Some common faults in written papers
– there is a list of
items at this heading, similar to the list above
By the time you begin writing
your paper, you will have been reading many other papers from the literature,
and you will also have heard my opinion on what makes “good research”. Follow the style of professional examples,
avoiding florid and/or anecdotal expression in favour of straightforward,
simple statements.
Write in the first or the third person (either is acceptable, as
long as you are consistent!), be clear and concise, and guide the reader
through the paper so that one idea leads to another. (Construct a flowchart or
detailed outline before writing, and stick to it - this ensures logical order.)
Begin writing by establishing the form of the “simpler” sections (Methods,
References), then outlining the Introduction, Results, and Discussion; this
gives you a framework into which to fit conclusions as you make them. English composition skills are very
important; whatever your writing experience, the clarity of your project
will benefit dramatically from the efforts of a proofreader. Your paper
must be double-spaced, with margins wide
enough for comments, and all pages should be numbered. A length of
approximately 15-20 typed pages, not counting tables, figures, and
references, would be normal.
This might seem trivial, but it isn't. You need a brief,
informative title. Look at journal examples.
A condensation of your hypotheses, method, results, and interpretation,
in less than 200 words (!); shorter, but more complex, than a Summary, and
highlighting the broad significance of your major findings. No
need for an Abstract if you have a Summary. (see Summary section
below).
States the nature of the problem you studied, and the general approach
you took. Includes enough literature background to show why you did your work, and how
it was biologically relevant (sticks to general issues, and does not
provide detailed comparisons with particular case studies, which come in the
Discussion). A clear statement of the specific questions or hypotheses you
addressed, and the predictions you made from them, comes at the end of the
Introduction.
It may be useful to insert, right after the Introduction, a
“Study Species” section, in which you briefly outline the taxonomy,
distribution, morphology, and general behaviour of the species of most concern
to your paper. You would not cover, in such a section, the topic(s)
which form the bulk of your paper.
Describes: [1] where you worked and [2] what sort(s) of data you
gathered, and how you gathered them (sample sizes, observational procedures, etc.). The Methods section should be detailed enough so that another person
could use it as “instructions” to repeat the project.
Some students will be able to gather (and/or will have access to other
sources of) data sufficient for statistical analysis. Any unusual statistical
methods should be mentioned in the Methods section, but ordinary
“off-the-shelf” tests need be mentioned only in the Results, with the analyses
themselves. Instructors will advise on stats where needed.
Includes: [1] description of the behaviours of your study species
(particularly observations relevant to your research topic); and [2] data
summaries (averages, etc.) and
analyses (how you evaluated the questions and hypothesis-tests proposed in the
Introduction). Any terms you will be using (e.g. aggression, display) must be clearly defined here, if they
weren’t already defined in Methods when you explained how you quantified them.
Where appropriate (i.e., frequently), present data in the form
of tables, graphs, or sketches/photos. Number all “tables” in one sequence; in
a separate sequence, number as
“figures” all graphs, flowcharts, sketches, maps, diagrams, and photos (the
last four of these categories must include an indication of the scale of
the illustration). Each table and figure requires a caption
understandable without reference to
the text. The basic way of presenting information will still be in words
(stating in the text), and all of your results, whether illustrated by a figure or table or not, must be described (at least
briefly/qualitatively) in the text. Don't leave any tables or figures
“hanging” - each one must be referred to in the text, by number, and its
meaning stated. Graphs of summarized data (e.g.
medians) usually require some indication of error (e.g. interquartile
ranges); check a statistical reference, and/or consult instructors. When sizing
tables and figures, make sure that any lines or symbols are large enough to be
legible; place tables and figures as close as possible to their
accompanying text. It is not necessary
to use computer-drawn figures (hand-drawn
is adequate), and not necessary
to “imbed” figures and tables with text “flowing” around them; these details
can waste your time and simply don’t matter.
Try to keep a parallel structure
among all parts of your project (i.e. raise questions in a given order in the Introduction, outline
in the same order your Methods of collecting data, describe Results in the same
order, and then discuss them in the same order in the Discussion before introducing
literature comparisons). Such parallelism makes it much easier for a reader to
follow your argument, and to cross-reference points from various parts of your
paper.
Some papers will likely end up with only anecdotal observations, and the
bulk of the topic will be dealt with as a critical review of literature. It is
still appropriate to cover your own observations in a Results section as above,
as far as possible, before proceeding the a lengthy Discussion; consult
instructors for advice, as this will vary student to student.
Includes two components: [1]
what you think your own observations mean, with respect to the questions you raised;
and [2] how your findings compare with those in the literature. For most
students, the comparative use of the literature will be the majority component
of the Discussion, but at all points the Discussion should be informed by what
the student was able to observe personally.
The Discussion is definitely not an essay in which you try to
include “everything ever written” about the subject or species you chose. Your
paper aims to describe, analyze, and understand a specific situation
and/or problem - focus on things directly connected with those goals. When you
do refer to the literature, be selective - try to use items
which have a direct bearing on your particular study, not just any old
thing on the general topic. Be guided by the style of selection seen in the
papers you read while researching your topic. If the literature is divided (i.e. not unanimous) in its opinions, try
to cover both the findings which agree and those which disagree
with your observations, then seek ways of rationalizing and harmonizing them;
try to present more than just the work which agrees with you! Good science not
only tolerates, but also welcomes, plurality of opinion. [Remember that a student can
be right, and a seasoned professional
scientist can be wrong! There is no reason that your results can't be an
improvement on theirs, especially for species and situations where relatively
little is known for sure.]
Remember to use parallelism to improve your organization (see suggestion
in Results section above).
A brief, point-by-point account of your ideas, methods, main findings, and
their significance. Longer and more detailed, but simpler, than an Abstract; No
need for a Summary if you have an Abstract (see Abstract
section above).
If you received useful proofreading,
or advice from a source other than the supervisor, or generous funding, it is a
matter of professional courtesy to acknowledge the person(s)/institutions
involved. This section is not always necessary, and should be brief in any
case. Once again, journal-article examples will provide guidelines.
Students today tend automatically to turn to the Internet when
“researching” a topic. Be advised that, in most cases, serious
researchers do not. Professional e-journals and university-based sites
are obviously quite acceptable, but website contents in general are typically
not traceable to an original author, and are not subject to professional
peer-review; since quality-control in science is founded on the principles of
identifiable authorship and peer evaluation of the work, most Internet
information is unsatisfactory compared to journal articles. Basic web
background information on some aspects of general biology may be valid
starting-points for research.
All students will be doing a great deal of library research to augment
their own observations. Some of the information will be found in dedicated
topic-specific publications, but much will be spread across other journals and
books covering biology in general. Be guided by how referencing is done in the
papers you read, for instance how authors juxtapose competing results and use
references to raise questions about methodology, and endeavour to place
referenced information in context with your own. In the text, cite by
author(s) and year rather than by code-number: e.g. “… this idea was
first mentioned by Jones and Smith (1934)”, or “… this effect was also
demonstrated in bacteria (Robinson et al. 1980) and in fungi (Brown
& Black 1983)”.
Provide an alphabetic reference list (by first author) of all
and only the works you actually cite in your paper, preferably following
this easy-to-use format (use another format such as APA if you are comfortable
with it, but be consistent – one format only); here are examples for a journal
article, an article/chapter in a book, and a whole book:
Brown, R.T.
1999. Wing-loading in the flying pig Sus
pseudopegasus. Journal of Dubious Biomechanics 8, 19-31.
Brown, R.T. & M.J. Robinson. 2000. Grooming and
feather-maintenance in flying pigs: the high cost of wallowing. In:
The Biology of Unusual Vertebrates
(Ed. by T.D. Smith), pp.159-175. Vancouver, BC: Credulity
Publishing Ltd.
Robinson, M.J., R.T. Brown &
L.N. Jones. 1995. Designing and Building
a Free-flight Cage for Exercising your Flying Pigs. Abbotsford, BC: Aerial
Livestock Press.
Internet sources should be referenced by author(s)
(if known), last date updated (if known), page title, and website
address in full; alphabetize references with these components into the main
list of other reference materials. If you have only the “www._” addresses (no
author names), place all of these together at “www” in your reference list. Bear
in mind that (1) Internet sources may easily be examined (and perhaps
dismissed) by readers, and (2) most professional readers will tend to downplay the
significance and/or applicability of web-based findings to your work, unless
they can be attributed to research professionals.
- a lack of
theoretical-reference background (you need this, before introducing your
specific work)
- failure to specify the questions you addressed, and why you
addressed them
-
no account of the biological relevance of your hypothesis/es
- inaccurate or incomplete
descriptions of site, procedures, equipment, etc.
- inaccurate or incomplete
descriptions of what you observed
- tables and figures
unaccompanied by explanations in the text (i.e.
they're left “hanging”)
- tables and figures without
captions, or without legends, or column-headings, etc.
- mis-referencing to table or
figure numbers, or referring to one which isn't there (very hard to
interpret!)
- curves on graphs not bold
enough, or symbols too small to see, or only raw data presented
- no variation shown (this is probably the most frequent error in presenting results)
- statistical results
incorrectly/unclearly expressed, or tests inappropriate (where stats are
possible)
- no summarizing statement of major
findings
- inappropriate inclusion of
material which should be in the Discussion (e.g.
explanations, references)
Back to top of Common Faults section
- failure to discuss all interesting/meaningful
findings from the Results
- failure to consider competing viewpoints from literature
- lack of incisive critical
evaluation… you should be able to draw conclusions, and/or suggest new research
- leaving out a reference you
cited in the text, or putting in a reference you didn't cite in
the text
- making an error in citing
(wrong format, or a mistake in author name, spelling, page number, etc.)
- “using” a reference without actually referring to it (also called plagiarism...)
- indirect writing (e.g. “The
data were inspected and the following conclusion was made:...” vs. “I found:...”)
- confusing writing (e.g.
dangling modifiers, faulty pronoun referents, jumping from topic to topic)
- sentences too long (often due to too many subordinate clauses)… or too short (mere fragments)
- poor (or no)
proofreading, leading to annoying inconsistencies, misspellings, cut-and-paste
errors, etc.
-
make sure your reader never needs to “back up” or re-read sections to
understand your paper
Back to top of Common Faults section