Guide to Writing an Effective Research Paper

Edited by Bill Menke and Dallas Abbott for the Intern Program, July 20, 2019

The basic elements of the Research Paper are:

Title
Author(s) and affiliations
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Recommendations
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
In addition, your Research Paper May Include
Figures
Table
Appendix

Description of each element:

Title: The title should be just one or two lines long and chosen to give prospective readers a
good idea about what the paper is about. Some titles just refer to the type of study being
undertaken, other hint at the major finding.
Author(s) and affiliations. You should settle upon a consistent way of writing your name, and
consistently use it throughout your career, so that a person who reads and likes your most recent
papers can easily spot your next.

The author list should have your name first, since you are the lead author of your Research
Paper. Collaborators, such as your Intern Advisor should come afterward. Be sure to ask
collaborators’ permission before including them as authors, and be sure to write their name in
whatever standard way they use.

You should state your affiliation this way “ name of your undergraduate institution when you
applied to the intern program”. For example,” Housatonic Community College”. If you want
to add a second affiliation of “Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University”, you
can do so.

A variety of formats are in use for the author list and affiliations. You should be guided by the
format used in the journal that you most-frequently relied upon during your research. This one is
pretty common and is preferred for your paper and your final abstract:
Name1,2, Name2, Name2 and Name3
1
Housatonic Community College, Bridgeport Connecticut
2
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades New York
3
University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon

Abstract: The abstract structure generally follows that of the overall paper, with sections
corresponding to aspects of the introduction, methods, results and discussion. Abstracts are short,
but writing them is deceivingly hard, as they need to be packed with a lot of
information. Because the abstract is the first thing a person reads on your paper, a good abstract
sets you up for success, but a bad abstract will put the reader off, not provide enough information
on your study, and generally give the reader a bad impression. Many successful abstracts have
these parts: (1 sentence) Overview of problem, reference to broader question being investigated.
Should be short and relatively interesting and punchy; (1 sentence) A focused overview of what
is unknown, providing context for the study and potentially including the aims, goals or
hypothesis; (1-3 sentences) The methods you undertook to address the problem, in enough detail
to give the reader a general idea of what you did, but not in so much detail that the abstract
becomes long and cumbersome; (2-4 sentences). The general results and outcomes, stating the
major, significant results; (1-2 sentences) The most important discussion point; and (1 last
sentence). The broader implications and importance of your results, which should tie back in to
the broader problem stated at the start of the abstract.

Introduction. You can’t write a good introduction until you know what the body of the paper
says. Consider writing the introductory section(s) after you have completed the rest of the paper,
rather than before.

Be sure to include a hook at the beginning of the introduction. This is a statement of something
sufficiently interesting to motivate your reader to read the rest of the paper, it is an
important/interesting scientific problem that your paper either solves or addresses. You should
draw the reader in and make them want to read the rest of the paper.

The next paragraphs in the introduction should cite previous research in this area. It should cite
those who had the idea or ideas first, and should also cite those who have done the most recent
and relevant work. You should then go on to explain why more work was necessary (your work,
of course.)

Other things that might belong in the introduction include:

1. A statement of the goal of the paper: why the study was undertaken, or why the paper
was written. Do not repeat the abstract.
2. Sufficient background information to allow the reader to understand the context and
significance of the question you are trying to address. All cited work should be directly
relevant to the goals of the thesis. This is not a place to summarize everything you have
ever read on a subject.
 3. Proper acknowledgement of the previous work on which you are building. Sufficient
references such that a reader could, by going to the library, achieve a sophisticated
understanding of the context and significance of the question.
4. The questions that you are addressing and/or the hypotheses that you are testing.
5. An explanation of the scope of your work, and especially what you will and will not be
included.
6. A verbal “road map” guiding the reader to what lies ahead and which clearly states where
introductory material (“old stuff”) ends and your contribution (“new stuff”) begins.

You should break up the introduction section into logical segments by using subheads.

Methods. The methods section contains information that allows the reader to assess the
believability of your results; that is, the information needed by another researcher to replicate
your results. For papers that include lab experiments, describe the materials, set-up, equipment,
calibrations, etc. For papers that include field observations, describe the field site and why it was
selected, when the data was collected, data collection protocols, field equipment and procedures,
etc. For papers that use other people’s data, describe the databases that were accessed and the
way in which data was vetted and analyzed. For papers that use models, describe the source of
the model and something about the theory by which it functions. In all cases, special attention
should be paid to limitations, assumptions, and range of validity.

Citations in this section should be limited to data sources and references of where to find more
complete descriptions of procedures. The Methods section should not include descriptions of
results.

Results. The results are actual statements of observations, including statistics, tables and graphs.
The results should not be interpreted in this section – save that for the Discussion section. Lay
out the case as for a jury. Present sufficient details so that others can draw their own inferences
and construct their own explanations. Use S.I. units (m, s, kg, W, etc.) throughout the thesis.
Mention negative results as well as positive.

Break up your results into logical segments by using subheadings

Key results should be stated in clear sentences at the beginning of paragraphs. It is far better to
say, “X had significant positive relationship with Y (linear regression p<0.01, r^2=0.79)” then to
start with a less informative statement like “There is a significant relationship between X and Y”.
Describe the nature of the findings; do not just tell the reader whether or not they are significant.

Quarantine your observations from your interpretations. The writer must make it crystal clear to
the reader which statements are observation and which are interpretation. In most circumstances,
this is best accomplished by physically separating statements about new observations from
statements about the meaning or significance of those observations. Vast bodies of geological
literature became obsolete with the advent of plate tectonics; the papers that survived are those in
which observations were presented in stand-alone fashion, unmuddied by whatever ideas the
author might have had about the processes that caused the observed phenomena.

Discussion. The Discussion section should start with a few sentences that summarize the most
important results. The discussion section should be a brief essay in itself, answering the
following questions and caveats:

What are the major patterns in the observations? (Refer to spatial and temporal
variations.)
What are the relationships, trends and generalizations among the results?
What are the exceptions to these patterns or generalizations?
What are the likely causes (mechanisms) underlying these patterns resulting
predictions?
Is there agreement or disagreement with previous work?

Interpret results in terms of background laid out in the introduction – what is the relationship of
the present results to the original question? What is the implication of the present results for
other unanswered questions in earth sciences, ecology, environmental policy, etc.?

There are usually several possible explanations for results. Be careful to consider all of them
rather than simply pushing your favorite one. If you can eliminate all but one, that’s great, but
often that is not possible with the data in hand. In that case you should give even treatment to the
remaining possibilities, and try to indicate ways in which future work may lead to their
discrimination.

Avoid bandwagons: A special case of the above. Avoid promoting a currently fashionable point
of view unless your results really do strongly support them.

Make sure to communicate the things we now know or understand that we didn’t know or
understand before the present work. Include the evidence or line of reasoning supporting each
interpretation. Explicitly state why each new result is significant; that is, why the reader should
care.

This section should be rich in references to similar work and background needed to interpret
results. Be careful, however, not to make your discussion section too long or verbose!

Conclusions. The Conclusions should restate the strongest and most important conclusion that
you can make from your results. It should be stated clearly and simply, to help the reader
remember it. You should refer back to problem, as posed in the Introduction, and describe the
conclusions that you reached from carrying out this investigation, summarize new observations,
new interpretations, and new insights that have resulted from the present work. However, do not
repeat word-for-word the abstract, introduction or discussion.

Include the broader implications of your results.

Recommendations. The Recommendation section provides an opportunity for you to explain
how your research can be used in the future. If your research involves a societal problem, you
can recommend remedial action to solve the problem. If your research has identified
unexplained phenomena, you can recommend further research to fill in gaps in our
understanding. And you can suggest directions for future investigations on this or related topics.

Acknowledgments. In this section you can thank anyone who helped you with your research,
who provided you with data, samples or material, or who supported you financially.

You should include the sentence: “The author gratefully acknowledges support from the Lamont
Summer Intern Program, which is funded by the National Science Foundations through its
Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program OR the Earth Institute of Columbia
University and its affiliates, OR the International Ocean Discovery Program, Barnard College,
OR the Southern University of Science and Technology (China) OR private donors.

You should also check with your Intern Advisor to see whether additional funding sources
should be acknowledged.

Bibliography. The bibliography is an alphabetical list (by author) of all the papers that you
cited in your paper. (It does not include papers that you did not cite, even though you may have
read them). By convention the following is considered mandatory:

The last name and first initial of the complete set of authors,
The full title of the paper
The name of the journal and volume number
The page range
The year of publication
The DOI

Many different formats are in use for ordering the information in a given bibliographic reference.
You should be guided by the format you most often encounter in the journals that you relied
upon for your research. This one is pretty common:
Author list (year). Title, Journal, volume, pages, DOI
E.g.
Menke, W., P. Skryzalin, V. Levin, T. Harper, F. Darbyshire, and T. Dong (2016), The Northern
Appalachian Anomaly: A modern asthenospheric upwelling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 10,173–
10,179, doi:10.1002/2016GL070918
In any case, pick a single format and stick with it!
Many different ways are used to cite the papers within the text. Again, you should be guided by
the format you most encounter in the papers you use. But citing the paper, above, as (Menke et
al. 2016) is pretty common way to do it. If there are only two authors, the last names of the two
authors should be cited like this (Menke and Menke, 2016).
Figures. Every figure should be accompanied by a caption. The caption should start with the
figure number (e.g. “Figure 1), and then have a paragraph that explains the figure. Be sure to
explain the overall figure (e.g. “Map of the study region”) and each item contained in the figure
(e.g. “Seismic stations (triangles) and earthquake hypocenters (stars) are shown). Ending the
caption with a sentence pointing out a major feature is sometimes helpful (e.g. “Note that most
earthquakes occur in a northeast-southwest striking zone”).

You must “call out” each figure in the text. For example, “A map of earthquakes (Figure 1)
indicates that most occur in a northeast-southwest striking zone thought to be a strike-slip fault”.

Figures should be numbered so that the call-outs are sequential. Do not refer to figure 4 before
you refer to figure 1!

You may either scatter the figures throughout the text, or append them to the end of the paper. A
figure’s caption should be placed immediately after the figure (and preferably on the same page).

Tables. Tables are hard to read, so use them sparingly. Every column in the table should have a
header that gives the variable name and units of measurement. Every table should be
accompanied by a caption. The caption should start with the table number (e.g. “Table 1”), and
then have a paragraph that explains the table. Be sure to explain the overall table (e.g. “table of
station locations”) and any information about a column that won’t fit into the column header
(e.g. “The latitude and longitudes were determined with GPS, and the elevations with a
barometric altimeter”).

You must “call out” each table in the text. For example, “The measurements were made by nine
seismic stations (Table 1) arranges in 3 by 3 grid”.

Tables should be numbered so that the call-outs are sequential. Do not refer to table 4 before
you refer to table 1!

You may either scatter the tables throughout the text, or append them to the end of the paper (and
after appended figures). A table’s caption should be placed immediately before the table (and
preferably on the same page).

Appendix. The Appendix provides a place for ancillary material that you want to preserve but
which is not directly used in the paper. For example, suppose that you analyzed ten photographs
in your paper, and that your main results are in a graph that shows a trend between features.
While you might only show one photograph and the figure documenting the trend line in the
body of the paper, you can put all ten in an Appendix.

Obviously, while an Appendix will work for 10 photographs, it won’t work for 10,000 of them.
Appendices are not always that useful!
An Appendix can contain text, figures and tables, just like the main paper. Figures and Tables
should be numbered separately from the main paper, starting with Figure A.1 and Table A.1
(where the “A” is for “Appendix”). Traditionally, the appendix does not contain any references.
Note: We gratefully acknowledge that we drew heavily upon the Barnard College Environmental
Sciences Department’s “How to Write a Thesis” website (https://cool.barnard.edu/envsci/) in
preparing this document. It is attributed to Kim Kastens, Stephanie Pfirman, Martin Stute, Bill
Hahn, Dallas Abbott, and Chris Scholz.