Note: The asterisks beside each topic provide a rough approximation for the relative number of marks typically lost with each problem. Actual marks will depend on the nature of the paper, the marker, and the seriousness of the problem.
General:
****Inadequate library research: Probably the biggest single weakness in student papers, particularly at the first and second-year level, is a failure to properly research the primary scientific literature, to integrate relevant information into the paper, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion sections, and to properly cite the sources. It is not enough to have lots of references. You must find papers which are relevant to your topic, concisely summarize the relevant information, and indicate exactly where the information came from. Think quality as well as quantity. A common mistake in doing background research for a paper is to focus entirely on the organism being studied. This leads to inclusion of information which is not relevant to the research topic. A paper describing the test of a similar hypothesis on a different organism is often much more relevant than a paper testing an entirely different hypothesis on the same organism.
***Insufficient detail provided: Science requires precision in communication as well as measurements. You need to say exactly what you mean. Avoid platitudes and vague generalities when introducing your ideas, especially the hypothesis being tested. Describe each individual result, and interpret each result in your discussion. The old saw about “baffling them with BS” doesn’t work well in a research paper.
**Too many direct quotes: Information drawn from the scientific literature should almost always be paraphrased rather than included as a direct quote. Putting the information in your own words will make it much easier to integrate information from several sources into an organized and logical narrative. (It will also show your instructor that you understand the material and are not just copying what you have read.)
**Digressions/lack of focus: Being brief and to the point is important in research papers. You can’t afford to stray from the main elements of your paper. As you write your paper, constantly ask yourself: Does the reader need to know this? If the answer is no, ruthlessly axe the information out. Some examples of things not to include are: “Chatty” descriptions of how you chose your research topic, techniques you ended up not using, or “interesting facts” about your study organism (see above). Introductions are particularly prone to this problem.
**Poor organization: The first step toward a clear paper is one which is well organized. Think deeply about how your ideas fit together, so that you can present them in a clear and logical way. A paper which is not laid out in the IMRAD format, with headings for each section, will be marked down heavily.
**Poor style (spelling and grammar): Typically when you write a paper there will be some marks associated with style, but the cost of a poorly written paper goes much deeper. You will certainly be marked on the quality of the ideas you present, and if those ideas are not clearly presented, you will not get as as high a mark. Few people can be great writers, but we can all be competent writers. Unfortunately, for most of us it involves lots of hard work — practice to improve our general writing skills, plus editing and rewriting to improve the quality of each paper. Papers written at the last minute are not likely to earn a good mark, and this is particularly true of research papers. Spell-checkers are an invaluable aid. However, relying on them too much can result in insertion of the right spelling, but the wrong word. See here for some additional details on writing style.
**Not in paragraph form: Do not put parts of your paper in point form, and generally avoid bulleted or numbered lists. If information is easier to present in tabular form, put it in a table.
**Improper or missing citations: Most papers have some marks associated with proper citation, but as with style, the cost of not citing can go much further. A much larger pool of marks are likely to be associated with the quality of your library research, and if citations are missing, or it is not clear what information is being cited, some or all of these marks are likely to be lost.
**Overstatement or exaggeration: Your paper should not make any claims which you are unable to back up. Avoid exaggerated claims for the usefulness of your study, and conclusions which cannot be justified with your data. Use adjectives sparingly. Show your readers that you view your study with as critical an eye as they do.
Abstract:
**Too much nonessential detail: Abstracts need to be pared down to just the important ideas and information. Most of the details must wait until the body of the paper.
**Important parts of paper not covered: The abstract should cover all sections of your paper (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion), although methods can often be reduced to a single sentence. Don’t start jump right into your results without explaining what the study was about, and don’t stop before describing the key results and what they mean.
Introduction:
***Current study not placed in context of previous research: It’s not enough to summarize some other papers. You need to show how your study is building on that previous research to add to our knowledge of this field.
***Hypothesis not clearly stated: The whole focus of a typical research paper is the test of a hypothesis. If it is unclear what hypothesis and prediction the study is designed to test, interpretation of the results will make little sense (translation: your mark on the discussion is also likely to suffer).
**Topic not introduced early: A good introduction provides readers with direction. It tells them right from the start what the paper is going to be about (at least in general terms).
**Abstract treated as part of introduction: The abstract is an independent summary of the paper. Don’t assume readers start with the abstract before starting the introduction. The abstract should make sense without reading the paper, and the paper should make sense without reading the abstract.
*Not in present tense: As a framing section, the introduction should be in present tense.
Methods:
**Parts of study not covered or not sufficient detail: Make sure you have not missed out any parts of your study and that you have provided enough detail to allow the study to be repeated by another researcher with substantially the same results.
**Type of study misunderstood: You should clearly understand whether you have performed an observational study or experiment, and describe your study in the proper terms.
*Not concise: Methods must be detailed, but work as hard as possible to describe the study briefly. Avoid repetition and wordy descriptions.
*Materials list included: Do not include a separate list of materials used. Describe materials in the context of how they are being used.
*Type of statistical analysis not included: The inferential statistical tests you run on your data are part of your methods and should be briefly noted (the test used along with an appropriate citation is normally sufficient).
*Not in past tense: Methods describes what was done, and should be in past tense.
Results:
***Statistical analysis correctly performed and described: Results cannot be interpreted without proper inferential statistics. Key elements of statistical tests (typically the test statistic, degrees of freedom, p-value and conclusion) must be presented in text or a table. Details of calculations should not be included.
**Important trends not concisely described in text: Your first objective in writing a results section is to give your reader the “big picture.” Trends in data should be stated clearly and prominently in your results section, along with the statistical analysis confirming the trends, and with reference to the tables or figures summarizing the relevant data.
**Raw data included: Raw data is never included in results if it can be summarized for greater clarity.
**Graphs and tables improperly laid out: Graphs and tables should follow the appropriate style. (Note that some details of style may vary between fields, and between instructors.) Don’t cut and paste output from computer statistical tests directly into your paper.
*Graphs and tables not referred to at appropriate place in text: Don’t force your readers to guess when they should be looking at the graphs and tables. At the point where you describe trends, include a reference to the graph or table which illustrates that trend.
Discussion:
***Results not interpreted with respect to hypothesis: You need to deal with each trend presented in your results, and relate the results to the hypothesis being tested. Indicate not only whether the data support the hypothesis, but how strong the support is, and what factors need to be taken into account in weighing the evidence.
***Results not put in context of previous research: Discuss what previous researchers have found in exploring this question, and how your results compare to theirs. (Are they consistent? If not, speculate as to the reasons.)
**Conclusions made which are not justified based on results obtained: Results of a single study can never prove a hypothesis, and only rarely disprove one with near certainty. Students have a tendency to discuss results in black and white terms rather than critically evaluating how strong the support for a hypothesis is (and why).
**Discussion of results incomplete: Every discussion will be different, but should provide a full treatment of all data presented, including discussion of any odd or unexpected results, and directions for future research.
Literature Cited:
(See also under general)
**Citations not in name-year format: Numbered citations are not commonly used in the physical sciences. Use numbered citations only if specifically requested by your instructor.
**Citations and Lit. Cited list don’t match up: A Literature Cited section is not a bibliography of all works consulted. It lists works from which you have taken specific information or ideas included in your paper. Each citation should match up with an entry in the Lit. Cited list, and each entry in the Lit. Cited list should match up with a citation in the text.
**Lit. Cited list not alphabetical: The list is not numbered. It is alphabetical by last name of the first author. (Order of authors is never changed.)
*Information missing from Lit. Cited entries: Details of style for Lit. Cited entries vary from journal to journal, and from instructor to instructor, but the information included remains substantially the same. Make sure all your entries are accurate and complete.
*Style not consistent: Ensure all entries in your Lit. Cited list follow the style requested by your instructor. (E.g. don’t bold face volume number in one entry and italicize it in another.)
Final Note:
Two final pieces of advice may be more important than anything above. 1) Leave yourself enough time to write your paper. A few lucky individuals can write great prose from inspiration. For the rest of us, it requires perspiration, and lots of editing and rewriting. 2) Take advantage of every opportunity to ask questions and get feedback before you hand in your paper. Most instructors will be happy to provide suggestions and assistance while you are writing your paper, but go through a remarkable transformation once the paper is submitted.