With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.
Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:
- How much detail? Be precise in providing details, but stay relevant. Ask yourself, “Would it make any difference if this piece were a different size or made from a different material?” If not, you probably don’t need to get too specific. If so, you should give as many details as necessary to prevent this experiment from going awry if someone else tries to carry it out. Probably the most crucial detail is measurement; you should always quantify anything you can, such as time elapsed, temperature, mass, volume, etc.
- Rationale: Be sure that as you’re relating your actions during the experiment, you explain your rationale for the protocol you developed. If you capped a test tube immediately after adding a solute to a solvent, why did you do that? (That’s really two questions: why did you cap it, and why did you cap it immediately?) In a professional setting, writers provide their rationale as a way to explain their thinking to potential critics. On one hand, of course, that’s your motivation for talking about protocol, too. On the other hand, since in practical terms you’re also writing to your teacher (who’s seeking to evaluate how well you comprehend the principles of the experiment), explaining the rationale indicates that you understand the reasons for conducting the experiment in that way, and that you’re not just following orders. Critical thinking is crucial—robots don’t make good scientists.
- Control: Most experiments will include a control, which is a means of comparing experimental results. (Sometimes you’ll need to have more than one control, depending on the number of hypotheses you want to test.) The control is exactly the same as the other items you’re testing, except that you don’t manipulate the independent variable-the condition you’re altering to check the effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you’re testing solubility rates at increased temperatures, your control would be a solution that you didn’t heat at all; that way, you’ll see how quickly the solute dissolves “naturally” (i.e., without manipulation), and you’ll have a point of reference against which to compare the solutions you did heat.
Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:
“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”
Structure and style
Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.
- Subsections: Occasionally, researchers use subsections to report their procedure when the following circumstances apply: 1) if they’ve used a great many materials; 2) if the procedure is unusually complicated; 3) if they’ve developed a procedure that won’t be familiar to many of their readers. Because these conditions rarely apply to the experiments you’ll perform in class, most undergraduate lab reports won’t require you to use subsections. In fact, many guides to writing lab reports suggest that you try to limit your Methods section to a single paragraph.
- Narrative structure: Think of this section as telling a story about a group of people and the experiment they performed. Describe what you did in the order in which you did it. You may have heard the old joke centered on the line, “Disconnect the red wire, but only after disconnecting the green wire,” where the person reading the directions blows everything to kingdom come because the directions weren’t in order. We’re used to reading about events chronologically, and so your readers will generally understand what you did if you present that information in the same way. Also, since the Methods section does generally appear as a narrative (story), you want to avoid the “recipe” approach: “First, take a clean, dry 100 ml test tube from the rack. Next, add 50 ml of distilled water.” You should be reporting what did happen, not telling the reader how to perform the experiment: “50 ml of distilled water was poured into a clean, dry 100 ml test tube.” Hint: most of the time, the recipe approach comes from copying down the steps of the procedure from your lab manual, so you may want to draft the Methods section initially without consulting your manual. Later, of course, you can go back and fill in any part of the procedure you inadvertently overlooked.
- Past tense: Remember that you’re describing what happened, so you should use past tense to refer to everything you did during the experiment. Writers are often tempted to use the imperative (“Add 5 g of the solid to the solution”) because that’s how their lab manuals are worded; less frequently, they use present tense (“5 g of the solid are added to the solution”). Instead, remember that you’re talking about an event which happened at a particular time in the past, and which has already ended by the time you start writing, so simple past tense will be appropriate in this section (“5 g of the solid were added to the solution” or “We added 5 g of the solid to the solution”).
- Active: We heated the solution to 80°C. (The subject, “we,” performs the action, heating.)
- Passive: The solution was heated to 80°C. (The subject, “solution,” doesn’t do the heating–it is acted upon, not acting.)
Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.
How do I write a strong Results section?
Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.
Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.
Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.
This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:
“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”
“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”
If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.
Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:
“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”
This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.
As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)
You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.
Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?
As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.
As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:
As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.
When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:
- Number your table. Then, when you refer to the table in the text, use that number to tell your readers which table they can review to clarify the material.
- Give your table a title. This title should be descriptive enough to communicate the contents of the table, but not so long that it becomes difficult to follow. The titles in the sample tables above are acceptable.
- Arrange your table so that readers read vertically, not horizontally. For the most part, this rule means that you should construct your table so that like elements read down, not across. Think about what you want your readers to compare, and put that information in the column (up and down) rather than in the row (across). Usually, the point of comparison will be the numerical data you collect, so especially make sure you have columns of numbers, not rows.Here’s an example of how drastically this decision affects the readability of your table (from A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry , by Herbert Beall and John Trimbur). Look at this table, which presents the relevant data in horizontal rows:
It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:
The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.
- Make sure to include units of measurement in the tables. Readers might be able to guess that you measured something in millimeters, but don’t make them try.
- Don’t use vertical lines as part of the format for your table. This convention exists because journals prefer not to have to reproduce these lines because the tables then become more expensive to print. Even though it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll be sending your Biology 11 lab report to Science for publication, your readers still have this expectation. Consequently, if you use the table-drawing option in your word-processing software, choose the option that doesn’t rely on a “grid” format (which includes vertical lines).
How do I include figures in my report?
Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.
When should you use a figure?
Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.
If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.
Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.
Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.
At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.
Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:
- Keep it as simple as possible. You may be tempted to signal the complexity of the information you gathered by trying to design a graph that accounts for that complexity. But remember the purpose of your graph: to dramatize your results in a manner that’s easy to see and grasp. Try not to make the reader stare at the graph for a half hour to find the important line among the mass of other lines. For maximum effectiveness, limit yourself to three to five lines per graph; if you have more data to demonstrate, use a set of graphs to account for it, rather than trying to cram it all into a single figure.
- Plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on the vertical (y) axis. Remember that the independent variable is the condition that you manipulated during the experiment and the dependent variable is the condition that you measured to see if it changed along with the independent variable. Placing the variables along their respective axes is mostly just a convention, but since your readers are accustomed to viewing graphs in this way, you’re better off not challenging the convention in your report.
- Label each axis carefully, and be especially careful to include units of measure. You need to make sure that your readers understand perfectly well what your graph indicates.
- Number and title your graphs. As with tables, the title of the graph should be informative but concise, and you should refer to your graph by number in the text (e.g., “Figure 1 shows the increase in the solubility rate as a function of temperature”).
- Many editors of professional scientific journals prefer that writers distinguish the lines in their graphs by attaching a symbol to them, usually a geometric shape (triangle, square, etc.), and using that symbol throughout the curve of the line. Generally, readers have a hard time distinguishing dotted lines from dot-dash lines from straight lines, so you should consider staying away from this system. Editors don’t usually like different-colored lines within a graph because colors are difficult and expensive to reproduce; colors may, however, be great for your purposes, as long as you’re not planning to submit your paper to Nature. Use your discretion—try to employ whichever technique dramatizes the results most effectively.
- Try to gather data at regular intervals, so the plot points on your graph aren’t too far apart. You can’t be sure of the arc you should draw between the plot points if the points are located at the far corners of the graph; over a fifteen-minute interval, perhaps the change occurred in the first or last thirty seconds of that period (in which case your straight-line connection between the points is misleading).
- If you’re worried that you didn’t collect data at sufficiently regular intervals during your experiment, go ahead and connect the points with a straight line, but you may want to examine this problem as part of your Discussion section.
- Make your graph large enough so that everything is legible and clearly demarcated, but not so large that it either overwhelms the rest of the Results section or provides a far greater range than you need to illustrate your point. If, for example, the seedlings of your plant grew only 15 mm during the trial, you don’t need to construct a graph that accounts for 100 mm of growth. The lines in your graph should more or less fill the space created by the axes; if you see that your data is confined to the lower left portion of the graph, you should probably re-adjust your scale.
- If you create a set of graphs, make them the same size and format, including all the verbal and visual codes (captions, symbols, scale, etc.). You want to be as consistent as possible in your illustrations, so that your readers can easily make the comparisons you’re trying to get them to see.
How do I write a strong Discussion section?
The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.
Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:
Explain whether the data support your hypothesis
- Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected
Derive conclusions, based on your findings, about the process you’re studying
- Relate your findings to earlier work in the same area (if you can)
Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings
Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.
This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,
“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”
Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.
Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).
Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected
You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.
Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.
If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.
This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.
Relate your findings to previous work in the field (if possible)
We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.
If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)
This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.
Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.
We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.
American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.
Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.
Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Make a Gift
- Strategic initiatives
- Academic Colleges
- University Executive
- Strategic planning
- Global engagement
- Nobel Laureates
- Translational Fellowship Scheme
- Previous years' recipients
- Distinguished educators
- Education Fellowship Scheme
- Roll of honour
- Frameworks & disclosures
- Dates & deadlines
- ANU Council Statements
- Busiest office competition
- ATAR information
- Flexible degree options at ANU
- Professional development courses at ANU
- External scholarships
- Direct application scholarships
- Prestigious scholarships
- Applying to ANU - Application details
- Domestic undergraduate admission
- All programs and courses
- Domestic Applications - ANU Postgraduate Coursework
- Domestic landing page
- Future students vn
- Application procedure
- Find an educational agent
- International students
- Subscribe for updates
- Short courses
- Accept your offer
- Fees & payments
- Student experience
- Student residences
- Compare residences
- Financial support
- Application advice
- Other accommodation options
- Support & resources
- Past events
- Undergraduate students
- Postgraduate students
- Postgrad research students
- Exchange and Study Abroad
- Prospective international students
- Parents & guardians
- Career advisors
- Agents representatives
- Our research
- Our Health in Our Hands
- Subscribe to TechPolicy Design Centre's newsletter
- Partner with us
- Current researchers
- Current research students
- Future research students
- Engaged ANU
- Search fundraising projects
- Impact stories
- Report to donors
- Philanthropy at ANU
- Support students
- Kambri scholars
- Benefits & services
- Prominent alumni
- Golden Graduate profiles
- ANU75 features
- Events & stories
- Indigenous student support
- Leadership & volunteering
- Student communities
- Student experience research
- Program management
- Assessments & exams
- Academic integrity
- Research writing
- Study skills
- Writing & assessment
- Peer mentoring
- Living well
- Feeling well
- Respectful relationships
- Spending well
- Living legally & safe
- Access & inclusion
- Living spiritually
- Getting help at ANU
- Applications & interviews
- Career resources
- Finding a job
- Planning your career
- Understanding overseas study
- Short course options
- Other semester-length options
- Funding information
- New students
- Current International students
- Students with a disability
- Indigenous students
- For journalists
- Publications & social media
- News from the VC
- All podcasts
- University calendar
- Website directory
- Social channels
ANU is a world-leading university in Australia’s capital. Excellence is embedded in our approach to research and education.
- Campuses & facilities
- Awards & achievements
- Our history
Study with us
Choosing the right university is a defining decision. Discover why ANU is the right choice for you.
- Study options
- Apply to ANU
- Postgraduate research students
- Information for agents
Research & innovation
ANU research priorities address the challenges facing Australia and the world.
- Research initiatives
Your donation will make a real difference to our community of researchers and students.
- How to give
- First Nations Portfolio
- Leading in our region
- Transforming our world
ANU graduates become lifelong members of our community. See what's on offer.
- Get involved
ANU has a huge variety of support services, programs and activities to enhance your student experience.
- Student life
- Program admin
- Academic skills
- Health, safety & wellbeing
- Careers & opportunities
- Learning platforms
- Higher Degree Research candidates
- Programs & courses
You are here
The purpose of a science report is to clearly communicate your key message about why your scientific findings are meaningful. In order to do this, you need to explain why you are testing a hypothesis, what methodology you used, what you found, and why your findings are meaningful. This requires a clear link between your introduction and your analysis/discussion.
Science reports tend to have a more typical structure than business reports. The structure is designed to clearly outline the key message of the research. It does this through indicating existing research, the significance of the current research, the research aim or hypothesis, what research was actually conducted, what was found, what the findings mean and imply. The structure in the table below outlines a typical scientific report.
Introductions need to logically justify, using the relevant literature, the reason for doing the experiment. They typically contain:
- what is being investigated
- the significance of your research
- what previous studies have found in this area
- aims and hypothesis (depending on the discipline)
The body of a science report contains the bulk of the information and writing. It typically contains the following:
- Methods: a precise and concise explanation of what you did. It is important that this is written in such a way that it could be replicated by other researchers.
- Results: present your findings with appropriately and clearly presented graphs, tables, charts, and explanations.
The discussion is an important section of your report and is often the most challenging to write. This is where you present the analysis of what your findings mean. You outline whether or not your findings support the hypothesis presented in the introduction and the extent to which your findings agree with previous research, also presented in the introduction. If not, you can put forward suggestions as to why and present ideas for ways that future research could address these issues. The discussion is the section that requires careful consideration in terms of structure, in the same way that an essay does. You have a key message about your research and findings that you need to present, and your structure needs to support that.
The final paragraph of your discussion is the conclusion. In science reports, conclusions are brief summaries of the findings and may reemphasise the key message of your report.
Use contact details to request an alternative file format.
- Contact ANU
- Freedom of Information
+61 2 6125 5111 The Australian National University, Canberra TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) CRICOS Provider : 00120C ABN : 52 234 063 906
Find Study Materials for
Create Study Materials
Select your language
- Addiction Treatment Theories
- Aversion Therapy
- Behavioural Interventions
- Drug Therapy
- Gambling Addiction
- Nicotine Addiction
- Physical and Psychological Dependence
- Reducing Addiction
- Risk Factors for Addiction
- Six Stage Model of Behaviour Change
- Theory of Planned Behaviour
- Theory of Reasoned Action
- Tolerance and Withdrawal Syndrome
- Behaviour Modification
- Biological Explanations for Bullying
- Bullying Behaviour
- Cortisol Research
- Ethological Explanations of Aggression
- Evolution of Human Aggression
- Fixed Action Patterns
- Frustration Aggression Hypothesis
- Gender and Aggression
- Genetic Origins of Aggression
- Genetic Research on Serotonin
- Genetical Research on Testosterone
- Genetics of Aggression
- Innate Releasing Mechanisms
- Institutional Aggression in The Context of Prisons
- Limbic System
- Media Influences on Aggression
- Neural and Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression
- Serotonin Research
- Social Psychological Explanation of Aggression
- Sykes Deprivation Model
- Testosterone Research
- The Hydraulic Model of Instinctive Behaviour
- The Importation Model
- Violent Video Games and Aggression
- Warrior Gene
- Bandura Bobo Doll
- Biological Approach
- Classical Conditioning
- Cognitive approach
- Comparison of Approaches Psychology
- Defence Mechanisms
- Emergence of Psychology as a Science
- Forty Four Juvenile Thieves
- Free Will and Self-Actualisation
- Genetic Basis of Behaviour
- Genotype and Phenotype
- Humanistic Psychology
- Id Ego Superego
- Learning Approaches
- Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
- Operant Conditioning
- Origin of Psychology
- Psychodynamic Approach
- Psychosexual Stages Of Development
- Raine et al 1997
- Rogers Client-Centred Therapy
- Social Learning Theory
- The Case Of Little Hans
- The Self Congruence and Conditions of Worth
- Twin Studies Gottesman
- Wundt and Introspection
- Ainsworth's Strange Situation
- Alternatives To The Medical Model
- Animal Studies of Attachment
- Attachment Figures
- Attachment and Later Relationships
- Auditory Attention
- BBC Prison Study
- Behaviour Strategies For Autism
- Biological Explanations for Autism
- Bowlby Theory of Maternal Deprivation
- Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
- Caregiver Infant Interactions
- Categorising Mental Disorders
- Classic and Contemporary Research into Memory
- Classic and Contemporary Research into Obedience
- Cognitive Approach to Depression
- Cognitive Interview
- Conformity to Social Roles
- Contemporary Research - Language of Psychopaths
- Context-Dependent Memory
- Cross-Cultural Altruism
- Cue-Dependent Forgetting
- Cultural Variations in Attachment
- Definitions of Abnormality
- Deprivation Privation and Separation
- Developmental Pattern of Digit Span
- Developmental Psychology in Memory
- Developmental Psychology in Obedience/Prejudice
- Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing
- Dispositional Factors Social Influence
- Explanations for Prejudice
- Explanations of Attachment
- Eyewitness Identification under Stress
- Eyewitness Testimony
- Features of Memory
- Forgetting in Psychology
- Gould Bias in IQ Testing
- Hazan and Shaver
- History of Mental Health
- Inattentional Blindness
- Individual Differences In Autism
- Individual Differences In Memory
- Individual Differences in Ideological Attitudes and Prejudice
- Informational Social Influence
- Issues and Debates in the Context of Obedience/Prejudice
- Learning Theory
- Long-Term Memory
- Measuring Individual Differences
- Medical Model
- Milgram Experiment
- Milgram’s Variation Studies
- Minority Influence and Social Change
- Multi-Store Model of Memory
- Normative Social Influence
- Phobia Treatment
- Piliavin Subway Study
- Prosocial Behaviour And Altruism
- Realistic Conflict Theory
- Reconstruction From Memory in Naturalistic Environments
- Reconstructive Memory
- Resistance to Social Influence
- Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
- Romanian Orphan Studies
- Schema Theory
- Semantic Knowledge in Patient HM
- Short-Term Memory
- Situational Influence
- Social Identity Theory
- Social Impact Theory
- Social Influence
- Stages of Attachment
- Stanford Prison Experiment
- Studies on Interference
- The Robbers Cave Experiment
- Theories of Autism
- Working Memory Model
- Biological Influences on Drug Use
- Defining consciousness
- Functions of the Cerebral Cortex
- Influences on Drug Use
- Lesioning Research
- Neural Fluidity
- Neural Plasticity
- Psychoactive Drugs
- Psychological Influences on Drug Use
- Sleep Deprivation
- Sleep Disorders
- States of Consciousness
- The Cerebral Cortex
- The Limbic System
- Theories of Dreams
- Theories of Sleep
- Types of Psychoactive Drugs
- Biological Rhythms
- Blakemore and Cooper
- CAT and PET Scan
- Circadian, Infradian and Ultradian Rhythms
- Electroencephalogram (EEGs) and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)
- Evolution and Behavior
- Fight-or-Flight Response and The Role of Adrenaline
- Functional Magnetic Resonance
- Hemispheric Lateralisation
- Localisation of Function in the Brain
- Motor Area of Brain
- Nervous System Divisions
- Neuron Structure and Function
- Plasticity and Functional Recovery of the Brain After Trauma
- Post Mortem Examination
- Process of Synaptic Transmission
- Sleep Wake Cycle
- The Function of the Endocrine System - Glands and hormones
- Ways of Studying the Brain
- Mental Health Careers
- Political Psychology
- Psychologist Education Requirements
- Abnormal Behavior
- Alternative Therapies
- Anxiety Disorders
- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Behavioral Therapies
- Binge Eating Disorder
- Biomedical Procedures
- Biomedical Therapy
- Bipolar Disorder
- Brain Abnormalities in Schizophrenia
- Bulimia Nervosa
- Categories of Disorders
- Causes of Eating Disorders
- Client Centered Therapy
- Cognitive Therapy
- Cultural Considerations in Therapy
- Depressive Disorder
- Diagnosing Psychological Disorders
- Dissociative Amnesia
- Dissociative Disorders
- Dissociative Identity Disorder
- Eating Disorders
- Effectiveness of Therapy
- General Anxiety Disorder
- Group and Family Therapy
- History of Mental Health Treatment
- Humanistic Therapy
- Insight Therapy
- Intellectual Disability
- Major Depressive Disorder
- Neurodevelopmental Disorders
- Panic Disorders
- Personality Disorders
- Preventive Mental Health
- Psychoanalytic Therapy
- Psychological Disorders
- Psychological Perspectives and Etiology of Disorders
- Psychological Perspectives in the Treatment of Disorders
- Schizophrenic Disorders
- Seasonal Affective Disorder
- Self-Help Groups
- Somatic Symptom Disorders
- Somatic and Dissociative Disorders
- Subtypes of Schizophrenia
- The Rosenhan Study - The Influence of Labels
- Treatment of Psychological Disorders
- Types of Personality Disorders
- Types of Therapy
- Bartlett War of the Ghosts
- Brain Development
- Bruner and Minturn Study of Perceptual Set
- Case Studies Psychology
- Conservation of Number Piaget
- Constructive Processes in Memory
- Data handling
- Depth Cues Psychology
- Designing Research
- Developmental Research
- Dweck's Theory of Mindset
- Ethical considerations in research
- Experimental Method
- Factors Affecting Perception
- Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Memory
- Formulation of Hypothesis
- Gibson's Theory of Direct Perception
- Gregory's Constructivist Theory of Perception
- Gunderson et al 2013 study
- Hughes Policeman Doll Study
- Issues and Debates in Developmental Psychology
- Language and Perception
- McGarrigle and Donaldson Naughty Teddy
- Memory Processes
- Memory recall
- Nature and Nurture in Development
- Normal Distribution Psychology
- Perception Research
- Perceptual Set
- Piagets Theory in Education
- Planning and Conducting Research
- Population Samples
- Primary and Secondary Data
- Quantitative Data
- Quantitative and Qualitative Data
- Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
- Research Procedures
- Serial Position Effect
- Short-term Retention
- Structures of Memory
- Tables, Charts and Graphs
- The Effects of Learning on Development
- The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation
- Three Mountains Task
- Types of Variable
- Types of bias and how to control
- Visual Cues and Constancies
- Visual illusions
- Willingham's Learning Theory
- Baillargeon Explanation of Early Infant Abilities
- Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
- Moral Development in Childhood
- Piaget Theory of Cognitive Development
- The Development of Social Cognition
- Theory of Mind
- Vygotsky´s theory of cognitive development
- Animal Cognition
- Animal Thinking and Language
- Animals and Language
- Biological Bases of Memory
- Children's Language Acquisition
- Cognition and Learning
- Cognitive Bias
- Concepts of Thinking
- Creative Thinking
- Criticism of Intelligence Testing
- Dynamics of Intelligence
- History of Intelligence Testing
- Improve Memory
- Influences on Intelligence
- Intellectual Giftedness
- Intelligence Testing
- Learning Methods
- Operant Conditioning Applications
- Problem Solving and Decision Making
- Theories of Intelligence
- Thinking and Language
- Analysis and Interpretation of Correlation
- Binomial Sign Test
- Content Analysis
- Descriptive Statistics
- Distribution Psychology
- Inferential Testing
- Levels of Measurement
- Measures of Central Tendency
- Measures of Dispersion
- Non-Parametric Tests
- Observed Values and Critical Values
- Presentation of Quantitative Data
- Probability and Significance
- Scientific Data Analysis
- Statistical Tests
- Thematic Analysis
- Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
- Adulthood and Aging
- Application of Classical Conditioning
- Biological Factors in Development
- Childhood Development
- Cognitive Development in Adolescence
- Cognitive Development in Adulthood
- Cognitive Development in Childhood
- Cognitive Development in Infants
- Continuity vs Discontinuity
- Death and Dying
- Environmental Factors in Development
- Erikson's Psychosocial Stages of Development
- Gender Development
- Gender and Sexuality
- Infant Development
- Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning
- Language Development in Infancy
- Language Disorders
- Language and the Brain
- Moral Development
- Newborn Characteristics
- Parenting Styles
- Physical Development in Adolescence
- Physical Development in Adulthood
- Physical Development in Childhood
- Physical Development in Infancy
- Prenatal Development
- Prenatal Physical Development
- Social Development in Adolescence
- Social Development in Adulthood
- Social Development in Early Childhood
- Stability vs Change
- The Law of Effect
- Anorexia Nervosa
- Anorexia Treatments
- Food Preferences
- Psychological Explanations for Obesity
- Psychology behind Dieting
- Social Learning Theory Anorexia
- Cannon Bard Theory
- Concept of Motivation
- Conflict Theory
- Drive Reduction Theory
- Emotional Expression
- Health and Happiness
- Hunger Motivation
- Instinct Theory
- James Lange Theory
- Lazarus Theory of Emotion
- Optimal Arousal Theory
- Primary Emotions
- Schachter-Singer Theory
- Sexual Motivation
- Social Motivation
- Specific Motivation
- Stress Definition
- Theories of Emotion
- Theories of Motivation
- Zajonc and LeDoux
- Abraham Maslow
- Albert Bandura
- Alfred Adler
- Benjamin Whorf
- Carl Wernicke
- Charles Darwin
- David Wechsler
- Dorothea Dix
- Edward Thorndike
- Elizabeth Loftus
- Ernst Weber
- Francis Galton
- Hermann Ebbinghaus
- Howard Gardner
- Ivan Pavlov
- Jean Piaget
- John Watson
- Lev Vygotsky
- Lewis Terman
- Martin Seligman
- Roger Sperry
- Sigmund Freud
- Solomon Asch
- Stanley Milgram
- Ulrich Neisser
- Wilhelm Wundt
- Anger Management and Restorative Justice Programmes
- Atavistic Form
- Biological Evidence
- Biological Theories of Crime
- Custodial Sentencing
- Differential Association Theory
- Eysenck's Theory of Personality
- Genetic Explanations of Offending Behaviour
- Level of Moral Reasoning and Cognitive Distortions
- Measuring Crime
- Offender Profiling
- Psychodynamic Theories and The Moral Component
- Psychological Evidence
- Psychological Theories of Crime
- Psychology in the Courtroom
- Bem Sex Role Inventory
- Cognitive Explanations of Gender Development
- Gender Dysphoria
- Gender Identity
- Gender Schema Theory
- Klinefelter and Turner Syndrome
- Kohlberg Theory
- Oedipus and Electra Complex
- Sexual Orientation
- Social Learning Theory Gender
- The Role of Chromosomes And Hormones In Gender
- Preventive Mental Health Care
- Cognitive Theory of Emotion
- Emotion Research
- Motivation Across Cultures
- Positive Emotions
- Culture Bias and Sub-Culture Bias
- Current Debates in Psychology
- Ethics and Socially Sensitive Research
- Ethics of Neuroscience
- Free Will and Determinism
- Gender Bias
- Idiographic and Nomothetic Approaches
- Interactionist approach
- Nature Vs Nurture Debate
- Nature-Nurture Methods
- Philosophical Debates in Psychology
- Positive Psychology
- Reductionism and Holism
- Behavioral Theory of Personality
- Biological Theory of Personality
- Humanistic Theory of Personality
- Introduction to Personality
- Measuring Personality
- Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality
- Social Cognitive Theory of Personality
- The Big Five
- Theories of Personality
- Trait Theories of Personality
- Behavioural Therapy
- Dream Analysis
- Mindfulness Psychology
- Positive Psychology Therapy
- Psychodynamic Treatments
- Quality of Life Therapy
- Absence of Gating
- Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
- Equity Theory
- Factors affecting attraction
- Parasocial Relationships
- Physical Attractiveness
- Romantic Relationship
- Rusbult's Investment Model
- Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
- Sexual Relationships
- Sexual Selection
- Social Exchange Theory
- The Absorption Addiction Model
- The Attachment Theory Explanation
- The Filter Theory
- Virtual Relationships in Social Media
- Aims and Hypotheses
- Causation in Psychology
- Coding Frame Psychology
- Correlational Studies
- Cross Cultural Research
- Cross Sectional Research
- Ethical Issues and Ways of Dealing with Them
- Experimental Designs
- Features of Science
- Field Experiment
- Independent Group Design
- Lab Experiment
- Longitudinal Research
- Matched Pairs Design
- Meta Analysis
- Natural Experiment
- Observational Design
- Online Research
- Paradigms and Falsifiability
- Peer Review and Economic Applications of Research
- Pilot Studies and the Aims of Piloting
- Quality Criteria
- Questionnaire Construction
- Repeated Measures Design
- Research Methods
- Sampling Frames
- Sampling Psychology
- Scientific Processes
- Scientific Research
- Self-Report Design
- Self-Report Techniques
- Semantic Differential Rating Scale
- Snowball Sampling
- Biological Explanations for Schizophrenia
- Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
- Cognitive Explanations for Schizophrenia
- Diagnosis and Classification of Schizophrenia
- Dysfunctional Family
- Family Therapy
- Interactionist Approach
- Neural Correlates
- Psychological Explanations for Schizophrenia
- Psychological Therapies for Schizophrenia
- Reliability and Validity in Diagnosis and Classification of Schizophrenia
- Role of Cannabis
- Schizophrenia Genetics
- The Dopamine Hypothesis
- Token Economy
- Treatment and Therapies for Schizophrenia
- Typical and Atypical Antipsychotics
- Ventricular Size
- Applied Research In Psychology
- Biopsychosocial Model Psychology
- Evolutionary Perspective in Psychology
- Gestalt Psychology
- Helping Professions
- Introducing Psychology
- Multiple Perspectives in Psychology
- Psychological Perspectives
- Psychology as a Science
- Schools of Thought
- Sociocultural Perspective in Psychology
- Structuralism and Functionalism in Psychology
- Subfields of Psychology
- Correlation Coefficients
- Displaying Statistical Data
- Ethical Guidelines in Psychology
- Focus Groups in Qualitative Research
- Frequency Distribution
- Graphs for Qualitative Data
- Random Sampling
- Reliability and Validity
- Research Design
- Research Techniques
- Sampling Methods
- Scatter Plots
- Scientific Method
- Standardization and Norms
- Statistical Significance
- Stratified Sampling
- Body Senses
- Chemical Senses
- Gestalt Principles of Perception
- Gustatory System
- Influences on Perception
- Olfactory System
- Sensory Adaptation
- Sensory Processing Disorders
- Sensory Threshold
- Sensory and Perceptual Processing
- Skin Senses
- The Five Senses
- Vestibular Sense
- Vision Psychology
- Visual Anatomy
- Visual Perception
- Activation Synthesis Theory
- Addiction Treatment
- Adornos Theory
- Altered States of Consciousness
- An introduction to mental health
- Anger Management Programmes
- Antidepressant Medications
- Asch Conformity Experiments
- Autonomic Nervous System
- Bickman Obedience Study
- Biological Explanation of Depression
- Body Language
- Brain During Sleep
- Brain Structure
- Brain and Neuropsychology
- Bystander Effect
- Caspi et al 2003
- Characteristics of Addiction
- Characteristics of Mental Health
- Clinical Depression
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Collective Behaviour
- Community Sentencing
- Concepts of the Self
- Crime Punishment
- Crime and Culture
- Criminal Psychology
- Depression Treatment
- Depression VS Sadness
- Dispositional Factors
- Drug Abuse vs Addiction
- Erikson's Stages Of Development
- Ethical Issues in Social Influence Research
- Eye Contact
- Fight-or-Flight Response
- Flow States
- Freud Wolfman Study
- Freud's Theory of Dreaming
- Functions of Sleep
- Hebbs Theory
- How Crime is Measured
- Human Language and Animal Communication
- Humanistic Theory of Self
- Identity and Free Will
- Improving Sleep
- Language and Thought
- Language, Thought And Communication
- Localisation of Brain Function
- Majority and Minority Influence
- Management of Insomnia
- Milgrams Agency Theory
- Nervous System
- Neuroimaging Techniques
- Neurological Damage on Behaviour
- Non Verbal Communication
- Non-Verbal Behaviour
- Penfield's Study of The Interpretive Cortex
- Personal Space
- Personality Scales
- Personality Types
- Piaget vs Vygotsky
- Prosocial Behaviour
- Psychological Problems
- Restorative Justice
- Self Report
- Self-Management Psychology
- Siffre Cave Study Psychology
- Sleep Hygiene
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Sleep and Zeitgebers
- Social Effects
- Stages of Sleep
- Studying the brain
- Symptoms of Schizophrenia
- The James Lange Theory
- Theories of Depression
- Theories of Schizophrenia
- Theories of addiction
- Trait Theory of Personality
- Tulving's Gold Memory Study
- Types of crime
- Understanding Crime
- Altruism Psychology
- Attitudes and Behavior
- Attribution Theory
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- Cultural Differences in Relationships
- Diffusion of Responsibility
- Gender Roles in Society
- Group Behavior
- Group Dynamics
- Human Factors in Psychology
- Individual Behavior and Group Behavior
- Industrial-Organizational Psychology
- Interpersonal Attraction
- Organizational Psychology
- Person Perception
- Personnel Psychology
- Psychology at Work
- Self-Concept and Behavior
- Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
- Social Diversity
- Social Power Structures
- Social Psychology Experiments
- Daily Hassles
- Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal System
- Illness Caused by Stress
- Individual Differences in Stress
- Measuring Stress
- Physiology of Stress
- Self Report Scales
- Sources of Stress
- Stress Management
- Sympathomedullary Pathway
- The Social Readjustment Rating Scale
- Workplace Stress
Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken
Nie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.
Writing up the results from an experiment can be difficult, as the nature of scientific research requires rigorous testing techniques and accurate recordings of data. The scientific report allows researchers to record their findings and publish them out into the world, expanding on the area of expertise. So, what comprises a scientific report?
- We are going to establish and explore scientific reports in psychological research.
- We will start by looking at scientific reports in psychology and how scientific report writing should be conducted.
- Then we will explore the scientific report structure, including the introduction, method, results, scientific report conclusion and discussion.
- Finally, we will delve into scientific report examples.
Scientific Reports: Psychology
Research can be identified as primary or secondary research; whether the researcher collects the data used for analysis or uses previously published findings determines this. The different types of research produce different types of scientific reports, such as:
Primary research is data collected from the researcher, e.g., when carrying out an experiment.
For example, a laboratory produces a primary scientific psychology report.
On the other hand, secondary research is carried out using previously published research.
For example, a meta-analysis uses statistical means to combine and analyse data from similar studies.
Or, a systematic review uses a systematic approach (clearly defining variables and creating extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria to find research in databases) to gather empirical data to answer a research question.
Scientific Report: Importance
The reason why research should follow the APA recommendations for writing up psychological scientific research is that:
- It ensures the researcher adds enough information to replicate and peer-review the study.
- It makes it easier to read and find relevant information.
- It ensures the report is written to a good standard.
- It ensures any secondary research used acknowledges and credits the original author.
Scientfic Report: Writing
When conducting scientific report writing, several things must be kept in mind. A scientific report aims to help readers understand the study's procedure, findings and what this means for psychology. A scientific report should be clear and logical to make it easier to understand the research.
The American Psychological Association (APA) has created guidelines on how a scientific report should be written, including the scientific report structure and format.
APA suggests several headings for use in psychology reports. The scientific report structure and details included in the report will vary based on the researcher's experiment. However, a general framework is used as a template for research.
Scientific Report Structure
Psychology research should always start with an abstract. This section briefly summarises the whole study, typically 150-200 words. The crucial details the abstract should give include an overview of the hypothesis, sample, procedure, results, details regarding data analysis, and the conclusions drawn.
This section allows readers to read the summary and decide if the research is relevant to them.
The purpose of the introduction is to justify why the research is carried out. This is usually done by writing a literature review of relevant information to the phenomena and showing that your study will fill a gap in research.
The information described in the literature review must show how the researcher it was used to formulate and derived the hypothesis investigated.
The literature review will reflect research supporting and negating the hypothesis.
In this section, the investigated hypotheses should be reported.
The introduction should consist of a third of the psychology research report.
Scientific Report Structure: Method
The method consists of multiple subsections to ensure the report covers enough details to replicate the research. It is important to replicate investigations to identify if it is reliable. The details included in the methodology are important for peer-reviewing the quality of the study.
It allows the person peer-reviewing it to determine if the research is scientific, reliable, and valid and if it should be published in a psychological journal.
The subsections written in the methods section of a scientific report are:
State the experimental design.
State all of the (operationalised) variables investigated.
If multiple conditions are investigated, e.g., people treated for one, two, and four weeks, researchers should report it.
It is also important to note how researchers allocated participants into groups and whether they used counterbalancing methods.
The research design used, e.g., correlational research.
Counterbalancing is used to combat order effects. In some designs, participants repeat the same experiment counterbalancing techniques deal with these.
The sampling method should be noted, e.g., opportunity.
Researchers should state the number of participants and the number of males and females participating in the study.
They should state the demographics of the participants used in the research, e.g., age (including the mean and standard deviation), ethnicity, nationality, and any other details relevant to the investigation.
This section should state all the relevant equipment used in the study, i.e., equipment/materials used to measure the variables , e.g., questionnaires (researchers should include a copy of this in the appendix).
Some research does not use this subsection if it does not use any specialised materials, e.g., researchers do not need to state if participants used pens or a stopwatch.
- This section should describe what researchers did in the research in the order they conducted it.
They should include details about standardised instruction, informed consent, and debriefing.
This section should be concise but provide enough details so it is replicable.
This section states which ethical committee reviewed and granted the research.
It should state any ethical issues that could have occurred in the research and how researchers dealt with them.
Scientific Report Conclusion and Results
The results section is where you state your findings. This section only states what you have found and does not discuss or explain it. You can present the data found through numerical values, tables, and figures. However, there are specific guidelines on reporting data per APA guidelines when reporting or adding these.
Researchers should not use the raw data collected. Instead, it should be analysed first. The results should start with descriptive data followed by inferential statistics (the type of statistical test used to identify whether a hypothesis should be accepted or rejected).
These statistics should include effect size and significance level (p).
Researchers should report data regardless of whether it is significant or not. They should report the p-value to three decimal places but everything else to two.
After the results, the scientific report conclusion should be reported; this summarises what was found in the study.
- The scientific report conclusion provides a less detailed summary of the study's results which is built on in the discussion section.
Scientific Report: Discussion
This section should discuss and conclude with the research results. The first thing researchers should write about in the discussion is whether the findings support the proposed hypothesis.
If the results support the hypothesis, researchers should compare the findings to previously published findings in the introduction that also found the same results.
You should add very little new research to the discussion section. If the hypothesis is not supported, the discussion should explain from research why this may be. Here, adding new research to present the findings is acceptable (perhaps another theory better explains it).
Critiquing this research, such as its strengths and weaknesses, how it contributed to the psychology field, and its next direction is essential. In the discussion, researchers should not add statistical values.
Scientific Report Example
An example of a scientific report includes any of those seen in studies, such as when a laboratory produces a primary scientific psychology report, or a meta-analysis which uses statistical means to combine and analyse data from similar studies.
The purpose of the reference section is to give credit to all the research used in writing the report. Researchers list this section in alphabetical order based on the author's last name – t he references listed need to be reported per the APA format.
Researchers use background information, e.g. data or theories from previous publications, to form hypotheses, support, criticise findings and learn how research should progress.
The two most common secondary sources used in scientific reports are findings from published journals or books.
Let's look at some scientific report examples of how books and journals should be referenced following APA guidelines.
Book : Author, initial (year of publication). Book title in italics. Publisher. DOI if available (digital object identifier).
Example: Comer, R. J. (2007). Abnormal psychology . New York: Worth Publishers.
Journal: Author, initial (year). Article title. Journal title in italics, volume number in italics , issue number, page range. DOI if available.
Example: Fjell, A. M., Walhovd, K. B., Fischl, B., & Reinvang, I. (2007). Cognitive function, P3a/P3b brain potentials, and cortical thickness in ageing. Human Brain Mapping, 28 (11), 1098-1116. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20335
Scientific Report - Key takeaways
A scientific report consists of details regarding scientists reporting what their research entailed and reporting the results and conclusions drawn from the study.
- Researchers should write scientific psychology reports per the APA format to ensure the scientists report enough information. It makes the report easier to read and find relevant information and ensures that the original authors of the research are acknowledged and credited.
- The scientific report structure should use the following subheadings: abstract, introduction, method (design, participants, materials, procedure and ethics), results, discussion, references and occasionally appendix, in this order.
Frequently Asked Questions about Scientific Report
--> how do you write a scientific report in psychology.
When psychologists carry out research, an essential part of the process involves reporting what the research entails and the results and conclusions drawn from the study. The American Psychological Association (APA) provides guidelines for the correct format researchers should use when writing psychology research reports.
--> How do you write a scientific introduction to a report?
It is usually done by writing a literature review of relevant information to the phenomena and showing that your study will fill a gap in research.
--> How do you structure a scientific report?
The structure of a scientific report should use the following subheadings: abstract, introduction, method (design, participants, materials, procedure and ethics), results, discussion, references and occasionally appendix, in this order.
--> What is a scientific report?
A scientific report consists of details regarding scientists reporting what their research entailed and reporting the results and conclusions drawn from the study.
--> What are the types of a scientific report?
Scientific reports can be primary or secondary. A primary scientific report is produced when the researchers conduct the research themselves. However, secondary scientific reports such as peer reviews, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are a type of scientific report that scientists produce when the researcher answers their proposed research question using previously published findings.
Final Scientific Report Quiz
What is a scientific report?
Why is scientific research reported per APA in psychology?
- It ensures the scientists report enough information.
- It makes the report easier to read and find relevant information.
- It ensures the original research authors are acknowledged and credited.
How should the following book be reported per APA guidelines? The book is called Abnormal psychology, Worth Publishers published it in New York in 2007. Ronald J Comer wrote the book.
Comer, R. J. (2007). Abnormal psychology . New York: Worth Publishers.
What structure should a scientific report follow?
The structure of a scientific report should use the following subheadings:
- Occasionally appendix.
What are potential subheadings we can find in the methods section of a scientific report?
Where can readers find the hypothesis of research?
In the abstract and introduction.
What is the purpose of the abstract?
The purpose of the abstract is to provide an overview of the research so that the reader can quickly identify if the research is relevant or of interest to them.
How long should an abstract be?
Is the following reference reported in accordance with APA guidelines ‘Fjell, A. M., Walhovd, K. B., Fischl, B., & Reinvang, I. Cognitive function, P3a/P3b brain potentials, and cortical thickness in ageing. Human Brain Mapping, 28 (11), 1098-1116. doi:10.1002/hbm.20335’?
No, the publication year is missing.
Do researchers have to report insignificant data?
Yes, they need to report all data, whether significant or not.
What is the difference between the information that should be put in the results and discussion section?
In the results section, the researcher should insert the inferential data analysed, which could take the form of numerical numbers, graphs and figures. In this section, they should not discuss or explain the results. Instead, they should write it under the discussion heading. However, the data reported in the results section should not be repeated here.
What is a primary scientific report?
A primary scientific report is produced when the researchers conduct the research themselves.
What is a secondary scientific report?
Secondary scientific reports such as peer-reviews, meta-analysis and systematic reviews are a type of scientific report that scientists produce when the researcher answers their proposed research question using previously published findings.
What kind of details should be added in the discussion section?
- The first thing that researchers should write about in the discussion is whether the findings support the hypothesis proposed or not.
- They should then discuss and explain the results the research found.
- They should then compare the findings to previously published findings that investigated the phenomena.
- It is essential to critique this research, such as the strengths and weaknesses, how it contributed to the psychology field and its next direction.
What information should be provided in the procedure section of a scientific report?
- They should include the details about standardised instruction, informed consent, and debriefing.
Researchers need to add enough details of their study so that it can be .....
When referring to another study the researcher should always the original .
Meta-analyses and systematic reports are both examples of research.
According to APA, six main headings should be included in a report, true or false?
According to APA, the way to reference a book and journal is the same, true or false?
After a paper is written, what is done?
The paper is peer-reviewed.
What does peer-reviewing ensure?
Identify if the research is scientific, reliable, and valid and if it should be published in a psychological journal.
Can researchers refer to raw data in their scientific report?
Should researchers refer to their statistical findings to back what they are saying?
No, data should not be referred to in the discussion. Instead, the researcher can describe what was found and the inferences that can be made from observed trends.
- Research Methods in Psychology
- Forensic Psychology
- Scientific Investigation
of the users don't pass the Scientific Report quiz! Will you pass the quiz?
More explanations about Research Methods in Psychology
Discover the right content for your subjects, business studies, combined science, english literature, environmental science, human geography, macroeconomics, microeconomics, no need to cheat if you have everything you need to succeed packed into one app.
Be perfectly prepared on time with an individual plan.
Test your knowledge with gamified quizzes.
Create and find flashcards in record time.
Create beautiful notes faster than ever before.
Have all your study materials in one place.
Upload unlimited documents and save them online.
Identify your study strength and weaknesses.
Set individual study goals and earn points reaching them.
Stop procrastinating with our study reminders.
Earn points, unlock badges and level up while studying.
Create flashcards in notes completely automatically.
Create the most beautiful study materials using our templates.
Join millions of people in learning anywhere, anytime - every day
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
This is still free to read, it's not a paywall.
You need to register to keep reading, get free access to all of our study material, tailor-made.
Over 10 million students from across the world are already learning smarter.
StudySmarter bietet alles, was du für deinen Lernerfolg brauchst - in einer App!
- Current Students
- Exam Technique for In-Person Exams
- Revising for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
- Introduction to 24 Hour Take Home Exams
- Before the 24 Hour Take Home Exam
- Exam Technique for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
- Structuring a Literature Review
- Writing Coursework under Time Constraints
- Reflective Writing
- Writing a Synopsis
- Structuring a Science Report
- How the University works out your degree award
- Personal Extenuating Circumstances (PEC)
- Assignment Submission Guidance
- Inspera Digital Exams
- Writing Introductions and Conclusions
- Reporting Verbs
- Working with a Proofreader
- Writing Concisely
- The 1-Hour Writing Challenge
- Run-on sentences
- How to Improve your Grammar (native English)
- How to Improve your Grammar (non-native English)
- Independent Learning for Online Study
- Reflective Practice
- Academic Reading
- Strategic Reading Framework
- Note-taking Strategies
- Note-taking in Lectures
- Making Notes from Reading
- Using Evidence to Support your Argument
- Integrating Scholarship
- Managing Time and Motivation
- Dealing with Procrastination
- How to Paraphrase
- Quote or Paraphrase?
- How to Quote
- Numeracy, Maths & Statistics
- Library Search
- Search Techniques
- Keeping up to date
- Evaluating Information
- Managing Information
- Develop Your Digital Skills
- Digital Tools to Help You Study
Learn how to prepare, write and structure a science report.
- Newcastle University
- Academic Skills Kit
- Assignment Types
The purpose of a scientific report is to talk the reader through an experiment or piece of research you’ve done where you’ve generated some data, the decisions you made, what you found and what it means.
Lab or experimental reports in the Sciences have a very specific structure, which is often known as IMRAD :
- I ntroduction
- R esults and
- D iscussion.
Whether it’s a shorter lab report or a longer research project or dissertation, science writing of this kind tends to be structured into those sections (or chapters, if it’s a long project or thesis). Empirical research in the Social Sciences which is based on data collection might also use this structure. You’ll probably recognise it too in many of the journal articles you’re reading. There are sometimes variations from this pattern – sometimes results and discussion are combined into one section, sometimes in a longer research project there is a separate literature review in addition to the introduction, or there might be a conclusion as well as the discussion. Social sciences reports might have a theory section too. Always look at the brief for the assignment you have been set, or ask your lecturer or supervisor if you aren’t sure.
As there is a conventional set structure to follow for scientific reports, the main issue tends to be not how to structure it, but knowing what to write in each section, and making sure the right things are in the right places. Each section is clearly marked out with subheadings with a distinct purpose and role in the report, and the reader will expect to find particular things in each part. To help you follow this structure and know which of your points goes where, it might be useful to think about what question each section answers for your reader, and also what type of writing is characteristic of that section – more descriptive (factual), or more analytical (interpretation).
The introduction answers two questions, and is mostly descriptive, with more analysis if you’re writing up a research project rather than a lab report:
“What’s the issue here? What do we know about it?” DESCRIPTIVE
The introduction is usually around 15-20% of the report. It offers the reader some context and background information about the issue you’re exploring or the principle you’re verifying, to establish what we’re talking about and to outline what is known about the topic. In a shorter lab report, this is where you might use references to scientific literature, to show you have read about the subject and what you’re basing your understanding on. Keep this part as tightly focussed as you can and don’t be tempted to include lots of detail or go too broad. Think about what the reader needs to know to follow your report, rather than showing everything you’ve learned about the topic. The kind of writing you’re doing here is descriptive – mostly factual statements, backed up with references, to demonstrate your understanding of the background of your experiment or research.
“What are you trying to do and why?” ANALYTICAL
The introduction quickly moves on to the nature of the problem you’re trying to solve, hypothesis you are testing or research question you’re trying to answer. Again, you might want to make reference to other people’s research to demonstrate why this is a problem, what the debate might be or what exactly we don’t know. This kind of writing is higher level, as you’re analysing a problem and evaluating why this research needs to be done. In a research project, this is a very important section, as it’s the justification for your research, but in a lab experiment, you are demonstrating that you understand why this activity has been set rather than just following instructions. You would also state briefly what model, theory, approach or method you have chosen to take and why, what kind of research this is, but not in any detail yet.
“What is the current state of knowledge and what don’t we know?” ANALYTICAL
If you are writing up a longer research project or dissertation, you will be doing far more reading with much more critical analysis of existing research and discussion of why yours needs to be undertaken. The introduction might therefore contain so much reference to the literature and so much more analysis that it’s better to add it as a separate section in its own right – the literature review. In a shorter lab report, the references to the literature are integrated within the introduction and tend to be more descriptive -what the literature says rather than what you think about it. In a social sciences report, the literature review might also contain a discussion of the theory you’re using.
“How did you do the research?” DESCRIPTIVE
The methods section really is a pretty straightforward description of what you did to perform the experiment, or collect and process the data. It is often relatively short, about 15-20% of the report, and because it describes what you did, it is written in the past tense, whereas the rest of the report is in the present tense. In a lab resport, it might even be largely based on the experiment brief you were given. Its purpose is to allow your research to be replicated, so it needs to be clear and detailed enough to let another researcher follow it and reproduce what you did, like a recipe. This allows the reader to know exactly how you gathered and processed your data and judge whether your method was appropriate, or if it has any limitations or flaws. The methods section describes what you actually did rather than what you ideally intended to do, so it also includes any places where you departed from your planned approach and things might have gone a bit wrong or unexpectedly. This will help you explain any unusual elements in your results. Depending on the kind of research you are doing, a methods section might list equipment or software used, describe a set up or process, list steps you took, detail models, theories or parameters you employed, describe experiment design, outline survey questions or explain how you chose the sample you studied.
In a longer research project, you might include some more analytical discussion of why you chose those methods over alternative options, perhaps with some references to other studies which have used those approaches, but this would be part of your introduction or literature review.
“What did you find? What do the findings say?” DESCRIPTIVE
This section is where you present your findings, or data. This could take a number of forms, depending on the kind of research you’re doing -it could be text, but very often the data is presented as graphs, tables, images, or other kinds of figure. You might choose to include representative data, rather than all of the results. The results section is a meaty one, perhaps 30-40% of the report in terms of space and importance, but it is dense rather than long and wordy, as figures are often richer and more concise than words. How you represent your data is up to you, and depends on the observations you want to draw out of it.
The results section is one which many people find confusing to write. Its purpose is to present the data, but in a form which is easy for the reader to digest. The results section therefore has some explanation, so the reader knows what they are looking at. For example, it isn’t enough simply to give them a graph or table; there needs to be an explanation of what the figure is, what it contains and how to read it (for example, what the image is of and its scale, what the graph axes are or what the columns and rows in the table represent). You might also draw the reader’s attention to the main features of the data that you want them to notice, such as trends, patterns, correlations, noteworthy aspects or significant areas. However, the results section is mostly descriptive – it’s a slightly digested form of your raw data. It says what the findings are, what the data says, but it doesn’t tell the reader what the results mean – that’s the job of the discussion.
“What do the findings mean?” ANALYSIS
Results in themselves aren’t the full story. Two people can look at the same data, see two different things and interpret it in two different ways. The discussion is where you explain what you think the data means and what it proves. In doing so, you are making an argument, explaining the reasons why you think your interpretation of the data is correct, so this section is very analytical and therefore substantial, about 15-20%. In a discussion, you might be arguing that something is significant, or that it shows a connection, or is due to particular causes. You could comment on the impact of any limitations, how far the findings support your hypothesis, or what further work needs to be done and speculate on what it might find. You might also bring some references to the literature in here, to help support your arguments, explain your findings or show how they are consistent with other studies. The discussion section is likely to be one of the longer ones, as this is where your main argument is.
In some reports, the results and discussion sections are combined, but in general, resist the temptation to comment on your results as you present them, and save this for the later discussion section. Keep the factual results and the more subjective interpretation separate. If you are writing up a longer project, dissertation or thesis, you might have more than one results or discussion chapter to cover different aspects of your research.
“What’s the overall point you’re making? So what?” ANALYTICAL
If you have been asked to write a conclusion separately to the discussion, this is where you take a big step back from the detailed analysis of the data in your discussion, and summarise overall what you think your research has shown. You might comment on its significance or implications for our understanding of the topic you outlined in the introduction, or where it agrees or disagrees with other literature. You are making a judgement statement about the validity, quality and significance of your study and how it fits with existing knowledge. Some reports combine this with the discussion though. The conclusion is fairly short, about 5%, as you’re not adding new information, just summing it all up into your main overall message. It is analytical though, so although you are restating the points you’ve already made, you are synthesising it in a new way so your reader understands what the research has demonstrated and what has been learned from it.
If you are writing a longer research project, dissertation or thesis, you would include an abstract at the beginning, summarising the whole report for the reader. The abstract is read separately from the report itself, as it helps the reader get a sense of what it contains and whether they want to read the whole thing.
At the end of the main report, you would include elements such as your reference list, and any appendices if you are using them. An appendix is generally used for elements which are long and detailed information, but which are not central to your points and which would disrupt the flow of the report if you included them in the main body.
Writing an IMRAD report
Although this order is the way a science report is structured, you don’t have to write it in this order. Many people begin with the more descriptive elements, the methods and results, and then write the more analytical sections around them. The method and results can be written up at an earlier stage of the research too, as you go, whereas the discussion can only be written once you’ve done the research and collected and analysed the data.
Checking your structure
When planning your writing or editing a draft, you could use this approach to help you check that you are following this structure.
- Take the question that each section poses. Is there anything in the section which does not directly answer this question? This will help you decide if there’s anything irrelevant you need to delete. Is there anything which answers the question raised by a different section? In this case, it’s in the wrong place and needs moving.
- Highlight which parts of your writing are more descriptive and factual, and which are more analytical, justifying or interpreting. Does that fit with the kind of writing expected in each section? If not, you may need to move some of your points around or change the balance of the kinds of points you’re making.
Download this guide as a PDF
Structuring a science report.
Learn how to prepare, write and structure a science report. **PDF Download**
- What is Matrix+ Online?
- English ADV
- Maths EXT 1
- English STD
- Maths STD 2
- Maths EXT 2
- Trial Exam Prep Online Courses
- HSC Exam Prep Courses
- UCAT Prep Courses
- UCAT Prep Course
- Trial Exam Prep Courses
- For aspiring students
- Inspirational Teachers
- Great Learning Environment
- Proven Results
- Customer Reviews
- For future team members
- Work at Matrix
- Jobs at Matrix
- Primary School Survival Guide
- Opportunity Class Guide
- Selective Schools Guide
- ATAR & Scaling
- Get HSC Ready in 28 Days
- High Schools Guide
- NSW High School Rankings
- Online Learning Guide
- Student Wellbeing Guide
- Student Success Secrets
- Survival Guides
- VCE School Rankings
- Year 6 English
- Year 7 & 8 English
- Year 9 English
- Year 10 English
- Year 11 English Std
- Year 11 English Adv
- Year 12 English Std
- Year 12 English Adv
- HSC English Skills
- How to Write an Essay
- English Techniques Toolkit
- How to Analyse Poetry
- Year 7 Maths
- Year 8 Maths
- Year 9 Maths
- Year 10 Maths
- Year 11 Maths Adv
- Year 11 Maths Ext 1
- Year 12 Maths Std 2
- Year 12 Maths Adv
- Year 12 Maths Ext 1
- Year 12 Maths Ext 2
- Year 11 Biology
- Year 11 Chemistry
- Year 11 Physics
- Year 12 Biology
- Year 12 Chemistry
- Year 12 Physics
- Physics Practical Skills
- Periodic Table
- ATAR Calculator
- Help Centre
- Maths Exam Book
- Term Courses
- Holiday Courses
- Trial Exam Prep
- HSC Exam Prep
- Year 3 English Online Course
- Year 3 Maths Online Course
- OC Test Prep
- Year 4 English Online Course
- Year 4 Maths Online Course
- Year 5 Online
- Year 6 Online
- Year 7 English Online Course
- Year 7 Maths Online Course
- Year 8 English Online Course
- Year 8 Maths Online Course
- Year 9 English Online Course
- Year 9 Maths Adv Online Course
- Year 9 Science Online Course
- Year 10 English Online Course
- Year 10 Maths Online Course
- Year 10 Science Online Course
- Year 11 English Adv Online Course
- Year 11 Maths Adv Online Course
- Year 11 Maths Ext 1 Online Course
- Year 11 Biology Online Course
- Year 11 Chemistry Online Course
- Year 11 Physics Online Course
- Year 12 English Standard Online Course
- Year 12 English Advanced Online Course
- Year 12 Maths Standard 2 Online Course
- Year 12 Maths Advanced Online Course
- Year 12 Maths Ext 1 Online Course
- Year 12 Maths Ext 2 Online Course
- Year 12 Biology Online Course
- Year 12 Chemistry Onlne Course
- Year 12 Physics Online Course
- Trial Exam Preparation Online Courses
- HSC Exam Prep Online Courses
- HSC Trial Exam Prep Online Courses
- Year 7 English Live Online Course
- Year 7 Maths Live Online Course
- Year 8 English Live Online Course
- Year 8 Maths Live Online Course
- Year 9 English Live Online Course
- Year 9 Maths Adv Live Online Course
- Year 9 Science Live Online Course
- Year 10 English Live Online Course
- Year 10 Maths Live Online Course
- Year 10 Science Live Online Course
- Year 11 English Advanced Live Online Course
- Year 11 Maths Advanced Live Online Course
- Year 11 Maths Ext 1 Live Online Course
- Year 11 Biology Live Online Course
- Year 11 Chemistry Live Online Course
- Year 11 Physics Live Online Course
- Year 12 English Advanced Live Online Course
- Year 12 Maths Adv Live Course
- Year 12 Maths Extension 1 Live Course
- Year 12 Maths Extension 2 Live Online Course
- Year 12 English Standard Live Online Course
- Year 12 Biology Live Online Course
- Year 12 Chemistry Live Online Course
- Year 12 Physics Live Online Course
- Online Learning
- Student Success Secrets Guide
- Year 11 Maths
How to Write a Scientific Report | Step-by-Step Guide
- How to Write a Scientific Report | Step-by-Step Guide1111
Got to document an experiment but don't know how? In this post, we'll guide you step-by-step through how to write a scientific report and provide you with an example.
Is your teacher expecting you to write an experimental report for every class experiment? Are you still unsure about how to write a scientific report properly? Don’t fear! We will guide you through all the parts of a scientific report, step-by-step.
How to write a scientific report:
- What is a scientific report
- General rules to write Scientific reports
- Syllabus dot point
- Introduction/Background information
- Risk assessment
What is a scientific report?
A scientific report documents all aspects of an experimental investigation. This includes:
- The aim of the experiment
- The hypothesis
- An introduction to the relevant background theory
- The methods used
- The results
- A discussion of the results
- The conclusion
Scientific reports allow their readers to understand the experiment without doing it themselves. In addition, scientific reports give others the opportunity to check the methodology of the experiment to ensure the validity of the results.
Download your free experimental report template
A template to teach you to write perfect science reports
Done! Your download has been emailed.
Please allow a few minutes for it to land in your inbox.
A scientific report is written in several stages. We write the introduction, aim, and hypothesis before performing the experiment, record the results during the experiment, and complete the discussion and conclusions after the experiment.
But, before we delve deeper into how to write a scientific report, we need to have a science experiment to write about! Read our 7 Simple Experiments You Can Do At Home article and see which one you want to do.
General rules about writing scientific reports
Learning how to write a scientific report is different from writing English essays or speeches!
You have to use:
- Passive voice (which you should avoid when writing for other subjects like English!)
- Past-tense language
- Headings and subheadings
- A pencil to draw scientific diagrams and graphs
- Simple and clear lines for scientific diagrams
- Tables and graphs where necessary
Structure of scientific reports:
Now that you know the general rules on how to write scientific reports, let’s look at the conventions for their structure!
The title should simply introduce what your experiment is about.
The Role of Light in Photosynthesis
2. Introduction/Background information
Write a paragraph that gives your readers background information to understand your experiment.
This includes explaining scientific theories, processes and other related knowledge.
Photosynthesis is a vital process for life. It occurs when plants intake carbon dioxide, water, and light, and results in the production of glucose and water. The light required for photosynthesis is absorbed by chlorophyll, the green pigment of plants, which is contained in the chloroplasts.
The glucose produced through photosynthesis is stored as starch, which is used as an energy source for the plant and its consumers.
The presence of starch in the leaves of a plant indicates that photosynthesis has occurred.
The aim identifies what is going to be tested in the experiment. This should be short, concise and clear.
The aim of the experiment is to test whether light is required for photosynthesis to occur.
The hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of the experiment. You have to use background information to make an educated prediction.
It is predicted that photosynthesis will occur only in leaves that are exposed to light and not in leaves that are not exposed to light. This will be indicated by the presence or absence of starch in the leaves.
5. Risk assessment
Identify the hazards associated with the experiment and provide a method to prevent or minimise the risks. A hazard is something that can cause harm, and the risk is the likelihood that harm will occur from the hazard.
A table is an excellent way to present your risk assessment.
Remember, you have to specify the type of harm that can occur because of the hazard. It is not enough to simply identify the hazard.
- Do not write: “Scissors are sharp”
- Instead, you have to write: “Scissors are sharp and can cause injury”
The method has 3 parts:
- A list of every material used
- Steps of what you did in the experiment
- A scientific diagram of the experimental apparatus
Let’s break down what you need to do for each section.
This must list every piece of equipment and material you used in the experiment.
Remember, you need to also specify the amount of each material you used.
- 1 geranium plant
- Aluminium foil
- 2 test tubes
- 1 test tube rack
- 1 pair of scissors
- 1 250 mL beaker
- 1 pair of forceps
- 1 10 mL measuring cylinder
- Iodine solution (5 mL)
- Methylated spirit (50ml)
- Boiling water
- 2 Petri dishes
The rule of thumb is that you should write the method in a clear way so that readers are able to repeat the experiment and get similar results.
Using a numbered list for the steps of your experimental procedure is much clearer than writing a whole paragraph of text. The steps should:
- Be written in a sequential order, based on when they were performed.
- Specify any equipment that was used.
- Specify the quantity of any materials that were used.
You also need to use past tense and passive voice when you are writing your method. Scientific reports are supposed to show the readers what you did in the experiment, not what you will do.
- Aluminium foil was used to fully cover a leaf of the geranium plant. The plant was left in the sun for three days.
- On the third day, the covered leaf and 1 non-covered leaf were collected from the plant. The foil was removed from the covered leaf, and a 1 cm square was cut from each leaf using a pair of scissors.
- 150 mL of water was boiled in a kettle and poured into a 250 mL beaker.
- Using forceps, the 1 cm square of covered leaf was placed into the beaker of boiling water for 2 minutes. It was then placed in a test tube labelled “dark”.
- The water in the beaker was discarded and replaced with 150 mL of freshly boiled water.
- Using forceps, the 1 cm square non-covered leaf was placed into the beaker of boiling water for 2 minutes. It was then placed in a test tube labelled “light”
- 5 mL of methylated spirit was measured with a measuring cylinder and poured into each test tube so that the leaves were fully covered.
- The water in the beaker was replaced with 150 mL of freshly boiled water and both the “light” and “dark” test tubes were immersed in the beaker of boiling water for 5 minutes.
- The leaves were collected from each test tube with forceps, rinsed under cold running water, and placed onto separate labelled Petri dishes.
- 3 drops of iodine solution were added to each leaf.
- Both Petri dishes were placed side by side and observations were recorded.
- The experiment was repeated 5 times, and results were compared between different groups.
After you finish your steps, it is time to draw your scientific diagrams! Here are some rules for drawing scientific diagrams:
- Always use a pencil to draw your scientific diagrams.
- Use simple, sharp, 2D lines and shapes to draw your diagram. Don’t draw 3D shapes or use shading.
- Label everything in your diagram.
- Use thin, straight lines to label your diagram. Do not use arrows.
- Ensure that the label lines touch the outline of the equipment you are labelling and not cross over it or stop short of it
- The label lines should never cross over each other.
- Use a ruler for any straight lines in your diagram.
- Draw a sufficiently large diagram so all components can be seen clearly.
This is where you document the results of your experiment. The data that you record for your experiment will generally be qualitative and/or quantitative.
Qualitative data is data that relates to qualities and is based on observations (qualitative – quality). This type of data is descriptive and is recorded in words. For example, the colour changed from green to orange, or the liquid became hot.
Quantitative data refers to numerical data (quantitative – quantity). This type of data is recorded using numbers and is either measured or counted. For example, the plant grew 5.2 cm, or there were 5 frogs.
You also need to record your results in an appropriate way. Most of the time, a table is the best way to do this.
Here are some rules to using tables
- Use a pencil and a ruler to draw your table
- Draw neat and straight lines
- Ensure that the table is closed (connect all your lines)
- Don’t cross your lines (erase any lines that stick out of the table)
- Use appropriate columns and rows
- Properly name each column and row (including the units of measurement in brackets)
- Do not write your units in the body of your table (units belong in the header)
- Always include a title
Note : If your results require calculations, clearly write each step.
Observations of the effects of light on the amount of starch in plant leaves.
If quantitative data was recorded, the data is often also plotted on a graph.
The discussion is where you analyse and interpret your results, and identify any experimental errors or possible areas of improvements.
You should divide your discussion as follows.
1. Trend in the results
Describe the ‘trend’ in your results. That is, the relationship you observed between your independent and dependent variables.
The independent variable is the variable that you are changing in the experiment. In this experiment, it is the amount of light that the leaves are exposed to.
The dependent variable is the variable that you are measuring in the experiment, In this experiment, it is the presence of starch in the leaves.
Explain how a particular result is achieved by referring to scientific knowledge, theories and any other scientific resources you find. 2. Scientific explanation:
The presence of starch is indicated when the addition of iodine causes the leaf to turn dark purple. The results show that starch was present in the leaves that were exposed to light, while the leaves that were not exposed to light did not contain starch.
2. Scientific explanation:
Provide an explanation of the results using scientific knowledge, theories and any other scientific resources you find.
As starch is produced during photosynthesis, these results show that light plays a key role in photosynthesis.
Validity refers to whether or not your results are valid. This can be done by examining your variables.
VA lidity = VA riables
Identify the independent, dependent, controlled variables and the control experiment (if you have one).
The controlled variables are the variables that you keep the same across all tests e.g. the size of the leaf sample.
The control experiment is where you don’t apply an independent variable. It is untouched for the whole experiment.
Ensure that you never change more than one variable at a time!
The independent variable of the experiment was amount of light that the leaves were exposed to (the covered and uncovered geranium leaf), while the dependent variable was the presence of starch. The controlled variables were the size of the leaf sample, the duration of the experiment, the amount of time the solutions were heated, and the amount of iodine solution used.
Identify how you ensured the reliability of the results.
RE liability = RE petition
Show that you repeated your experiments, cross-checked your results with other groups or collated your results with the class.
The reliability of the results was ensured by repeating the experiment 5 times and comparing results with other groups. Since other groups obtained comparable results, the results are reliable.
Accuracy should be discussed if your results are in the form of quantitative data, and there is an accepted value for the result.
Accuracy would not be discussed for our example photosynthesis experiment as qualitative data was collected, however it would if we were measuring gravity using a pendulum:
The measured value of gravity was 9.8 m/s 2 , which is in agreement with the accepted value of 9.8 m/s 2 .
6. Possible improvements
Identify any errors or risks found in the experiment and provide a method to improve it.
If there are none, then suggest new ways to improve the experimental design, and/or minimise error and risks.
Possible improvements could be made by including control experiments. For example, testing whether the iodine solution turns dark purple when added to water or methylated spirits. This would help to ensure that the purple colour observed in the experiments is due to the presence of starch in the leaves rather than impurities.
State whether the aim was achieved, and if your hypothesis was supported.
The aim of the investigation was achieved, and it was found that light is required for photosynthesis to occur. This was evidenced by the presence of starch in leaves that had been exposed to light, and the absence of starch in leaves that had been unexposed. These results support the proposed hypothesis.
Learn everything you need to know about Science
Gain the confidence and skills to ace Science!
Learn one term ahead of school with the Subject Matter Experts!
Learn more →
Written by Matrix Science Team
© Matrix Education and www.matrix.edu.au, 2018. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Matrix Education and www.matrix.edu.au with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
People who read this also read
Sienna’s hacks: how to hit the a-range every time with proper research and study, should i study hsc english standard or advanced, vaneeza’s study hacks: how i aced my year 10 half yearly exams.
- How To Analyse A Related Text
- 8 Common Mistakes HSC English Students Make In Exams
- How To Ace the UMAT Exam – Varun Gopi
- 6 Common Errors In Year 12 Maths Extension 2 Integration
- All About ATAR & Scaling
Get free study tips and resources delivered to your inbox.
- Your Name *
- Your Email *
OK, I understand
Scientific Report definition
Examples of scientific report in a sentence.
Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture.
Date of delivery of the Final Report / Final Scientific Report of the Project: On or before the date set by the Provider and published on its website (www.gacr.cz).
Scientific Report : Management of the Hydrological Risks of the IAS.
Unless the Provider specifies a different deadline for the Final Report, Final Scientific Report , and Final Financial Report, the Beneficiary shall also be obliged to draw up and deliver those reports to the Provider by the deadline as defined above.
You will submit Your final Financial and Scientific Report via email to the Program Coordinator no later than 45 days after the grant end date.
All GCE awardees must prepare and submit a Final Financial and Scientific Report .
A summary of this review is included in the 2020 Advisory Committee’s Scientific Report available at www.DietaryGuidelines.gov.
As part of the Project process, the Beneficiary is obliged to submit to the Provider the Interim Report / Interim Financial Report / Interim Scientific Report / the Final Report / Final Scientific Report by the deadline(s) pursuant to Article I.
More Definitions of Scientific Report
Related to scientific report.
Development Report means a written account of Licensee’s progress under the Development Plan having at least the information specified on Appendix B to this Agreement, and shall be sent to the address specified on Appendix B.
Periodic Report means the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q or annual report on Form 10-K, as applicable.
CREFC® Operating Statement Analysis Report The monthly report in the “Operating Statement Analysis Report” format substantially in the form of and containing the information called for therein for the Mortgage Loans, or such other form for the presentation of such information as may be approved from time to time by the CREFC® for commercial mortgage securities transactions generally.
RBC report means the report required in 33-2-1903.
CMSA Operating Statement Analysis Report means a report substantially in the form of, and containing the information called for in, the downloadable form of the "Operating Statement Analysis Report" available as of the Closing Date on the CMSA Website or in such other form for the presentation of such information and containing such additional information as may from time to time be approved by the CMSA for commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions generally.
Operating Statement Analysis Report format substantially in the form of and containing the information called for therein for the Mortgage Loans, or such other form for the presentation of such information as may be approved from time to time by the CREFC® for commercial mortgage securities transactions generally.
Peer-reviewed medical literature means a scientific study published only after having been critically
GLJ Report means the independent engineering reserves evaluation of certain oil, NGL and natural gas interests of the Company prepared by GLJ dated February 11, 2022 and effective December 31, 2021.
Compliance Statement is that certain statement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Public Reports includes all reports filed by Company under the Act or the Exchange Act, including pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) thereof, for the two full fiscal years preceding the Effective Date and thereafter.
MI Report means a report containing Management Information submitted to the Authority in accordance with Framework Schedule 8 (Management Information);
Confidential commercial or financial information means any business information (other than trade secrets) which is exempt from the mandatory disclosure requirement of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Exemptions from mandatory disclosure which may be applicable to business information contained in proposals include exemption (4), which covers “commercial and financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential,” and exemption (9), which covers “geological and geophysical information, including maps, concerning wells.”
Rapidly report means within 72 hours of discovery of any cyber incident.
SEC Filings has the meaning set forth in Section 4.6.
SOS Reports means the official reports from the Secretaries of State of each Collateral State, Chief Executive Office State and the Borrower State and other applicable federal, state or local government offices identifying all current security interests filed in the Collateral and Liens of record as of the date of such report.
Project Report means a summary statement of the likely environmental effects of a proposed development referred to in section 58;
Company Financial Information As defined in Section 2(a)(ii).
Project Management Report means each report prepared in accordance with Section 4.02 of this Agreement;
Safeguards Monitoring Report means each report prepared and submitted by the Borrower to ADB that describes progress with implementation of and compliance with the EMP and the RP (as applicable), including any corrective and preventative actions;
ABS Informational and Computational Material means any written communication as defined in Item 1101(a) of Regulation AB under the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act, as may be amended from time to time.
Progress Report means the report similar in form and content to that attached hereto as Appendix III.
Statement of Grievance shall name the employee involved, shall state the facts giving rise to the grievance, shall identify by appropriate reference all the provisions of this Master Contract alleged to be violated, shall state the contention of the employee and of the Association with respect to these provisions, and shall indicate the specific relief requested.
MI Reporting Template means the form of report set out in the Annex to Framework Schedule 8 (Management Information) setting out the information the Supplier is required to supply to the Authority;
Information Package means the most recent compilation of financial and other data with respect to the Failed Bank, including any amendments or supplements thereto, provided to the Assuming Institution by the Corporation on the web site used by the Corporation to market the Failed Bank to potential acquirers.
Program Know-How means any and all Know-How discovered, identified, conceived, reduced to practice or otherwise made, as necessary to establish authorship, inventorship or ownership under applicable United States law as such law exists as of the Effective Date irrespective of where such discovering, identifying, conception, reduction to practice or other making occurs, in the course of or as a result of or related to the development activities under this Agreement, including pursuant to a Development Plan, or any Commercialization activities to the extent such Know-How relates predominantly to the Commercialization of a Product and is not predominately applicable to the marketing, promoting, detailing, offering for sale, selling, distributing, or conducting other similar activities related to the commercial sale of pharmaceutical products generally (a) solely by one or more employees of or consultants to Arena or any of its Affiliates, (b) solely by one or more employees of or consultants to Eisai or any of its Affiliates or Sub-distributors (to the extent such Sub-distributors are required to assign or license such Know-How to Eisai), or (c) jointly by one or more employees of or consultants to Arena or any of its Affiliates, on the one hand, and one or more employees of or consultants to Eisai or any of its Affiliates or Sub-distributors (to the extent such Sub-distributors are required to assign or license such Know-How to Eisai), on the other hand; but excluding all Know-How discovered, identified, conceived, reduced to practice or otherwise made by or on behalf of Arena or any of its Affiliates pursuant to (x) any manufacturing activity relating to Compound or Product, or (y) any activities outside of a Development Plan.
Confidential commercial information means records provided to the govern- ment by a submitter that arguably contain material exempt from release under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), be- cause disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competi- tive harm.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
Publish with Scientific Reports
We're an open-access journal publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research from across the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering.
- *2022 Journal Citation Reports® Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2022).
Calls for Papers
- The median time from submission to acceptance for papers submitted to our Guest Edited Collections is 102 days.
- Submissions are welcome on a rolling basis.
- Papers accepted will be added to the Collection as and when they are published.
We are delighted to announce that Scientific Reports is now expanding its scope to include engineering disciplines.
A micro-vibration-driven direct ink write printing method of gallium–indium alloys
Nd:YAG infrared laser as a viable alternative to excimer laser: YBCO case study
- Sandeep Kumar Chaluvadi
- Shyni Punathum Chalil
- Pasquale Orgiani
Energy loss function of samarium
Anomaly detection in railway bridges using imaging techniques
- Paolo Russo
- Marco Schaerf
Creep behavior and long-term strength characteristics of pre-peak damaged sandstone under conventional triaxial compression
- Rongbin Hou
- Qingzhe Cui
Subjects within Physical sciences
- Astronomy and planetary science
- Energy science and technology
- Materials science
- Mathematics and computing
- Nanoscience and technology
- Optics and photonics
Earth and environmental sciences
A case study of impacts of an extreme weather system on the Mediterranean Sea circulation features: Medicane Apollo (2021)
- Milena Menna
- Riccardo Martellucci
- Cosimo Solidoro
Revealing the hidden signature of fault slip history in the morphology of degrading scarps
- Regina Holtmann
- Rodolphe Cattin
- Philippe Steer
Climate, landscape, and life history jointly predict multidecadal community mosquito phenology
- Lindsay P. Campbell
- Mohamed F. Sallam
- Robert P. Guralnick
The extent of windfarm infrastructures on recognised European blanket bogs
- Guaduneth Chico
Assessment of long-term large deformation in deep roadways due to roof fracturing impact loading
- Wanpeng Huang
- Naser Golsanami
- Lishuai Jiang
Subjects within Earth and environmental sciences
- Climate sciences
- Environmental sciences
- Environmental social sciences
- Natural hazards
- Ocean sciences
- Planetary science
- Solid Earth sciences
- Space physics
3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase genes from Glycine max regulate plant growth and isoprenoid biosynthesis
A screen for MeCP2-TBL1 interaction inhibitors using a luminescence-based assay
- Beatrice Alexander-Howden
- Matthew J. Lyst
Geosmin suppresses defensive behaviour and elicits unusual neural responses in honey bees
- Florencia Scarano
- Mukilan Deivarajan Suresh
- Albrecht Haase
The median eyes of trilobites
- Brigitte Schoenemann
- Euan N. K. Clarkson
Process optimization and kinetic study of biodegradation of dimethyl phthalate by KS2, a novel strain of Micrococcus sp.
- Sangram Shamrao Patil
- Hara Mohan Jena
Subjects within Biological sciences
- Biological techniques
- Cell biology
- Chemical biology
- Computational biology and bioinformatics
- Developmental biology
- Drug discovery
- Molecular biology
- Plant sciences
- Structural biology
- Systems biology
Metabolic syndrome for the prognosis of postoperative complications after open pancreatic surgery in Chinese adult: a propensity score matching study
- Yuanqiang Dai
Exposure to local, source-specific ambient air pollution during pregnancy and autism in children: a cohort study from southern Sweden
- Erin Flanagan
- Ebba Malmqvist
Smoking and passive smoking increases mortality through mediation effect of cadmium exposure in the United States
- Hangyul Song
- Shinje Moon
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index predicts sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis
- Chisato Saeki
- Akiyoshi Kinoshita
- Akihito Tsubota
Incidence and short-term outcomes of central line-related bloodstream infection in patients admitted to the emergency department: a single-center retrospective study
- Hyun Min Ahn
- June-sung Kim
- Dong-Woo Seo
Subjects within Health sciences
- Health care
- Health occupations
- Medical research
- Molecular medicine
- Risk factors
- Signs and symptoms
Trending - Altmetric
Different bimodal neuromodulation settings reduce tinnitus symptoms in a large randomized trial
Bald eagle mortality and nest failure due to clade 184.108.40.206 highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza a virus
What a stranded whale with scoliosis can teach us about human idiopathic scoliosis
Genetic predictors of weight loss in overweight and obese subjects
Embl conference: cancer genomics, embo | embl symposium: organoids: modelling organ development and disease in 3d culture, embl course: liquid biopsies, embl course: advanced electron microscopy for cell biology, embo | embl symposium: the human microbiome, polymer scientist (m/f/div) for materials central scientific facility, named veterinary surgeon, brf research officers (animal technician)/support technicians (bank staff), postdoctoral training fellow - applied biotechnology laboratory - rodriques lab, phd position - development of new uhv technologies for the "einstein telescope for graviational waves detection".
This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
Formatting Science Reports
This section describes an organizational structure commonly used to report experimental research in many scientific disciplines, the IMRAD format: I ntroduction, M ethods, R esults, And D iscussion.
When and when not to use the IMRAD format
Although most scientific reports use the IMRAD format, there are some exceptions.
This format is usually not used in reports describing other kinds of research, such as field or case studies, in which headings are more likely to differ according to discipline. Although the main headings are standard for many scientific fields, details may vary; check with your instructor, or, if submitting an article to a journal, refer to the instructions to authors.
Developing a Title
- Describe contents clearly and precisely, so that readers can decide whether to read the report
- Provide key words for indexing
Titles should NOT
- Include wasted words such as “studies on,” “an investigation of”
- Use abbreviations and jargon
- Use “cute” language
The Relationship of Luteinizing Hormone to Obesity in the Zucker Rat
An Investigation of Hormone Secretion and Weight in Rats Fat Rats: Are Their Hormones Different?
The guidelines below address issues to consider when writing an abstract.
What is the report about, in miniature and without specific details?
- State main objectives. (What did you investigate? Why?)
- Describe methods. (What did you do?)
- Summarize the most important results. (What did you find out?)
- State major conclusions and significance. (What do your results mean? So what?)
What to avoid:
- Do not include references to figures, tables, or sources.
- Do not include information not in report.
- Find out maximum length (may vary from 50 to 300+ words).
- Process: Extract key points from each section. Condense in successive revisions.
Guidelines for effective scientific report introductions.
What is the problem?
- Describe the problem investigated.
- Summarize relevant research to provide context, key terms, and concepts so your reader can understand the experiment.
Why is it important?
- Review relevant research to provide rationale. (What conflict or unanswered question, untested population, untried method in existing research does your experiment address? What findings of others are you challenging or extending?)
What solution (or step toward a solution) do you propose?
- Briefly describe your experiment: hypothesis(es), research question(s); general experimental design or method; justification of method if alternatives exist.
- Move from general to specific: problem in real world/research literature –> your experiment.
- Engage your reader: answer the questions, “What did you do?” “Why should I care?”
- Make clear the links between problem and solution, question asked and research design, prior research and your experiment.
- Be selective, not exhaustive, in choosing studies to cite and amount of detail to include. (In general, the more relevant an article is to your study, the more space it deserves and the later in the Introduction it appears.)
- Ask your instructor whether to summarize results and/or conclusions in the Introduction.
Below are some questions to consider for effective methods sections in scientific reports.
How did you study the problem?
- Briefly explain the general type of scientific procedure you used.
What did you use?
(May be subheaded as Materials)
- Describe what materials, subjects, and equipment (chemicals, experimental animals, apparatus, etc.) you used. (These may be subheaded Animals, Reagents, etc.)
How did you proceed?
(May be subheaded as Methods or Procedures)
- Explain the steps you took in your experiment. (These may be subheaded by experiment, types of assay, etc.)
- Provide enough detail for replication. For a journal article, include, for example, genus, species, strain of organisms; their source, living conditions, and care; and sources (manufacturer, location) of chemicals and apparatus.
- Order procedures chronologically or by type of procedure (subheaded) and chronologically within type.
- Use past tense to describe what you did.
- Quantify when possible: concentrations, measurements, amounts (all metric); times (24-hour clock); temperatures (centigrade)
- Don’t include details of common statistical procedures.
- Don’t mix results with procedures.
The section below offers some questions asked for effective results sections in scientific reports.
What did you observe?
For each experiment or procedure:
- Briefly describe experiment without detail of Methods section (a sentence or two).
- Representative: most common
- Best Case: best example of ideal or exception
- from most to least important
- from simple to complex
- organ by organ; chemical class by chemical class
- Use past tense to describe what happened.
- Don’t simply repeat table data; select .
- Don’t interpret results.
- Avoid extra words: “It is shown in Table 1 that X induced Y” –> “X induced Y (Table 1).”
The table below offers some questions effective discussion sections in scientific reports address.
What do your observations mean?
- Summarize the most important findings at the beginning.
What conclusions can you draw?
For each major result:
- Describe the patterns, principles, relationships your results show.
- Explain how your results relate to expectations and to literature cited in your Introduction. Do they agree, contradict, or are they exceptions to the rule?
- Explain plausibly any agreements, contradictions, or exceptions.
- Describe what additional research might resolve contradictions or explain exceptions.
How do your results fit into a broader context?
- Suggest the theoretical implications of your results.
- Suggest practical applications of your results?
- Extend your findings to other situations or other species.
- Give the big picture: do your findings help us understand a broader topic?
- Move from specific to general: your finding(s) –> literature, theory, practice.
- Don’t ignore or bury the major issue. Did the study achieve the goal (resolve the problem, answer the question, support the hypothesis) presented in the Introduction?
- Give evidence for each conclusion.
- Discuss possible reasons for expected and unexpected findings.
- Don’t overgeneralize.
- Don’t ignore deviations in your data.
- Avoid speculation that cannot be tested in the foreseeable future.
Academic and Professional Writing
This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis
Using Literary Quotations
Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts
Incorporating Interview Data
Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing
Job Materials and Application Essays
Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs
- Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
- Guided brainstorming exercises
- Get more help with your essay
- Frequently Asked Questions
Resume Writing Tips
CV Writing Tips
Proposals and Dissertations
Resources for Proposal Writers
Resources for Dissertators
Planning and Writing Research Papers
Quoting and Paraphrasing
Writing Annotated Bibliographies
Creating Poster Presentations
Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper
Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors
Reading for a Review
Writing a Review of Literature
Scientific Report Format
Sample Lab Assignment
Writing for the Web
Writing an Effective Blog Post
Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics
Science - Biology 1 - Lab Reports Library Support: How to Write a Scientific Report?
- Online Library Support
- Science 1st year Support
- Past Exam Papers
- How to Write a Scientific Report?
- Searching Instructions
- Login to Online Resources
- Search for Print Books
- Prescribed Textbooks
- Search for Online Books
- Quick References
- Databases: Finding articles
- JoVE: Videos
- Protocols from Experiments
- Reference Techniques
- Reference Techniques: Video Tutorials
- Library Training Videos & Instructions
- Periodic Table
- EXPERIMENT: Practical report (TLC)
- EXPERIMENT: Chemicals of life (Test for starch)
- EXPERIMENT: Cells (Photomicrographs)
- EXPERIMENT: Cells (Enzimes)
- EXPERIMENT: Cells (DNA Isolation)
- EXPERIMENT: Taxonomy and Classification
- EXPERIMENT: Botany (Modified plant organs)
- EXPERIMENT: Animal Form and Function
- EXPERIMENT: Animal Development
How to write a Scientific Report
How to Write a Scientific Report : Video
Getting Started with Your Practical Report
Practical Report 1: Theme - How to write a Scientific Report:
- Materials and Methods
- Results (containing figures, graphs, tables, no calculations)
Writing your Practical Report - Library support
- Background about the experiment.
- See each practical for more detail about this section.
- This information comes from a REFERENCE such as textbook, library book or journal article!
What is referencing? It is a way to demonstrate that you have extended your learning.
Two reasons for referencing:
- To let the reader know whose ideas you are using
- To enable your reader to check your information
- Proper references must be given and must be cited in text . Use numbers (in text) and then list them in the order of appearance OR use surnames (in text) and list in alphabetical order.
- At least 3 references must be used (may include the current text book) and NO internet references.
Lab Report Support: Engage in Research
Lab Report Support - Engage in Research
Click HERE for EXAMPLE Lab Report
The Scientific Method
JoVE Video: The Scientific Method (Student Protocol)
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical, problem-solving process leveraged by biologists and scientists of other disciplines. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
- << Previous: Past Exam Papers
- Next: Searching Instructions >>
- Last Updated: Feb 22, 2023 6:18 PM
- URL: https://uj.ac.za.libguides.com/biology
Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and confirmatory results in other settings, as well as negative results. Authors must clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both published and unpublished.
Short reports should be no longer than 2500 words.
Implementation Science strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. Please see Springer Nature’s information on recommended repositories .
'Contributions to the literature' section
All manuscripts submitted to Implementation Science must include a bulleted statement describing what the paper, if published, would add to the literature in implementation science. The statement should consist of three to five bullet points of no more than 100 words in total. Authors should not simply restate their findings or conclusions; the statement must contextualize the paper in the full implementation science literature and provide a succinct statement about what it adds. The statement will be useful in assessing priority for publication and, once having undergone peer review and acceptance with the manuscript, will be included at the beginning of the published article both in the HTML and PDF formats. The statement should be in lay language and understandable to all readers, written for readers of moderate English literacy. The statement should be inserted immediately after the abstract within the manuscript file under the heading 'Contributions to the literature.' To view a published example, please see here .
Implementation Science supports the complete and transparent reporting of research. The Editors require the submission of a populated checklist from the relevant reporting guideline(s) for all manuscripts submitted to the journal.
Every manuscript submitted should include a checklist appropriate for the study design or type of report, and note that in some cases it may be appropriate to include more than one checklist. For example, manuscripts reporting testing of an implementation intervention should include either the TIDIeR or STARi checklists for the intervention, as well as a checklist appropriate to the evaluation study design (for example, CONSORT for randomized controlled trials).
A library of reporting guidelines can be found via the EQUATOR Network . The completed checklist(s) should be provided as an Additional file and referenced in the text.
Authors should use their discretion in selecting the appropriate checklist(s) from the EQUATOR Network website. During the submission process, authors will be requested to briefly indicate the reason for their decision to select the checklist(s) used. Submissions received without these elements will be returned to the authors as incomplete. If the Editors deem the submitted checklist insufficient, they may request completion of an additional checklist before sending the manuscript out for review.
It is understood that for some studies certain aspects of the report may not comply fully with the pre-specified checklist. The checklist will not be used as a tool for judging the suitability of manuscripts for publication in Implementation Science , but is intended as an aid to authors to clearly, completely, and transparently let reviewers and readers know what authors did and found. Using these guidelines in writing the report, completing the checklist, and constructing a flow diagram are likely to optimize the quality of reporting and make the peer review process more efficient.
Preparing your manuscript
The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.
Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).
The title page should:
- "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
- or for non-clinical or non-research studies a description of what the article reports
- if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
- Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.
- indicate the corresponding author
The Abstract should not exceed 350 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. Reports of randomized controlled trials should follow the CONSORT extension for abstracts. The abstract must include the following separate sections:
- Background: the context and purpose of the study
- Methods: how the study was performed and statistical tests used
- Results: the main findings
- Conclusions: brief summary and potential implications
- Trial registration: If your article reports the results of a health care intervention on human participants, it must be registered in an appropriate registry and the registration number and date of registration should be stated in this section. If it was not registered prospectively (before enrollment of the first participant), you should include the words 'retrospectively registered'. See our editorial policies for more information on trial registration
Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.
The Background section should explain the background to the study, its aims, a summary of the existing literature and why this study was necessary or its contribution to the field.
The methods section should include:
- the aim, design and setting of the study
- the characteristics of participants or description of materials
- a clear description of all processes, interventions and comparisons. Generic drug names should generally be used. When proprietary brands are used in research, include the brand names in parentheses
- the type of statistical analysis used, including a power calculation if appropriate
This should include the findings of the study including, if appropriate, results of statistical analysis which must be included either in the text or as tables and figures.
This section should discuss the implications of the findings in context of existing research and highlight limitations of the study.
This should state clearly the main conclusions and provide an explanation of the importance and relevance of the study reported.
List of abbreviations
If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.
All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.
- Authors' information (optional)
Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.
If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section.
Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:
- include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
- include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate
Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.
See our editorial policies for more information.
If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.
If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.
You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).
See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.
If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.
All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.
Authors are also encouraged to preserve search strings on searchRxiv https://searchrxiv.org/ , an archive to support researchers to report, store and share their searches consistently and to enable them to review and re-use existing searches. searchRxiv enables researchers to obtain a digital object identifier (DOI) for their search, allowing it to be cited.
Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):
- The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
- The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
- The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
- The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
- Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.
More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .
BioMed Central strongly encourages the citation of any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:
Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801
With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]
If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).
All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.
See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.
Please use the authors initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.
If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.
All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared.
The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .
Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."
Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.
Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.
See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.
If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.
Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.
Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.
This section is optional.
You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.
Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.
Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data). Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols.
Always use footnotes instead of endnotes.
Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below.
See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice
Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.
Example reference style:
Article within a journal
Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.
Article within a journal (no page numbers)
Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.
Article within a journal by DOI
Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.
Article within a journal supplement
Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.
Book chapter, or an article within a book
Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.
OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)
Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.
Complete book, authored
Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.
Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.
Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.
Supplementary material/private homepage
Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.
Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.
Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.
ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.
Dataset with persistent identifier
Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .
Figures, tables and additional files
See General formatting guidelines for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.
- Editorial Board
- Manuscript editing services
- Instructions for Editors
- Instructions for authors
- Journal news
- Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
- Follow us on Twitter
Annual Journal Metrics
Speed 9 days to first decision for all manuscripts 71 days to first decision for reviewed manuscripts only 131 days from submission to acceptance 29 days from acceptance to publication
Citation Impact 7.327 - 2-year Impact Factor 8.708 - 5-year Impact Factor 2.965 - Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 3.167 - SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
Usage 2,900,991 downloads (2021) 3,247 Altmetric mentions
- Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
- General enquiries: [email protected]
As a consumer, monitoring your credit is an important part of managing your finances. Having strong credit has a major impact on your borrowing ability, your professional reputation and much more. You can view your credit reports to keep ta...
Examples of everyday science include watching bread rise, making carrot cake from real carrots and seeing the way a recipe changes from the original ingredients to the finished product. The most common examples of everyday science lie in no...
Whether you’re browsing science articles online or reading an in-depth interview in a glossy magazine, following science publications is a great way to continue your education, learn about new technology or even study an exciting subject.
A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or
The scientific method, you'll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In
The purpose of a science report is to clearly communicate your key message about why your scientific findings are meaningful. In order to do this
A scientific report consists of details regarding scientists reporting what their research entailed and reporting the results and conclusions drawn from the
The purpose of a scientific report is to talk the reader through an experiment or piece of research you've done where you've generated some data
Scientific reports allow their readers to understand the experiment
Scientific Report means a document, in paper or digital format, that describes the process, progress and results of a scientific research.
Scientific Reports is an online multidisciplinary, open access journal from the publishers of Nature.
This section describes an organizational structure commonly used to report experimental research in many scientific disciplines, the IMRAD format:
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical, problem-solving process leveraged by biologists and scientists of other disciplines. This
Short reports are suitable for the presentation of research that extends previously published research, including the reporting of additional controls and