PAPER:
Your final group paper should adhere to the guidelines detailed below, which are typical of scientific publications (From Guide to Writing, Organizing, and Presenting Research Papers, Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University):
Components:
Title page (unnumbered)
Abstract page
Table of Contents
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results and Interpretations
Discussion
Conclusions
Bibliography
Appendices
Title:
Choose a title that briefly but fully describes what is in the paper. Things to consider are:
- Topic
- Type of study
- Any special conditions or restrictions on the study
Abstract
A brief statement (usually <200 words but many are longer) presenting the major points and conclusions of the study. Abstracts are not a summary of what you did, like, “First we did this, then we did that, and then we will tell you what the conclusions are.” Abstracts contain factual, scientific information; the quintessential conclusions of the study.
Ideally abstracts are written last, after all your results and conclusions, but sometimes this is not possible, especially if you must turn one in early for a symposium. An Abstract should be able to stand alone since often this is the only part of a paper read; it is a summary which tells a person if the paper contains the information they want.
Introduction
The Introduction explains what the paper is about, the nature and importance of the study, the ecological process(es) being evaluated, where it fits into the state of scientific knowledge at the time of writing, and how it adds to or changes that understanding. Make sure you properly reference this section.
An Introduction should also capture the imagination of the reader and make them want to read the paper; it should explain why and how this study is important. You must convince the reader they will be better off for having read this paper, that they will see this subject in a new way which will change their understanding.
Materials and Methods of Study
All the data, sources, and methods you used, described in enough detail that someone else could evaluate the study from your descriptions. One of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge is its repeatability; the idea that someone else could gather the information and get the same results.
Results
Here you describe the outcome of your study; an analysis of what you have learned. It may include descriptions, tables of data, graphs and charts of experimental results, etc. This is a dispassionate, factual presentation of data, without a lot of interpretation. You should point out the important features of the data that are presented in a table or graph when it is mentioned in the text. It is not necessary however to comment on every nuance.
The data should be laid out clearly and fully enough that someone who knows the field could interpret it without even looking at your interpretations in the Discussion section. And you hope that another person in the field would come to the same conclusions you did, or that you will be able to persuade them with your research results that your interpretation is the best.
Discussion
Here you discuss the results of your research, how it fits in with other related research, and its implications for future research. Make sure you are discussing your ecological process and using relevant ecological terms. It is as important in this section as other sections of the paper to be objective, but this is where you finally get a chance to speak your mind.
Discussion of results explains what your data means, how it all fits together, and how interpretations logically follow from the data. You must be as objective and unbiased as possible here. You are essentially saying what any knowledgeable person in the field could deduce from the data themselves. This is also where you tell a novice to the discipline the significance of the data, while at the same time not insulting the intelligence of the expert.
Fit with related research puts your results in the context of the discipline and field. How do your results compare with similar studies done by others, past and present? Where do you agree or disagree with the conclusions of others, and why? What new things have come out of your study that were not known before? This section requires that you have searched the literature in the field, and know it history and significance. This is also where you give credit where credit is due to the researchers or previous students on whose work you have based your study.
Discussion of the implications of the research is where you finally make the transition from the researcher (gatherer of data, runner of experiments, and interpreter) to the scientist. This part of the discussion section is where you comment on the topic you researched. You may have special insights into the meaning of your study, or you may have formed unique opinions about the results of the research, or you may have thoughts about the implications of your results for the particular situation you studied, or the discipline as a whole. This may be somewhat speculative, and should be interesting or relevant to the hypothesis posed.
Conclusions
Briefly summarize the most important conclusions of your paper. And remember, often the only parts of a paper someone will read are the Abstract and Conclusions, so these sections should be internally consistent and self sufficient. Like the abstract, this part is one of the last written.
Literature Cited:
Lists only the papers referenced directly in the text. In the text use the format (Author, year) and then include full reference at end of paper.
References are listed alphabetically by author, and by date for each author, at the end of a paper. Below are typical examples from a [1] journal, [2] GSA Special Paper, [3] Masters Thesis, [4] book, [5] government publication, and [6] USGS Professional Paper. Construct references for other sources in a similar manner.
[1] JOURNAL:
Dott, R.H. Jr., and Bourgeois, Joanne, 1982, Hummocky stratification: Significance and its variable bedding sequences: Bulletin Geological Society of America, v. 93, p. 663-680.
[2] GSA SPECIAL PAPER:
McCave, I.N., 1968, Shallow and marginal marine sediments associated with
the Catskill complex: Geological Society of America Special Paper 106, p. 75-107.
[3] MASTER’S THESIS:
McDowell, R. J., 1988, Depositional environments of the Upper Chemung and Lower Hampshire Formations of east-central West Virginia: M.S. thesis, West Virginia University, 168 p.
[4] BOOK:
Meckel, L.D., 1970, Paleozoic alluvial deposition in the Central Appalachians; A summary: in Fisher, G. W., Pettijohn, F.J., Reed, J.C. Jr., and Weaver, K.N., Studies of Appalachian Geology, Central and Southern: Interscience Publishers.
[5] US GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION:
Wilson, Frederic H., 1985, The Alaska Peninsula Terrane: A Definition: Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
[6] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN
Cavaroc, V.V. and R.M. Flores, 1991, Red Beds of the Triassic Chugwater Group, Southwestern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1917-E, Washington D.C.
Some hints
- FIGURES:
- All figures must be numbered in the order in which they are discussed in the paper.
- All figures must have captions.
- Figures may be your own, or figures taken from papers you have researched. Figures not your own must be identified by author and date (like any reference) at the end of the caption.
- You may insert figures within the text, or you may group them all in order at the back, after the text.
- Be sure to carefully proofread the final draft several times before submission. Have everyone in the group read through the final document to catch spelling, grammatical, and conceptual errors. It is often useful for someone to read a hardcopy. Relying on spell check is risky.
- Avoid Use of the First Person. Sentences like “My partner recorded the data while I measured…” or “We started our field work on a beautiful fall day at the bottom of the mountain,” are unacceptable in scientific writing. If you do have something to say about your techniques just convert them into a direct statement in the active voice.
CVEN 3434 Applied Ecology Final Project Grading Guide
|
1. The title and abstract emphasize the nature of the study and clearly summarize the findings and their significance, paper well organized with Table of Contents, final summary and conclusions (2 points) |
|
|
2. The introduction of the report describes the relevant background of the ecological process addressed in the study and the rationale for the approach. Use of outside references to provide relevant background (2 points)
|
|
|
3. The materials and methods are correctly implemented and clearly explained (2 points)
|
|
|
4. The data analysis was thorough, used multiple sources. Results are analyzed in a complete manner and clearly presented in the text, tables and figures. (6 points)
|
|
|
5. The results are interpreted in clearly and in a substantive manner that evaluates the ecological process being evaluated. Suggested framework followed to structure findings. Use of outside references to support some of the findings. Data limitations and suggestions for future sampling to better understand the ecological process should also be included (8 points)
|