Scientific Writing

Tags

Cegep2

Chemistry

Word count

1271 words

Reading time

8 minutes

Sections

Abstract

Summary of the whole experiment

• 100-300 words short paragraph
• Written last
• No citations

Structure:

1. Introduction (background or problem)
2. Presentation of experiment & justification of purpose
3. Method (description of methodology)
4. Results
5. Discussion (interpretation of results)

[!example]+

1. Knuzzles are everyone’s favorite pet, but they are notoriously difficult to bring to full size in a domestic environment.
2. In this experiment, we test one of the emerging commercial products (Treatment X) promoted to ==assist knuzzle growth==.
3. In three separate trials, we applied Treatment X to five commercially bought knuzzles for a period of ten days, while maintaining a batch of five untreated knuzzles under otherwise identical conditions.
4. Our results indicated that the growth of the treated group (10.1 ± 0.2 %) significantly exceeded that of the control group (1.2 ± 0.1 %).
5. We conclude that Treatment X ==holds promise as a product favoring domestic knuzzle growth==.

Objective

Statement of the goal and opt. hypothesis of the experiment

[!example] The aim of this experiment ==was== to determine whether the application of Treatment X led to a significant increase in the rate of knuzzle growth.

Introduction

Outline of the background and the motivation of the experiment

Contains:

• Broad area of research
• Relevant theory
• Importance of the experiment to the field of research

[!example]+
With the ==growing popularity== of knuzzles as household pets, there are number of commercially-available products promoted to enhance knuzzle growth in a domestic environment. Treatment X, produced by Pharmaceutix Y, contains WU27, a complex polycarbonate known to increase the proliferation of basal knuzzle cells under laboratory conditions. The purpose of this experiment is to ==determine whether this product actively promotes the growth of knuzzles== in a natural, domestic environment.

Method

Description of how the experiment was carried out

• Prefer passive voice
• Sufficiently detailed so that the experiment can be reproduced

Structure:

1. Materials and opt. diagram of setup
2. Preparation if it's not clear from materials
3. Procedure
   • Single paragraph
   • Steps and justification
   • Parameters measured
   • Parameters calculated
   • Opt. parameter changed between trials
4. ==Precautions==: step that goes beyond the standard use of the equipment

[!example]+

1. A commercial supply of Treatment X, 30 adult knuzzles, aged 6 to 12 months, one dually separated transparent tank, and vernier callipers were used in the experiment.
2. Thirty knuzzles were obtained by random selection from a local breeder.
3. In each trial, ten knuzzles were randomly separated into two equally sized groups ==to avoid selection bias==. Each group was placed in one bin of the tank. The treated group was fed daily with Treatment X as a 10-g food supplement; the untreated (control) group was not. Each trial lasted ten days. The ==diameter of each knuzzle was measured== at the start of the trial and again at the end, using vernier callipers. The ==fractional growth was calculated== using Excel and a Python script was written to perform the statistical calculations. The trial was performed ==three times== as described above ==with different knuzzle populations==.
4. The cubicle was rotated daily to balance environmental factors for each knuzzle group.

Results

Presentation of experimental data

Contains:

• Table & Figure
  • Raw data as table
• Explanation of how uncertainties were calculated

[!example] Table 1. shows the diameter of the ten knuzzles (five untreated, five treated) before and after the ten-day period.

Analysis

Determination of the overall result of the experiment

Contains:

• Summary of result
  • Opt. statistical analysis
  • Calculation of relevant quantities, e.g. number of moles from volume data
    • Opt. Equation
• Assessment of random uncertainty

[!example]+
The fractional growth over the three trials was 10.1 ==± 0.2 %== for the treated group, as opposed to 1.2 ==± 0.1 %== for the untreated group. The results thus demonstrated that the application of Treatment X ==led to significant knuzzle growth== enhancement over a ten-day period.

Discussion

Interpretation of the result

• Use active voice

Contains:

• Assessment of the consistency of the result
  • Comparison with theory or hypothesis
• Possible factors causing random or systematic uncertainty
  • Address any anomaly in the data
  • Ways to improve the method in a future study
• Impact of results

[!example]+
We demonstrated that the application of Treatment X led to significant knuzzle growth enhancement over a ten-day period. This is consistent with both the manufacturer’s claim [Ref] and studies performed on isolated basal knuzzle cells [Ref].
In our study, it is possible that the separation of the treated and untreated groups may have presented alternative factors for preferential growth; notably, the treated knuzzles ==may have experienced a cooperative effect either influencing or inhibiting their mutual growth==. Hence, in future trials, all knuzzles could be separated during the trial period.
Our study therefore justifies future study on the effectiveness and safety of Treatment X as a domestic knuzzle food supplement.

Conclusion

Outline of the important results and how the objective was addressed

• Short paragraph

Contains:

• Objective
• Result that addresses the objective
• Opt. whether the result supports the model or hypothesis in the objective

[!example]+
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether the application of Treatment X led to a significant increase in the rate of knuzzle growth. The fractional growth over ten days was significantly greater for the group treated with Treatment X (10.1 ± 0.2 %) compared to the untreated group (1.2 ± 0.1 %). We conclude that Treatment X enhances knuzzle growth.

References

List of authoritative citations

• All external facts must be referenced.

Language

• ==Avoid excessive words==
  • e.g. After careful measurement, we found that the length of the rod was 12.3 cm. -> The length of the rod was 12.3 cm.
• ==Precise==
  • e.g. We conclude that the rod was too short. -> We conclude that the rod’s length was less than the theoretical value.
  • e.g. suction tube -> pipette
• Objective
• Formal
• Experiment in past tense
• Judgement and ideas in present tense
• Prefer reformulation with citation over quotation

Format

Title

• Concise
• Informative

Authors

• Use full names

Affiliation

Place where the experiment was performed
Institute, City (Province), Country

Date

Month d, yyyy

• Avoid numerical forms <= different interpretation

Table

Contains:

• Caption
  • Title
    • Repeat if placed at the top
  • Short description
  • Opt. source
• Header
• Data
• ==Summary values==, e.g. average

[!example]+

Figure

Contains:

• Caption
  • Title
    • Repeat if placed at the top
    • Descriptive
      • ==No var1 vs. var2, var1 as a function of var2, etc.==
  • Short description
  • Opt. source
• Data points
• Opt. error bars
• Axis labels
• Legend

[!example]+

Equation

• Numbered consecutively
  • Referred to as:
    • Eq. (x) inside a sentence
    • Equation (x) at the start of a sentence
• First state the formula (without substitution)

[!example]+
For a right triangle, the Pythagorean theorem ==(Eq. 1)== can be used to calculate the hypotenuse length $L$ given the lengths of the two perpendicular sides $a$ and $b$.

$L^2=a^2+b^2$ ==(1)==

==Equation 1== can therefore be used to calculate the length of the rod ($L$) from its measured vertical and horizontal projections ($a=12\mathrm{cm}$ and $b=16\mathrm{cm}$):

$L^2=({12}^2+{16}^2){\mathrm{cm}}^2$ ==(2)==
$L^2=400{\mathrm{cm}}^2$ ==(3)==
$L=20\mathrm{cm}$ ==(4)==

Contributors

Ajitani Hifumi

Changelog

Last edited 3 minutes ago

View full history

3c3c501-Vault update: 2025-01-22T17:35:51

beadf56-Vault update: 2025-01-20T15:44:00