essay writing about scientific method

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Scientific Reports

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:

Introduction

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.


	states your hypothesis	explains how you derived that hypothesis and how it connects to previous research; gives the purpose of the experiment/study
	details how you tested your hypothesis	clarifies why you performed your study in that particular way
	provides raw (i.e., uninterpreted) data collected	(perhaps) expresses the data in table form, as an easy-to-read figure, or as percentages/ratios
	considers whether the data you obtained support the hypothesis	explores the implications of your finding and judges the potential limitations of your experimental design

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.

Introductions

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.”

Hypothesis:

“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.

Background/previous research

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?

A table labeled Effect of Temperature on Rate of Solubility with temperature of solvent values in 10-degree increments from -20 degrees Celsius to 80 degrees Celsius that does not show a corresponding rate of solubility value until 50 degrees Celsius.

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:

A table labeled Oxygen requirements of various species of Streptomyces showing the names of organisms and two columns that indicate growth under aerobic conditions and growth under anaerobic conditions with a plus or minus symbol for each organism in the growth columns to indicate value.

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:

A table labeled Boyle's Law Experiment: Measuring Volume as a Function of Pressure that presents the trial number, length of air sample in millimeters, and height difference in inches of mercury, each of which is presented in rows horizontally.

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.

1058

432

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.

Works consulted

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.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Entertainment
Environment
Information Science and Technology
Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Science

Essay Samples on Scientific Method

Understanding the seven steps of the scientific method.

What is the scientific method? A procedural method that has been characterized by natural sciences since the seventeenth century, including systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation, as well as the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 'Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method' The scientific...

Scientific Method

The Importance of the Scientific Method in Psychology Experiments

The scientific method is “ the tactic of a process that has characterized physical discipline since the seventeenth century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and therefore the formulation, testing, and altar of hypothesis”. The scientific method is used throughout the world that provides...

Learning to Think Scientifically: A Look at the Scientific Method

Students, and now and again even teachers, commonly anticipate scientists solely use the scientific approach to reply to science-related questions. In fact, you can comply with the scientific technique to nearly any problem. The key is to use the factors (steps) to restrict bias and...

Scientific Method: Its Role in Advancing Science and Technology

Since the human been appear, use the logic and arise different questions, begins the scientific method, after years this practice evolve to what we know this age. Even when we were kids, we use this method not for scientific reasons, just to know something like...

Experimentation & Innovation: The Importance of the Scientific Method

Our life without the scientific method would be unrecognizable. Most individuals don’t realize how our daily life and routine has been improved because of experimentation. Without the scientific method, we would not be so technologically advanced. We would not have all the latest cell phones,...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

100% unique papers
3 hrs deadline option

The Role of Reasoning in Science: Inductive and Deductive Approaches

Introduction This essay will focus on the principles of the scientific method, considering Francis Bacon’s method of induction contrasted with Karl Poppers’ Hypothetico-Deductive approach as a means of defining what is scientifically accurate. Both approaches are used in modern-day science, where experiment and observation are...

The Common Themes and Diverse Practices of Scientific Methods

Introduction Science in some form or another has been practiced for millennia, to varying degrees of success, and throughout this time, people have argued about which is the way to practice science. The study of the scientific method can be described as the attempt to...

Best topics on Scientific Method

1. Understanding the Seven Steps of the Scientific Method

2. The Importance of the Scientific Method in Psychology Experiments

3. Learning to Think Scientifically: A Look at the Scientific Method

4. Scientific Method: Its Role in Advancing Science and Technology

5. Experimentation & Innovation: The Importance of the Scientific Method

6. The Role of Reasoning in Science: Inductive and Deductive Approaches

7. The Common Themes and Diverse Practices of Scientific Methods

Space Exploration
Art Nouveau
Intelligent Machines
Albert Einstein

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Writers' Center

Eastern Washington University

Scientific Writing

Thinking and writing like a scientist, writing clearly, citation help.

[ Back to resource home ]

An image of writing consultants meeting with students.

[email protected] 509.359.2779

Cheney Campus JFK Library Learning Commons

Stay Connected!

inside.ewu.edu/writerscenter Instagram Facebook

Helpful Links

For more information on writing your scientific papers, here are some good resources:

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/scientific-reports/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559667/

The Scientific Method

When writing or reading about science, it is useful to keep the scientific method in mind. The scientific method is used as a model to construct writing that can be shared with others in a logical and informative way. Any piece of scientific writing is informative and persuasive: informative because the author is telling the audience how he or she conducted their research and what new information they learned, and persuasive because science papers demonstrate how that new information was obtained and what conclusions can be drawn from the data collected. The format of most journal articles follows the steps of the scientific method, with Introduction, Methods, and Results sections at a minimum.

Evidence and Argumentation

Science writing has a persuasive element to it. Researchers need to convince others that they have done their experiments properly and that they have answered their central research questions. Therefore, all science papers, even theoretical ones, make use of evidence to support their points. Remember that statistical measures, while extremely useful, are not the only source of evidence. Observations of even a single event can be useful in the right context. Remember to use logic to link your evidence and claims together!

Relating evidence and ideas: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_01

Clarity and Reader Expectations

Many people complain that scientific literature is difficult to understand because of the complicated language and the use of jargon. However, scientific literature can be difficult to understand even if one is familiar with the concepts being discussed.

To avoid confusing the reader, writers should focus on writing clearly and keeping the reader’s expectations in mind. In a scientific paper, it is important that most readers will agree with the information being presented. Writing in a clear and concise way helps the writer accomplish this. Use the paper as a story-telling medium. Concentrate on showing the reader that your experiments show definite conclusion, and how this contribution changes the state of knowledge in the field.

Gopen and Swan (1990) offer the following seven easy ways to make your writing more clear and to say what you want the reader to hear.

Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.
Place in the stress position the "new information" you want the reader to emphasize.
Place the person or thing whose "story" a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position.
Place appropriate "old information" (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward.
Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb.
In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new.
In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.

[Gopen, G. and Swan, J. 1990. The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist. Available here: https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-science-of-scientific-writing ]

One major problem many students have when they start writing papers is using so called “running jumps.” This is the placement of unnecessary words at the beginning of a sentence. For example:

RUNNING JUMP: According to the researchers, the control group showed more change in chlorophyll production (Smith et. al., 2014).

NO RUNNING JUMP: The control group showed more change in chlorophyll production (Smith et. al., 2014).

We’ve already cited a study, so it’s clear that we are referring to researchers and their findings. So the first part of the sentence is unnecessary.

Try to limit the number of ideas expressed in a single sentence. If a sentence seems like it is trying to say more than two things at once, split it into two sentences. If a sentence is long and tangled and just doesn't make sense, don't try to perform "surgery" to fix the sentence. Instead, "kill" the sentence and start over, using short, direct sentences to express what you mean.

If you can make a noun phrase into a verb, do it! For example, made note of = noted, provided a similar opinion = agreed with, conducted an experiment = experimented, etc.

Avoid the Passive Voice Where You Can

If a sentence is written in the passive voice, the subject of the sentence (person/thing doing the action) does not come first; rather, the object of the sentence (person/thing not doing the action) is the first noun in the sentence.

PASSIVE: Radiation was the mechanism by which the samples were sterilized.

MORE ACTIVE: The samples were sterilized using radiation.

ACTIVE: We sterilized the samples using radiation.

Professors (and scientific journals) have differing opinions on the use of passive voice. Some consider it unacceptable, but many are more lenient. And in fact, often it will make more sense to write in the passive voice in certain sections (i.e. Methods) and when you can't use first-person pronouns like "I." In any case, reducing overuse of passive voice in your writing makes it more concise and easier to understand.

Here's a useful link for clear scientific writing style: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/effective-writing-13815989

Posters are often used as an accompaniment to a talk or presentation, or as a substitute. You’ve probably seen posters hanging up around campus, showcasing students' research. The idea of a poster is to simplify a study and present it in a visual way, so it can be understood by a wide audience. The most important thing to remember when designing a poster (or completing any kind of published work) is to follow the guidelines given. If your instructor, or the conference you’re presenting at, wants a certain format, adhere to that format. These three rules are especially important to follow:

Shorter is better: make sure that your poster does not contain too much text! Packing text onto the poster makes it difficult to read and understand.
Bigger is better. No, this is not a contradiction of rule 1! Make sure your text is large enough to read, and readable against the background of the poster.
Use images. The key aspect of a poster is that it is a visual medium. Include graphs, photos, and illustrations of your work.

Here are some excellent tips and templates for research posters:

1. http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/posterdesign

2. https://ph.byu.edu/resources

3. https://pop.psu.edu/sites/pri/files/Poster%20Design%20Tips.pdf : Poster tips from Penn State

Most scientific citation styles are based on APA format. It’s totally okay to use a resource to look up how to format a paper in APA style! As you become more familiar with the format, you will become less reliant on these resources, but for now, here are some sites that may be useful .

Our APA guide

APA Style Official Website

Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 2:50 PM
URL: https://research.ewu.edu/writers_center_sci_writing

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

Effective Writing

To construct sentences that reflect your ideas, focus these sentences appropriately. Express one idea per sentence. Use your current topic — that is, what you are writing about — as the grammatical subject of your sentence (see Verbs: Choosing between active and passive voice ). When writing a complex sentence (a sentence that includes several clauses), place the main idea in the main clause rather than a subordinate clause. In particular, focus on the phenomenon at hand, not on the fact that you observed it.

Constructing your sentences logically is a good start, but it may not be enough. To ensure they are readable, make sure your sentences do not tax readers' short-term memory by obliging these readers to remember long pieces of text before knowing what to do with them. In other words, keep together what goes together. Then, work on conciseness: See whether you can replace long phrases with shorter ones or eliminate words without loss of clarity or accuracy.

The following screens cover the drafting process in more detail. Specifically, they discuss how to use verbs effectively and how to take care of your text's mechanics.

Shutterstock. Much of the strength of a clause comes from its verb. Therefore, to express your ideas accurately, choose an appropriate verb and use it well. In particular, use it in the right tense, choose carefully between active and passive voice, and avoid dangling verb forms.

Verbs are for describing actions, states, or occurrences. To give a clause its full strength and keep it short, do not bury the action, state, or occurrence in a noun (typically combined with a weak verb), as in "The catalyst produced a significant increase in conversion rate." Instead write, "The catalyst increased the conversion rate significantly." The examples below show how an action, state, or occurrence can be moved from a noun back to a verb.

Make an examination of . . . examine Present a comparison of . . . compare Be in agreement . . . agree Perform an analysis of . . . analyze Produce an improvement in . . . improve

Using the right tense

In your scientific paper, use verb tenses (past, present, and future) exactly as you would in ordinary writing. Use the past tense to report what happened in the past: what you did, what someone reported, what happened in an experiment, and so on. Use the present tense to express general truths, such as conclusions (drawn by you or by others) and atemporal facts (including information about what the paper does or covers). Reserve the future tense for perspectives: what you will do in the coming months or years. Typically, most of your sentences will be in the past tense, some will be in the present tense, and very few, if any, will be in the future tense.

Work done We collected blood samples from . . . Groves et al. determined the growth rate of . . . Consequently, astronomers decided to rename . . . Work reported Jankowsky reported a similar growth rate . . . In 2009, Chu published an alternative method to . . . Irarrázaval observed the opposite behavior in . . . Observations The mice in Group A developed , on average, twice as much . . . The number of defects increased sharply . . . The conversion rate was close to 95% . . .

Present tense

General truths Microbes in the human gut have a profound influence on . . . The Reynolds number provides a measure of . . . Smoking increases the risk of coronary heart disease . . . Atemporal facts This paper presents the results of . . . Section 3.1 explains the difference between . . . Behbood's 1969 paper provides a framework for . . .

Future tense

Perspectives In a follow-up experiment, we will study the role of . . . The influence of temperature will be the object of future research . . .

Note the difference in scope between a statement in the past tense and the same statement in the present tense: "The temperature increased linearly over time" refers to a specific experiment, whereas "The temperature increases linearly over time" generalizes the experimental observation, suggesting that the temperature always increases linearly over time in such circumstances.

In complex sentences, you may have to combine two different tenses — for example, "In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light is constant . . . . " In this sentence, postulated refers to something that happened in the past (in 1905) and is therefore in the past tense, whereas is expresses a general truth and is in the present tense.

Choosing between active and passive voice

In English, verbs can express an action in one of two voices. The active voice focuses on the agent: "John measured the temperature." (Here, the agent — John — is the grammatical subject of the sentence.) In contrast, the passive voice focuses on the object that is acted upon: "The temperature was measured by John." (Here, the temperature, not John, is the grammatical subject of the sentence.)

To choose between active and passive voice, consider above all what you are discussing (your topic) and place it in the subject position. For example, should you write "The preprocessor sorts the two arrays" or "The two arrays are sorted by the preprocessor"? If you are discussing the preprocessor, the first sentence is the better option. In contrast, if you are discussing the arrays, the second sentence is better. If you are unsure what you are discussing, consider the surrounding sentences: Are they about the preprocessor or the two arrays?

The desire to be objective in scientific writing has led to an overuse of the passive voice, often accompanied by the exclusion of agents: "The temperature was measured " (with the verb at the end of the sentence). Admittedly, the agent is often irrelevant: No matter who measured the temperature, we would expect its value to be the same. However, a systematic preference for the passive voice is by no means optimal, for at least two reasons.

For one, sentences written in the passive voice are often less interesting or more difficult to read than those written in the active voice. A verb in the active voice does not require a person as the agent; an inanimate object is often appropriate. For example, the rather uninteresting sentence "The temperature was measured . . . " may be replaced by the more interesting "The measured temperature of 253°C suggests a secondary reaction in . . . ." In the second sentence, the subject is still temperature (so the focus remains the same), but the verb suggests is in the active voice. Similarly, the hard-to-read sentence "In this section, a discussion of the influence of the recirculating-water temperature on the conversion rate of . . . is presented " (long subject, verb at the end) can be turned into "This section discusses the influence of . . . . " The subject is now section , which is what this sentence is really about, yet the focus on the discussion has been maintained through the active-voice verb discusses .

As a second argument against a systematic preference for the passive voice, readers sometimes need people to be mentioned. A sentence such as "The temperature is believed to be the cause for . . . " is ambiguous. Readers will want to know who believes this — the authors of the paper, or the scientific community as a whole? To clarify the sentence, use the active voice and set the appropriate people as the subject, in either the third or the first person, as in the examples below.

Biologists believe the temperature to be . . . Keustermans et al. (1997) believe the temperature to be . . . The authors believe the temperature to be . . . We believe the temperature to be . . .

Avoiding dangling verb forms

A verb form needs a subject, either expressed or implied. When the verb is in a non-finite form, such as an infinitive ( to do ) or a participle ( doing ), its subject is implied to be the subject of the clause, or sometimes the closest noun phrase. In such cases, construct your sentences carefully to avoid suggesting nonsense. Consider the following two examples.

To dissect its brain, the affected fly was mounted on a . . . After aging for 72 hours at 50°C, we observed a shift in . . .

Here, the first sentence implies that the affected fly dissected its own brain, and the second implies that the authors of the paper needed to age for 72 hours at 50°C in order to observe the shift. To restore the intended meaning while keeping the infinitive to dissect or the participle aging , change the subject of each sentence as appropriate:

To dissect its brain, we mounted the affected fly on a . . . After aging for 72 hours at 50°C, the samples exhibited a shift in . . .

Alternatively, you can change or remove the infinitive or participle to restore the intended meaning:

To have its brain dissected , the affected fly was mounted on a . . . After the samples aged for 72 hours at 50°C, we observed a shift in . . .

In communication, every detail counts. Although your focus should be on conveying your message through an appropriate structure at all levels, you should also save some time to attend to the more mechanical aspects of writing in English, such as using abbreviations, writing numbers, capitalizing words, using hyphens when needed, and punctuating your text correctly.

Using abbreviations

Beware of overusing abbreviations, especially acronyms — such as GNP for gold nanoparticles . Abbreviations help keep a text concise, but they can also render it cryptic. Many acronyms also have several possible extensions ( GNP also stands for gross national product ).

Write acronyms (and only acronyms) in all uppercase ( GNP , not gnp ).

Introduce acronyms systematically the first time they are used in a document. First write the full expression, then provide the acronym in parentheses. In the full expression, and unless the journal to which you submit your paper uses a different convention, capitalize the letters that form the acronym: "we prepared Gold NanoParticles (GNP) by . . . " These capitals help readers quickly recognize what the acronym designates.

Do not use capitals in the full expression when you are not introducing an acronym: "we prepared gold nanoparticles by… "
As a more general rule, use first what readers know or can understand best, then put in parentheses what may be new to them. If the acronym is better known than the full expression, as may be the case for techniques such as SEM or projects such as FALCON, consider placing the acronym first: "The FALCON (Fission-Activated Laser Concept) program at…"
In the rare case that an acronym is commonly known, you might not need to introduce it. One example is DNA in the life sciences. When in doubt, however, introduce the acronym.

In papers, consider the abstract as a stand-alone document. Therefore, if you use an acronym in both the abstract and the corresponding full paper, introduce that acronym twice: the first time you use it in the abstract and the first time you use it in the full paper. However, if you find that you use an acronym only once or twice after introducing it in your abstract, the benefit of it is limited — consider avoiding the acronym and using the full expression each time (unless you think some readers know the acronym better than the full expression).

Writing numbers

In general, write single-digit numbers (zero to nine) in words, as in three hours , and multidigit numbers (10 and above) in numerals, as in 24 hours . This rule has many exceptions, but most of them are reasonably intuitive, as shown hereafter.

Use numerals for numbers from zero to nine

when using them with abbreviated units ( 3 mV );
in dates and times ( 3 October , 3 pm );
to identify figures and other items ( Figure 3 );
for consistency when these numbers are mixed with larger numbers ( series of 3, 7, and 24 experiments ).

Use words for numbers above 10 if these numbers come at the beginning of a sentence or heading ("Two thousand eight was a challenging year for . . . "). As an alternative, rephrase the sentence to avoid this issue altogether ("The year 2008 was challenging for . . . " ) .

Capitalizing words

Capitals are often overused. In English, use initial capitals

at beginnings: the start of a sentence, of a heading, etc.;
for proper nouns, including nouns describing groups (compare physics and the Physics Department );
for items identified by their number (compare in the next figure and in Figure 2 ), unless the journal to which you submit your paper uses a different convention;
for specific words: names of days ( Monday ) and months ( April ), adjectives of nationality ( Algerian ), etc.

In contrast, do not use initial capitals for common nouns: Resist the temptation to glorify a concept, technique, or compound with capitals. For example, write finite-element method (not Finite-Element Method ), mass spectrometry (not Mass Spectrometry ), carbon dioxide (not Carbon Dioxide ), and so on, unless you are introducing an acronym (see Mechanics: Using abbreviations ).

Using hyphens

Punctuating text.

Punctuation has many rules in English; here are three that are often a challenge for non-native speakers.

As a rule, insert a comma between the subject of the main clause and whatever comes in front of it, no matter how short, as in "Surprisingly, the temperature did not increase." This comma is not always required, but it often helps and never hurts the meaning of a sentence, so it is good practice.

In series of three or more items, separate items with commas ( red, white, and blue ; yesterday, today, or tomorrow ). Do not use a comma for a series of two items ( black and white ).

In displayed lists, use the same punctuation as you would in normal text (but consider dropping the and ).

The system is fast, flexible, and reliable.

The system is fast, flexible, reliable.

This page appears in the following eBook

Topic rooms within Scientific Communication

Within this Subject (22)

Communicating as a Scientist (3)
Papers (4)
Correspondence (5)
Presentations (4)
Conferences (3)
Classrooms (3)

Visual Browse

The essentials of effective scientific writing – A revised alternative guide for authors

33(9):1576-1579

Ulm University

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations

Dustin Marshall
Katie J. Field
Jennifer Meyer
John A Drozdz
Michael R. Ladomery

Sergio Tobón
David Chávez-Herting
Ari Wulandari
Rika Novita Kusumaningrum

C. Sean Burns

WRIT COMMUN

Judith A. Swan
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Prev Chronic Dis

Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach

John k. iskander.

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Sara Beth Wolicki

2 Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Washington, District of Columbia

Rebecca T. Leeb

Paul z. siegel.

Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to provide guidance and practical recommendations to help both inexperienced and experienced authors working in public health settings to more efficiently publish the results of their work in the peer-reviewed literature. We include an overview of basic scientific writing principles, a detailed description of the sections of an original research article, and practical recommendations for selecting a journal and responding to peer review comments. The overall approach and strategies presented are intended to contribute to individual career development while also increasing the external validity of published literature and promoting quality public health science.

Introduction

Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is essential to advancing science and its translation to practice in public health ( 1 , 2 ). The public health workforce is diverse and practices in a variety of settings ( 3 ). For some public health professionals, writing and publishing the results of their work is a requirement. Others, such as program managers, policy makers, or health educators, may see publishing as being outside the scope of their responsibilities ( 4 ).

Disseminating new knowledge via writing and publishing is vital both to authors and to the field of public health ( 5 ). On an individual level, publishing is associated with professional development and career advancement ( 6 ). Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice ( 1 , 7 ). As more public health professionals are empowered to publish, the science and practice of public health will advance ( 1 ).

Unfortunately, prospective authors face barriers to publishing their work, including navigating the process of scientific writing and publishing, which can be time-consuming and cumbersome. Often, public health professionals lack both training opportunities and understanding of the process ( 8 ). To address these barriers and encourage public health professionals to publish their findings, the senior author (P.Z.S.) and others developed Successful Scientific Writing (SSW), a course about scientific writing and publishing. Over the past 30 years, this course has been taught to thousands of public health professionals, as well as hundreds of students at multiple graduate schools of public health. An unpublished longitudinal survey of course participants indicated that two-thirds agreed that SSW had helped them to publish a scientific manuscript or have a conference abstract accepted. The course content has been translated into this manuscript. The objective of this article is to provide prospective authors with the tools needed to write original research articles of high quality that have a good chance of being published.

Basic Recommendations for Scientific Writing

Prospective authors need to know and tailor their writing to the audience. When writing for scientific journals, 4 fundamental recommendations are: clearly stating the usefulness of the study, formulating a key message, limiting unnecessary words, and using strategic sentence structure.

To demonstrate usefulness, focus on how the study addresses a meaningful gap in current knowledge or understanding. What critical piece of information does the study provide that will help solve an important public health problem? For example, if a particular group of people is at higher risk for a specific condition, but the magnitude of that risk is unknown, a study to quantify the risk could be important for measuring the population’s burden of disease.

Scientific articles should have a clear and concise take-home message. Typically, this is expressed in 1 to 2 sentences that summarize the main point of the paper. This message can be used to focus the presentation of background information, results, and discussion of findings. As an early step in the drafting of an article, we recommend writing out the take-home message and sharing it with co-authors for their review and comment. Authors who know their key point are better able to keep their writing within the scope of the article and present information more succinctly. Once an initial draft of the manuscript is complete, the take-home message can be used to review the content and remove needless words, sentences, or paragraphs.

Concise writing improves the clarity of an article. Including additional words or clauses can divert from the main message and confuse the reader. Additionally, journal articles are typically limited by word count. The most important words and phrases to eliminate are those that do not add meaning, or are duplicative. Often, cutting adjectives or parenthetical statements results in a more concise paper that is also easier to read.

Sentence structure strongly influences the readability and comprehension of journal articles. Twenty to 25 words is a reasonable range for maximum sentence length. Limit the number of clauses per sentence, and place the most important or relevant clause at the end of the sentence ( 9 ). Consider the sentences:

By using these tips and tricks, an author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year.
An author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year by using these tips and tricks.

The focus of the first sentence is on the impact of using the tips and tricks, that is, 2 more articles published per year. In contrast, the second sentence focuses on the tips and tricks themselves.

Authors should use the active voice whenever possible. Consider the following example:

Active voice: Authors who use the active voice write more clearly.
Passive voice: Clarity of writing is promoted by the use of the active voice.

The active voice specifies who is doing the action described in the sentence. Using the active voice improves clarity and understanding, and generally uses fewer words. Scientific writing includes both active and passive voice, but authors should be intentional with their use of either one.

Sections of an Original Research Article

Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature ( 10 ), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article. The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD. These 4 sections are referred to as the body of an article. Two additional components of all peer-reviewed articles are the title and the abstract. Each section’s purpose and key components, along with specific recommendations for writing each section, are listed below.

Title. The purpose of a title is twofold: to provide an accurate and informative summary and to attract the target audience. Both prospective readers and database search engines use the title to screen articles for relevance ( 2 ). All titles should clearly state the topic being studied. The topic includes the who, what, when, and where of the study. Along with the topic, select 1 or 2 of the following items to include within the title: methods, results, conclusions, or named data set or study. The items chosen should emphasize what is new and useful about the study. Some sources recommend limiting the title to less than 150 characters ( 2 ). Articles with shorter titles are more frequently cited than articles with longer titles ( 11 ). Several title options are possible for the same study ( Figure ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is PCD-15-E79s01.jpg

Two examples of title options for a single study.

Abstract . The abstract serves 2 key functions. Journals may screen articles for potential publication by using the abstract alone ( 12 ), and readers may use the abstract to decide whether to read further. Therefore, it is critical to produce an accurate and clear abstract that highlights the major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions ( 12 ). Most abstracts have a word limit and can be either structured following IMRAD, or unstructured. The abstract needs to stand alone from the article and tell the most important parts of the scientific story up front.

Introduction . The purpose of the introduction is to explain how the study sought to create knowledge that is new and useful. The introduction section may often require only 3 paragraphs. First, describe the scope, nature, or magnitude of the problem being addressed. Next, clearly articulate why better understanding this problem is useful, including what is currently known and the limitations of relevant previous studies. Finally, explain what the present study adds to the knowledge base. Explicitly state whether data were collected in a unique way or obtained from a previously unstudied data set or population. Presenting both the usefulness and novelty of the approach taken will prepare the reader for the remaining sections of the article.

Methods . The methods section provides the information necessary to allow others, given the same data, to recreate the analysis. It describes exactly how data relevant to the study purpose were collected, organized, and analyzed. The methods section describes the process of conducting the study — from how the sample was selected to which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Authors should clearly name, define, and describe each study variable. Some journals allow detailed methods to be included in an appendix or supplementary document. If the analysis involves a commonly used public health data set, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System ( 13 ), general aspects of the data set can be provided to readers by using references. Because what was done is typically more important than who did it, use of the passive voice is often appropriate when describing methods. For example, “The study was a group randomized, controlled trial. A coin was tossed to select an intervention group and a control group.”

Results . The results section describes the main outcomes of the study or analysis but does not interpret the findings or place them in the context of previous research. It is important that the results be logically organized. Suggested organization strategies include presenting results pertaining to the entire population first, and then subgroup analyses, or presenting results according to increasing complexity of analysis, starting with demographic results before proceeding to univariate and multivariate analyses. Authors wishing to draw special attention to novel or unexpected results can present them first.

One strategy for writing the results section is to start by first drafting the figures and tables. Figures, which typically show trends or relationships, and tables, which show specific data points, should each support a main outcome of the study. Identify the figures and tables that best describe the findings and relate to the study’s purpose, and then develop 1 to 2 sentences summarizing each one. Data not relevant to the study purpose may be excluded, summarized briefly in the text, or included in supplemental data sets. When finalizing figures, ensure that axes are labeled and that readers can understand figures without having to refer to accompanying text.

Discussion . In the discussion section, authors interpret the results of their study within the context of both the related literature and the specific scientific gap the study was intended to fill. The discussion does not introduce results that were not presented in the results section. One way authors can focus their discussion is to limit this section to 4 paragraphs: start by reinforcing the study’s take-home message(s), contextualize key results within the relevant literature, state the study limitations, and lastly, make recommendations for further research or policy and practice changes. Authors can support assertions made in the discussion with either their own findings or by referencing related research. By interpreting their own study results and comparing them to others in the literature, authors can emphasize findings that are unique, useful, and relevant. Present study limitations clearly and without apology. Finally, state the implications of the study and provide recommendations or next steps, for example, further research into remaining gaps or changes to practice or policy. Statements or recommendations regarding policy may use the passive voice, especially in instances where the action to be taken is more important than who will implement the action.

Beginning the Writing Process

The process of writing a scientific article occurs before, during, and after conducting the study or analyses. Conducting a literature review is crucial to confirm the existence of the evidence gap that the planned analysis seeks to fill. Because literature searches are often part of applying for research funding or developing a study protocol, the citations used in the grant application or study proposal can also be used in subsequent manuscripts. Full-text databases such as PubMed Central ( 14 ), NIH RePORT ( 15 ), and CDC Stacks ( 16 ) can be useful when performing literature reviews. Authors should familiarize themselves with databases that are accessible through their institution and any assistance that may be available from reference librarians or interlibrary loan systems. Using citation management software is one way to establish and maintain a working reference list. Authors should clearly understand the distinction between primary and secondary references, and ensure that they are knowledgeable about the content of any primary or secondary reference that they cite.

Review of the literature may continue while organizing the material and writing begins. One way to organize material is to create an outline for the paper. Another way is to begin drafting small sections of the article such as the introduction. Starting a preliminary draft forces authors to establish the scope of their analysis and clearly articulate what is new and novel about the study. Furthermore, using information from the study protocol or proposal allows authors to draft the methods and part of the results sections while the study is in progress. Planning potential data comparisons or drafting “table shells” will help to ensure that the study team has collected all the necessary data. Drafting these preliminary sections early during the writing process and seeking feedback from co-authors and colleagues may help authors avoid potential pitfalls, including misunderstandings about study objectives.

The next step is to conduct the study or analyses and use the resulting data to fill in the draft table shells. The initial results will most likely require secondary analyses, that is, exploring the data in ways in addition to those originally planned. Authors should ensure that they regularly update their methods section to describe all changes to data analysis.

After completing table shells, authors should summarize the key finding of each table or figure in a sentence or two. Presenting preliminary results at meetings, conferences, and internal seminars is an established way to solicit feedback. Authors should pay close attention to questions asked by the audience, treating them as an informal opportunity for peer review. On the basis of the questions and feedback received, authors can incorporate revisions and improvements into subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

The relevant literature should be revisited periodically while writing to ensure knowledge of the most recent publications about the manuscript topic. Authors should focus on content and key message during the process of writing the first draft and should not spend too much time on issues of grammar or style. Drafts, or portions of drafts, should be shared frequently with trusted colleagues. Their recommendations should be reviewed and incorporated when they will improve the manuscript’s overall clarity.

For most authors, revising drafts of the manuscript will be the most time-consuming task involved in writing a paper. By regularly checking in with coauthors and colleagues, authors can adopt a systematic approach to rewriting. When the author has completed a draft of the manuscript, he or she should revisit the key take-home message to ensure that it still matches the final data and analysis. At this point, final comments and approval of the manuscript by coauthors can be sought.

Authors should then seek to identify journals most likely to be interested in considering the study for publication. Initial questions to consider when selecting a journal include:

Which audience is most interested in the paper’s message?
Would clinicians, public health practitioners, policy makers, scientists, or a broader audience find this useful in their field or practice?
Do colleagues have prior experience submitting a manuscript to this journal?
Is the journal indexed and peer-reviewed?
Is the journal subscription or open-access and are there any processing fees?
How competitive is the journal?

Authors should seek to balance the desire to be published in a top-tier journal (eg, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMJ, or Lancet) against the statistical likelihood of rejection. Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper’s target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into practice. Most of the 50 to 75 manuscripts published each week by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are published in specialty and subspecialty journals, rather than in top-tier journals ( 17 ).

The target journal’s website will include author guidelines, which will contain specific information about format requirements (eg, font, line spacing, section order, reference style and limit, table and figure formatting), authorship criteria, article types, and word limits for articles and abstracts.

We recommend returning to the previously drafted abstract and ensuring that it complies with the journal’s format and word limit. Authors should also verify that any changes made to the methods or results sections during the article’s drafting are reflected in the final version of the abstract. The abstract should not be written hurriedly just before submitting the manuscript; it is often apparent to editors and reviewers when this has happened. A cover letter to accompany the submission should be drafted; new and useful findings and the key message should be included.

Before submitting the manuscript and cover letter, authors should perform a final check to ensure that their paper complies with all journal requirements. Journals may elect to reject certain submissions on the basis of review of the abstract, or may send them to peer reviewers (typically 2 or 3) for consultation. Occasionally, on the basis of peer reviews, the journal will request only minor changes before accepting the paper for publication. Much more frequently, authors will receive a request to revise and resubmit their manuscript, taking into account peer review comments. Authors should recognize that while revise-and-resubmit requests may state that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, this does not constitute a rejection of the article. Authors have several options in responding to peer review comments:

Performing additional analyses and updating the article appropriately
Declining to perform additional analyses, but providing an explanation (eg, because the requested analysis goes beyond the scope of the article)
Providing updated references
Acknowledging reviewer comments that are simply comments without making changes

In addition to submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include a cover letter in which they list peer reviewer comments, along with the revisions they have made to the manuscript and their reply to the comment. The tone of such letters should be thankful and polite, but authors should make clear areas of disagreement with peer reviewers, and explain why they disagree. During the peer review process, authors should continue to consult with colleagues, especially ones who have more experience with the specific journal or with the peer review process.

There is no secret to successful scientific writing and publishing. By adopting a systematic approach and by regularly seeking feedback from trusted colleagues throughout the study, writing, and article submission process, authors can increase their likelihood of not only publishing original research articles of high quality but also becoming more scientifically productive overall.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge PCD ’s former Associate Editor, Richard A. Goodman, MD, MPH, who, while serving as Editor in Chief of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Series, initiated a curriculum on scientific writing for training CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service Officers and other CDC public health professionals, and with whom the senior author of this article (P.Z.S.) collaborated in expanding training methods and contents, some of which are contained in this article. The authors acknowledge Juan Carlos Zevallos, MD, for his thoughtful critique and careful editing of previous Successful Scientific Writing materials. We also thank Shira Eisenberg for editorial assistance with the manuscript. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement no. 1U360E000002 from CDC and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The findings and conclusions of this article do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Names of journals and citation databases are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement by CDC.

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Suggested citation for this article: Iskander JK, Wolicki SB, Leeb RT, Siegel PZ. Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:180085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085 .

Essay Service Examples Science Experiment

Essay on Scientific Method

Introduction, the scientific method, history of the scientific method, key scientists in formulating scientific method.

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Observation - this is the first stage in the scientific method where the scientists ask themselves a question, they want to prove through what they see or through their knowledge and curiosity. This question can be based on self-observation, the previous experiment conducted or proofs from other scientists with questionable results. If the experiment has already been proven or has a known answer, a different question can be posed. During the observation, the question at hand can be difficult because it will affect the outcome of the experiment.
Hypothesis - hypothesis is the second stage of the scientific method. It is a formulated question that is based on knowledge and observation. A hypothesis can either be broad or specific based on the desired outcome. It can also be falsifiable meaning it cannot be meaningfully tested and therefore contradict the hypothesis.
Research - This is the theoretical part of the scientific method where the scientist must determine the logical consequences of the hypothesis and the relativeness of it. It also involves the relation of the question at hand and other questions or topics with the same hypothesis, likely the same for further predictions.
Experiment - this involves whether the hypothesis behaves like the experimental investigation. At this stage, the scientist must use the materials to prove whether the predictions are going to answer the hypothesis in an agreeable or non-agreeable manner. If they agree then there are high chances that the hypothesis could be true, however, this is not a guarantee. Karl Popper advised scientists to do research on those results that seem falsely to the hypothesis to be certain of the results. Also, if the results of the experiment do not give a conclusive answer it doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong.
Data analysis - This is the last part of the experimental procedure. It shows the results of the experiment and the next steps to follow.
Conclusion - This is the final step of the scientific method which explains the results obtained from the experimental procedure. This is the most important step of the scientific method because it explains if the hypothesis came out right or wrong. If the conclusion contradicts the hypothesis then the scientist has either had to restart the experiment to get the desired outcomes or not to carry on with the research that was conducted.
Communicate results - this is the step where the scientists publish their results either by doing a report or a presentation.
observation- want to find out if water freezes faster with salt added or not
Hypothesis- if the temperature is the same, water with salt and without will freeze at the same time interval
Research- research whether salt contains elements or has a structure that may affect the temperature of water to freeze.
Experiment- set a timer and put 2 jugs of in a freezer, one with salt and the other without salt at the same measurement.
Data analysis- after the time has completed, check whether the water with salt froze first or the water without salt.
conclusion- looking at the data you collected, come up with a conclusion whether the water with salt froze first or the one without and answer your hypothesis.
communicate results- write a report or do a presentation based on your results.
Born, Max (1949), Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Peter Smith, also published by Dover, 1964.
Brody, Thomas A. (1993), The Philosophy Behind Physics, Springer Verlag, Bruno, Leonard C. (1989), The Landmarks of Science.
Bynum, W.F Porter, Roy (2005), Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, Oxford
Dales, Richard C. (1973), The Scientific Achievement of the Middle Ages (The Middle Ages Series), University of Pennsylvania Press.
di Francia, G. Toraldo (1981), The Investigation of the Physical World, Cambridge University.
Einstein, Albert; Infeld, Leopold (1938), The Evolution of Physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center

scientific method

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

University of Nevada, Reno - College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources Extension - The Scientific Method
World History Encyclopedia - Scientific Method
LiveScience - What Is Science?
Verywell Mind - Scientific Method Steps in Psychology Research
WebMD - What is the Scientific Method?
Chemistry LibreTexts - The Scientific Method
National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Redefining the scientific method: as the use of sophisticated scientific methods that extend our mind
Khan Academy - The scientific method
Simply Psychology - What are the steps in the Scientific Method?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Scientific Method

scientific method , mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences . More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis .

The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences , use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics , together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory , game theory , utility theory, and operations research . Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction .

The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories , which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis , tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.

See also Mill’s methods ; hypothetico-deductive method .

The Scientific Method in Action Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Materials List

Temperature and time, testing a new hypothesis, cleaning and waste disposal, post-lab questions.

The scientific method provides an approach to problem-solving using observations and experimental results. This evidence-based practice allows chemists to draw logical conclusions through examination of data. In this experiment, the scientific method will be applied to determine the factors that affect the rate at which effervescent tablets dissolve in water. Then a hypothesis will be developed and tested subsequently.

Oftentimes, scientists can develop a mathematical correlation between measurements by plotting a graph to represent the data collected. When making such a graph, it is important to recognize the different variables that are used. The independent variable is the factor that is being manipulated so observations can be made and the outcomes of a predicted hypothesis can be measured. The dependent variable is the factor that results from completing the experiment and collecting data which rely on the independent variable. The relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable can be viewed as a cause and effect relationship. “How does changing A to B (independent variable) affect C (the dependent variable)?” Because it is necessary to only change one variable at a time, all other factors of an experiment must remain the same. These factors are called controlled variables . For example, when studying the behavior of gases to determine the relationship between volume (dependent) and temperature (independent), the amount of gas (controlled) and the pressure of the gas (controlled) must be kept constant.

It will be important to keep in mind what the independent, dependent and controlled variables are in this experiment.

Construct a hypothesis that can be tested through experimental observations.
Be able to determine the dependent and independent variables in outlining a lab procedure.
Apply the steps of the scientific method to find out the validity of a hypothesis through experimentation and analysis of results.

From Lab Kit

Alka-Seltzer tablets, 5 packs
Beaker, 250 ml
6 plastic cups
Thermometer

Other Materials

Medium-sized glass or bowl for an ice water bath
Stopwatch (capable of measuring to the nearest 0.1 second)

Safety goggles should be worn at all times. Do not consume the Alka-Seltzer tablets provided in this experiment. Keep all items away from children and pets. Wash your hands with soap and water before and after performing the lab. Clean the work area and all glassware with soap and water when finished with the experiment.

Make an ice bath by placing at least 300 ml of water in a medium-sized bowl and adding about 150-ml of ice. Allow this mixture to stand for 5-10 minutes.
Obtain a timing device such as a stopwatch or cell phone.
Label three cups with the wax pencil: RT for room temperature, H for hot, and C for Cold.
Open the Alka-Seltzer packages. Carefully, with scissors or a knife, scratch a line down the middle of each tablet so it can be broken into halves.*
Break each tablet into two equal pieces. *By taking a sharp knife or scissors and repeatedly scoring a line across each tablet, it will make it easier to break it in half. The deeper the groove, the more likely it will split into two pieces. If your tablets are already broken, try to create three equal-sized pieces to use for one of the trials. Make a note of this in your data table.*
Use the 250-ml beaker to measure out 200 ml of room temperature tap water and pour into the “RT” cup.
Use the 250-ml beaker to measure out 200 ml of cold water into the “C” cup. Do not transfer any ice to the cup.
Turn your water faucet to hot and let it run for 1-2 minutes ensuring that the water is as hot as it can get. Measure 200 ml of water using the 250 ml beaker and transfer it to the “H” cup.
Record the temperature of the water in each of the three cups. Include the correct number of significant figures and units in the Data Table 1.
Carefully place a piece of Alka-Seltzer tablet into each cup, beginning with the “C” cup, then the“RT” cup and lastly, the “H” cup.
Start the timer immediately.
Observe the tablets as they dissolve and record what you see. Once the solution has become clear and no more solid pieces are floating around, record the time to the nearest second for that cup in Data Table 1.
Discard the Alka-Seltzer solution down the drain with running water and rinse the cups multiple times with clean water.
Repeat steps 6-13 for two more trials keeping the amount of water in each cup at exactly 200 ml. Remember to note if you are using less than a half of a tablet.
For each temperature range, calculate the average temperature and the average time it took to dissolve the tablet.

Data Table 1


1	H	63	18.01	Loud fizzing, the tablet goes to the top of the cup as soon as you drop it in the water, lots of bubbles, dissolves fast.
1	RT	14	89.00	Middle sized bubbles, the tablet moves around the bottom, some of the tablets particles float around the cup.
1	C	8	165.00	The tablet moves around the bottom of cup, not many bubble. It makes the tablet into little pieces floating everywhere in cup, quiet fizzing, the last piece of the tablets floats to top right before it is completely dissolved.

2	H	63	17.85	Loudly fizzing and emitting a lot of bubbles, the tablet barely submerges before floating to the surface and dissolving fast.
2	RT	16	91.00	The tablet dissolves at the bottom of a cup until it begins to break apart; the tablet particles then float to the surface, emitting bubbles.
2	C	7	143.00	The slowest reaction out of the three – the process is similar to the previous trial, albeit with quieter fizzing and fewer bubbles.

3	H	65	16.88	The tablet does not submerge, immediately showing signs of dissolution through loud fizzing and frequent bubble emission.
3	RT	15	88.00	The tablet floats to the surface as soon as it begins to fall apart. The sound and bubbles indicating dissolution are average.
3	C	8	170.00	The tablet stays at the bottom for almost the full trial duration. The dissolution indicators are weak.

Avg.	H	63.67	17.58	Quick reaction, loud fizzing, many bubbles, the tablet stays at the surface.
Avg.	RT	15	89.33	Slower reaction, milder signs, the tablet floats to the surface in the middle of the process.
Avg.	C	7.67	159.33	The slowest reaction, weak signs, the tablet remains at the bottom for almost the full duration.

Write a statement that represents the hypothesis that was tested in Part A.

The tablet dissolution reaction is quicker in water with higher temperatures.

Prepare a computer-generated graph for the data in Part A. Use all of the values that were tabulated. Include an exponential trendline that shows the mathematical relationship between your measured values. Attach this graph to the lab report. Refer to the Introduction to Graphing Lab procedure for help in creating your graph.

What is the independent variable? Explain why you chose this and which axis it should be on.

In this experiment, the independent variable is the water’s temperature. It should be placed on the x-axis since it is through temperature manipulation, we are able to influence the speed of the reaction.

What is the dependent variable? Explain why you chose this and which axis it should be on.

Dissolution time was chosen as the dependent variable since this factor was the key interest for the experiment. Manipulating the temperature was to affect the dissolution time, according to the hypothesis.

What are the controlled variables? Provide at least two.

The controlled variables of this experiment are the Alka-Seltzer’s composition, water amount, and the amount of Alka-Seltzer used in each trial – 1 tablet.

16 ℃ 183.41×10 -0.037×16 = 46.93 sec.
42 ℃ 183.41×10 -0.037×42 = 5.12 sec.
87 ℃ 183.41×10 -0.037×87 = 0.11 sec.
Question #1 – How will the dissolution time change if the water is replaced with another solution?
Question #2 – How will the dissolution time change if the tablet amount changes?
Question #3 – Is the dissolution rate the same for different types of dissolvable tablets, given the equation constructed?
Question #4 – Is there a limit at which the temperature no longer influences the dissolution time?
Stated hypothesis – Alka-Seltzer will dissolve quicker in a hydrochloric acid solution than in water, regardless of temperature changes.
Independent variables – Dissolving solution, temperature
Dependent variable – Dissolution time
Controlled variables – Alka-Seltzer composition and amount for each trial
How will the hypothesis be tested? Experimentally. For this, several cups with the same volume of two solvents are used, they are heated to different temperatures (e.g., 5°C, 25°C, and 60°C), then the time required to dissolve the same number of tablets in each of the solvents is measured. Based on the results, the hypothesis is confirmed or rejected.
What are the expected results? The Alka-Seltzer dissolution will be quicker in hydrochloric acid at any temperature than in water.

Write a procedure to test your new hypothesis. Include step-by-step instructions. Provide a list of materials. Be very specific in how to run the experiment so that another student could perform it as written. Make sure to include a description on the number of trials so the results show reproducibility.

Alka-Seltzer tablets, 6 packs
18 beakers, 250 ml
1 bottle of water (2 L)
Hydrochloric acid (2 L)

Fill three beakers with 200 ml of water and use ice to lower the temperature to 5℃. Place one Alka-Seltzer tablet in the water, measure the time it takes for the tablet to dissolve completely using a stopwatch, and record the results in the table.

Fill three beakers with 200 ml of water and heat them with a hot stove to 25 ℃, respectively. Place one Alka-Seltzer tablet in each beaker, measure the time it takes for the tablet to dissolve completely using a stopwatch and record the results in the table.

Fill three beakers with 200 mL of water and heat them with a hot stove to 60 ℃, respectively. Place one Alka-Seltzer tablet in each beaker, measure the time it takes for the tablet to dissolve completely using a stopwatch, and record the results in the table.

Repeat steps 1-3 but use hydrochloric acid instead of water.

Following the outline of your procedure, run the experiment and record the results in a table of your design in the space below. It should be similar to the one in Part A. Label it Data Table 2.

Data Table 2

	#	Time (sec.) at 5℃	Time (sec.) at 25℃	Time (sec.) at 60℃
Water	1	51.14	13.12	4.82
	2	49.83	14.81	4.69
	3	53.12	12.92	5.02

HCl	1	35.18	9.89	1.32
	2	32.41	10.01	1.15
	3	33.19	9.73	1.41

Dissolution Time of the Tablet on Temperature

All solid waste should be thrown away into a garbage can.
All liquid waste should be washed down the drain with running water.
Wash the cups, beaker, and thermometer. Wipe down the workspace. Wash your hands.
Discuss the results of your experiment in Part B. Was your hypothesis correct? Are there changes that should be made to your procedure? Explain.

The results of the second experiment show that the proposed hypothesis is correct. The dissolution of the tablet in hydrochloric acid is indeed faster, as evidenced by the constructed regression equation. A potential reason for this is the sodium carbonate contained in Alka-Seltzer, which starts the reaction with the acid, which, compared to the acid, makes the reaction go more intensely. Although the experiment showed success, a possible change that could be considered is to increase the number of repetitions to reduce sampling error or bias.

What are two things that could be done to improve the reproducibility of your results in Part A and Part B?

It is necessary to ensure that the set temperature is maintained at all times in order to reduce error.

Ethics and Validity in the Research Process
Psychological Research and the Scientific Method
Simple Harmonic Motion Lab Test
The Effect of Acid on Enzyme Activity
The Heat of Dissolution and Neutralization Reaction
The Role of Science and the Scientific Method
Excerpt from the Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Case Study as Scientific Approach
Scientific Method, Peer Review, and Publishing
Theory, Practice, and Research Interrelationship
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 19). The Scientific Method in Action. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-scientific-method-in-action/

"The Scientific Method in Action." IvyPanda , 19 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-scientific-method-in-action/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Scientific Method in Action'. 19 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Scientific Method in Action." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-scientific-method-in-action/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Scientific Method in Action." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-scientific-method-in-action/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Scientific Method in Action." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-scientific-method-in-action/.

How to Write a Scientific Essay

When writing any essay it’s important to always keep the end goal in mind. You want to produce a document that is detailed, factual, about the subject matter and most importantly to the point.

Writing scientific essays will always be slightly different to when you write an essay for say English Literature . You need to be more analytical and precise when answering your questions. To help achieve this, you need to keep three golden rules in mind.

Analysing the question, so that you know exactly what you have to do

Planning your answer

Writing the essay

Now, let’s look at these steps in more detail to help you fully understand how to apply the three golden rules.

Analysing the question

Start by looking at the instruction. Essays need to be written out in continuous prose. You shouldn’t be using bullet points or writing in note form.
If it helps to make a particular point, however, you can use a diagram providing it is relevant and adequately explained.
Look at the topic you are required to write about. The wording of the essay title tells you what you should confine your answer to – there is no place for interesting facts about other areas.

The next step is to plan your answer. What we are going to try to do is show you how to produce an effective plan in a very short time. You need a framework to show your knowledge otherwise it is too easy to concentrate on only a few aspects.

For example, when writing an essay on biology we can divide the topic up in a number of different ways. So, if you have to answer a question like ‘Outline the main properties of life and system reproduction’

The steps for planning are simple. Firstly, define the main terms within the question that need to be addressed. Then list the properties asked for and lastly, roughly assess how many words of your word count you are going to allocate to each term.

Writing the Essay

The final step (you’re almost there), now you have your plan in place for the essay, it’s time to get it all down in black and white. Follow your plan for answering the question, making sure you stick to the word count, check your spelling and grammar and give credit where credit’s (always reference your sources).

How Tutors Breakdown Essays

An exceptional essay

reflects the detail that could be expected from a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification
is free from fundamental errors
maintains appropriate depth and accuracy throughout
includes two or more paragraphs of material that indicates greater depth or breadth of study

A good essay

An average essay

contains a significant amount of material that reflects the detail that could be expected from a knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification.

In practice this will amount to about half the essay.

is likely to reflect limited knowledge of some areas and to be patchy in quality
demonstrates a good understanding of basic principles with some errors and evidence of misunderstanding

A poor essay

contains much material which is below the level expected of a candidate who has completed the course
Contains fundamental errors reflecting a poor grasp of basic principles and concepts

Privacy Overview

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Environment
Information Science
Social Issues
Argumentative
Cause and Effect
Classification
Compare and Contrast
Descriptive
Exemplification
Informative
Controversial
Exploratory
What Is an Essay
Length of an Essay
Generate Ideas
Types of Essays
Structuring an Essay
Outline For Essay
Essay Introduction
Thesis Statement
Body of an Essay
Writing a Conclusion
Essay Writing Tips
Drafting an Essay
Revision Process
Fix a Broken Essay
Format of an Essay
Essay Examples
Essay Checklist
Essay Writing Service
Pay for Research Paper
Write My Research Paper
Write My Essay
Custom Essay Writing Service
Admission Essay Writing Service
Pay for Essay
Academic Ghostwriting
Write My Book Report
Case Study Writing Service
Dissertation Writing Service
Coursework Writing Service
Lab Report Writing Service
Do My Assignment
Buy College Papers
Capstone Project Writing Service
Buy Research Paper
Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

Free Essay Samples

Scientific Method

Updated 12 December 2023

Subject Learning , Scientific Method

Downloads 42

Category Education , Science

The scientific method is an empirical means of acquiring knowledge on natural science (Andersen " Hepburn, 2016). This method remains centric and essential in the development of natural science. Importantly, it entails systematic observation, measurement, evaluation and analysis of results. That is, it sets up questions in the form of hypothesis then try to answer them through experimentations that involves careful and systematic observations. Accordingly, one can pose questions, test questions and analyze results; hence developing a sharper understanding of the surrounding environment.

The research study by Yu and Xie followed the scientific method (Yu " Xie, 2017). That is, there was a fieldwork experiment, which focused on revealing the net preference implications on friendship choice. The participants in the study were chosen randomly from the field to avoid a biased result. The researcher had research questions, research hypotheses, and assumptions, which were answered through the systematic observations. The observations enabled the researcher to eliminate some of the hypotheses and confirm some of them.

The scientific method such as systematic measurement was not applicable in this study, as the variables in the study were social constructs, hence requiring a qualitative type of study as opposed to a quantitative approach, which would otherwise require measurement (Andersen " Hepburn, 2016). Evaluation of social constructs requires observation and other means such as the use of a questionnaire. In the study referred to therein, short questionnaire and interviews were significant. Interviews and questionnaires were essential in getting varied opinions on the issues that were at the core of the study. Finally, there were no calculations involved, as the variables were social constructs, which do not require calculations but rather philosophical understanding.

Single parenting is becoming a common practice in most societies (Hetherington " Arasteh, 2014). Some of the cases of single parenting are voluntary while some are through the natural acts; including the death of one parent. It is in no doubt that parenting has a direct relation to the future behavior of any given child. The available literature indicates that there is a significant difference in behavior between the kids upraised by both parents in contrast to those raised by single parents. Accordingly, it is important to investigate the implications of single-parenting, hence establishing whether it should be encouraged in the society. This study subsequently is essential to understanding how parenting shapes the behavior of an individual in the society.

This study will use both qualitative and quantitative method of research. Concisely, this study will identify an area of study and randomly sample the participants for interview: their objective opinions are recorded for further analysis. Moreover, observations will be key in this study; that is, the behavior of kids brought up by single parents and those raised by both parents are contrasted. The percentage of the categories therein will be recorded, followed by a graphical representation of the increase or decrease in their number over the last five years. Subsequently, there will be an analysis to explain the trend of the graph: how the trend affects the behavior of the future generation. Lastly, this study will record its findings and evaluate them to reach an objective conclusion, hence answering the research questions.

Andersen, H., " Hepburn, B. (2016). Scientific method. Journal of Marketing, 47, 18–31.

Hetherington, E. M., " Arasteh, J. D. (2014). Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children: a case study of visual agnosia. Psychology Press.

Yu, S., " Xie, Y. (2017). Preference effects on friendship choice: Evidence from an online field experiment. Social Science Research, 66, 201–210.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

IMAGES

A Guide to Writing Scientific Essays
Paper Scientific Method Example : Scientific Method Research Example
The Scientific Method Critique Essay (500 Words)
Free Scientific Method Essay Examples and Topic Ideas
Practical Guide: How To Make A Scientific Essay
Scientific Method

COMMENTS

Scientific Method: Role and Importance
The scientific method is a problem-solving strategy that is at the heart of biology and other sciences. There are five steps included in the scientific method that is making an observation, asking a question, forming a hypothesis or an explanation that could be tested, and predicting the test. After that, in the feedback step that is iterating ...
Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step‐by‐Step Guide to Undergraduate
Scientific writing is often a difficult and arduous task for many students. It follows a different format and deviates in structure from how we were initially taught to write, or even how we currently write for English, history, or social science classes. This can make the scientific writing process appear overwhelming, especially when ...
PDF Tutorial Essays for Science Subjects
Tutorial Essays for Science Subjects. This guide is designed to provide help and advice on scientific writing. Although students studying Medical and Life Sciences are most likely to have to write essays for tutorials at Oxford, it is important all scientists learn to write clearly and concisely to present their data and conclusions.
A Guide to Writing a Scientific Paper: A Focus on High School Through
This structure is a widely accepted approach to writing a research paper, and has specific sections that parallel the scientific method. Following this structure allows the scientist to tell a clear, coherent story in a logical format, essential to effective communication. 1 , 2 In addition, using a standardized format allows the reader to find ...
Scientific Reports
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 ...
Scientific Method Essay Examples for College Students
Essay Samples on Scientific Method. Essay Examples. ... The scientific method is " the tactic of a process that has characterized physical discipline since the seventeenth century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and therefore the formulation, testing, and altar of hypothesis". ...
Scientific Writing
The Scientific Method. When writing or reading about science, it is useful to keep the scientific method in mind. The scientific method is used as a model to construct writing that can be shared with others in a logical and informative way. Any piece of scientific writing is informative and persuasive: informative because the author is telling ...
How to Write a Scientific Essay
Take concise notes while reading, focusing on information relevant to the essay. Identify the most crucial information and examples that support the argument. Begin writing the essay, considering starting with the middle sections for clarity. Circle back to the introduction and conclusion once the main body is outlined.
Writing Science: What Makes Scientific Writing Hard and How to Make It
Similarly, we should apply the scientific method to improving our writing practices. Collect advice from many sources, try different tactics, retain what works, and discard what doesn't to ultimately settle on the strategies that can best help you write (Rockquemore 2016, Kwok 2020).Here are a few suggestions you might try to improve your own writing practices.
Effective Writing
English Communication for Scientists, Unit 2.2. Effective writing is clear, accurate, and concise. When you are writing a paper, strive to write in a straightforward way. Construct sentences that ...
The essentials of effective scientific writing
The essential s of effective sc ientific wri ting - A rev ised. alternativ e guide for authors. Emma J. Sayer. Lanc aster Env ironme nt Cent re, Lan caste r Univer sity, La ncast er, UK ...
Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach
Abstract. Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to ...
Students' approaches to scientific essay writing as an educational
1. Introduction. Scientific essay writing has been recognized as a valuable tool for learning and assessment (Lavelle et al., 2013).Researchers (Helberget et al., 2021; Shields, 2010) have argued that scientific writing, like essay writing, can be a form of communication as well as stimulate students' learning and be a valuable tool for teachers to base their assessments on.
A Guide to Using the Scientific Method in Everyday Life
The scientific method—the process used by scientists to understand the natural world—has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world.
Essay on Scientific Method
The scientific method is guidelines/steps which scientists follow to solve a problem. There are several steps in the scientific method depends on the problem at hand. Amongst these steps include 1) observation, 2) hypothesis, 3) research, 4) experiment 5) data analysis 6) conclusion of that question 7) communicate results.
Scientific method
The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner.In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments.
Scientific Method Essay
Science is an objective method used explain the natural phenomena of the universe. The practice of a scientific method provides a detailed outline that contributes to expressing how to determine if a theory is scientific. A continual cycle that emphasizes the techniques of observations, questions, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, and conclusion.
The Scientific Method in Action
The scientific method provides an approach to problem-solving using observations and experimental results. This evidence-based practice allows chemists to draw logical conclusions through examination of data. In this experiment, the scientific method will be applied to determine the factors that affect the rate at which effervescent tablets dissolve in water.
How to Write a Scientific Report
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.
The Scientific Method Essay
The Scientific Method Essay. The Scientific Method is the standardized procedure that scientists are supposed to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary representation of our surroundings. To follow the Scientific Method is to stick very tightly to a order of experimentation.
How to Write a Scientific Essay • Oxford Learning College
Essays need to be written out in continuous prose. You shouldn't be using bullet points or writing in note form. If it helps to make a particular point, however, you can use a diagram providing it is relevant and adequately explained. Look at the topic you are required to write about.
Essays on Scientific Method
The scientific method is an empirical means of acquiring knowledge on natural science (Andersen " Hepburn, 2016). This method remains centric and essential in the development of natural science. Importantly, it entails systematic observation, measurement, evaluation and analysis of results. That is, it sets up questions in the form of...
Scientific Method
The scientific method is an empirical means of acquiring knowledge on natural science (Andersen " Hepburn, 2016). This method remains centric and esse... 580 words. Read essay for free.