Title

You D. Author and Maybe U. Partner Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Submitted October 4, 2000

Abstract

You may copy the format of this example in writing a report. In addition, keep in mind what is said
here about each section. In general, the abstract of a scientific paper is a single paragraph that constitutes a
concise summary of all and only what is learned in the paper. If the topic is obscure, the first sentence may
give history, motivation, or context for the work. If the method is novel or critical, it should be mentioned.
The rest of the words describe what was found (the observations) and what it was taken to mean (the
conclusions). As a rule of thumb, the abstract should be less than 200 words. Also, keep in mind that
literature searches often probe abstracts for keywords, so word choice may make the difference in whether
the report reaches your desired audience.

Introduction
The first paragraph usually gives the big picture for the subject you will report on. It tells what is
known, and refers the reader to the source of that knowledge [1]. The last sentence or two presents the general
question in the area to which the work reported in the paper pertains, in other words, the big picture. After
reading this paragraph, the reader should be able to decide if the subject interests them.
Other paragraphs develop the specific questions the paper will address. Often, this requires that specific
works on the same or related questions are summarized and referenced [2,3]. After reading to this point, the
reader should have a good sense of the angle from which this paper will illuminate the big picture.
The final paragraph states what the rest of the paper will describe and prepares the reader for the
conclusions. Sometimes, for exceptionally long papers, it makes sense to comment explicitly section by section,
like a sort of table of contents. After reading this paragraph, the reader should be able to decide if the paper
as a whole or which, if any, part of it interests them.

Theory/Background
This section introduces the reader to the specific logic that motivates the experiment and/or its design. It
gets into a level of detail that is inappropriate for the introduction but essential for understanding how and
why the work was done. Ask yourself, what did you need to brush up on or learn in order to understand what
you were doing? Lay that out here to give the reader a hand [4].
Exactly how much detail is appropriate? As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't assume that the reader has
read or understood the articles and books you referenced in the introduction; but later, in the discussion
section, you can and should assume that they have read and understood this section. Since they have
demonstrated enough interest to read beyond the introduction, they deserve an escort through the material. On
the other hand, this doesn't mean that they need you to do algebra in their face.
Recognizing the right balance is easiest taught by experience. You write one; you read someone else's; you
write another... you'll get the idea. It's an important part of what you are here to learn: how to participate in the
exchange of scientific ideas and knowledge.

Materials and Methods

This section lays out exactly what you did, with which materials and equipment, in sufficient detail that
someone else could reproduce it.
Here again, you have to show judgment in the selection of details. Ask yourself; why did you use each
instrument you used? What specifications of those instruments were most important? Letting the reader know
the make and model of a key piece of equipment is shorthand for listing its specifications, but is only necessary if
the average version of whatever it is would not suffice. If in doubt, state the make and model.
Ask yourself, why did you do each step that you did? What information gained or preparation obtained was
useful later on? Let the readers know so that they can decide for themselves if it is necessary in their laboratory.
And don't rely on words alone. A figure is helpful when describing how several pieces of equipment were
used together. But you can't just drop in a figure and assume the reader will look at it and know why it's there.
Always direct the reader to look at the figure at the appropriate point in the text. The figures will be attached at
the end of the document, after a page of associated captions. (It may seem awkward, but this is the standard
for submitting scientific papers for publication. You can read more about it in the last section below.)
As you write, remember, you cannot simply reference the Lab Manual. It is not a published document, so it
isn't reasonable to assume that the reader will have access to it. Provide some additional sources. Also, you cannot
simply quote/reproduce (i.e., plagiarize) the Manual here. The entire report must be in your own words.
Although the Manual is not sufficient, you still must cite everything you use, including the Manual.

Results
This section presents the fruits of your labor in a completely objective manner. The goal is to document
exactly what occurred as concisely and precisely as possible. You need to know the difference between raw data
and result, and between result and interpretation. Sometimes the raw data is the result. Sometimes the result
must be extracted from the data (e.g., an average over several trials, a function of several measurements, a trend).
Results are usually quantitative (measurements), sometimes qualitative (observations), but never a matter of
opinion or interpretation. You are sure to have opinions and interpretations about your results, but they should be
relegated to the next section. Dividing it up this way facilitates healthy scientific debate by helping the readers form
their own opinion about what Nature is revealing in your experiment.
Results are often best presented in a graph, table, chart, or other figure. Again, the text should make
reference to and describe the figure, pointing out what is most important. E.g., The slope decreases by half in
the upper 10% of the temperature range. It should also place the results in their experimental context. E.g.,
The magnetic field was ramped slowly up and down, several times, each time to a higher final value. Each time
the resistance of the sample . The readers can and will refer back at the Methods section for details,
but they shouldn't have to look there to understand the figure.
Always, along the way, mention the level of accuracy of your measurements. The measurements you
make are not error free. On the other hand, don't devalue them any more than absolutely necessary.
Overestimating error is the easiest way to see only what you expect. That makes for bad science. Think carefully
about what source of error dominates in your experiment, mention it, and take care to propagate it properly
through all calculations that you use to get from raw data to result. Leave any in-depth discussion of why it's
there and how to improve upon it for the next section, though.

Discussion
This is the section in which you get to get personal. It will, in general, be the longest section of your report.
Certainly, it will require the most thought. Here is where you lay out your understanding of what your observations
mean. A typical paragraph might begin with a recap of one of the results, followed by a statement of what you
think should be concluded based on that result, and then by your reasoning. Or it can be the other way
around: result, reasoning, conclusion. As with all writing, you have to find your own style.
Are you having trouble getting started? Ask yourself, what did I learn? Make a list. These are
your conclusions. Then ask, how do I know it is true? Fill in the answers under each of the items in
your list. This will be a combination of results and reasoning. The reasoning may draw heavily on the
framework laid in the theory/background section, which need only be referenced here.
Scan over your list. Is there a natural order to the list? For example, do some conclusions depend on
others? Do some come from raw data and others from data analysis? Organize the results and discussion
section in a logical and similar order.
Again, figures can be helpful in getting your message across. You will certainly refer back to
figures of results introduced in the previous section. You may need to create new figures to support some of
your conclusions.
Ask yourself, how do my results look in light of the published works of others, and vice versa? Give a
sense of the specific scientific context that your work enriches. This will probably involve some of the
references you used in the introduction, and may require new references. In all cases, the discussion here is
specific and well developed, whereas in the introduction it was necessarily brief.
Besides the phenomenon you were studying, you may have learned something about the way you
went about studying it. These lessons can be explained here as well, although they are usually
subordinated to the science itself. For example, if the error in your measurements was interesting, because
of its size, its origin, its systematic or stochastic nature, etc., it might be worth discussing.

Conclusions

This section closes the report. It is usually only a sentence or two, not very long. It may begin by
restating what was done and what was observed. It is sure to include a summary of the conclusions drawn
in the discussion. Finally, any speculations about further experiments, suggested improvements to the
present experiment, or ramifications for the big picture belong here, assuming they are very brief. If they
are a major point following from of your work, they probably belong in the Discussion.
References

The examples below follow the style conventions of the American Institute of Physics (AIP). In the text,
references should be cited by number, in the order in which they appear. In this section, references are listed in that
same order, with the numbers preceding them. For references to journals, give the names of all authors, give
the title of the article in full, abbreviate the journal names and provide inclusive pagination. For references to
books, include all authors' names, chapter title (if any), editor (if any), book title, city of publication, publisher's
name and year of publication. For references to your own comments (like footnotes), no particular formatting
is needed. Some examples follow below. Replace them with your own, making as many copies as you need.
[1]

J.D. Jackson, "Plane electromagnetic waves and wave propagation," in Classical Electrodynamics, (Wiley,
New York, 1975).

[2]

H.J. Simon, D.E. Mitchell and J.G. Watson, "Surface plasmons in silver films - a novel undergraduate
experiment," Am. J. Phys. 43 (7), 630 - 636 (1975).

[3]

This calculation is based on an estimated viscosity ri = 0.01 poise and temperature T = 300K.

[4]

K.v. Klitzing, G. Dorda and M. Pepper, "New method for high-accuracy determination of the finestructure constant based on quantized hall resistance," Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (6), 494-497 (1980).

Figure Captions
Even though you describe your figures in the body of the report, every figure needs a caption to go
with it. The first sentence (perhaps only a clause) is a title for the figure (e.g., Laser beam intensity
profile in the radial direction.) It tells the reader what the figure is about. The rest of the caption explains
features that are too detailed to mention in the body of report. For example, the caption can be used to
explain the different symbols and line styles in a graph. For a schematic of the equipment set-up, it is
common to place single letter labels in the figure and explain them in the caption. Occasionally, the last
sentence in a caption might emphasize an important feature in the figure (e.g., "Note the small plateau
near 30C indicating... "). And that's all. Keep it short. Very rarely should it be as long as this paragraph.
When submitting a paper for publication, the captions go on a separate page, like this one.

Fig. 1. Place caption text here.

Fig. 2. Place caption text here.
Fig. 3. Place caption text here.
You may do that; but it probably better to type the caption below each figure.

Figures
When you are preparing a paper for publication, the figures are attached at the very end of the report,
numbered and in the order that they are cited in the text. You may do that. You may also insert them into the
text, if you can do it neatly. Either way, here are a few principles to keep in mind:
1. Keep them simple. Information should only be included on a 'need to know' basis. Every element of the figure
should be essential to the point(s) the figure is being used to convey. Don't use color if it doesn't mean
something in particular. If you do use color coding, keep the meaning the same in all figures. (Do not use red to show
the absorption spectrum in one figure and to show the emission spectrum in another figure.)
2. Make it dear. Type should be easy to read and not cluttered. Point markers and tick marks should be easy
to see. Graphs should NOT have grid lines. If you want to emphasize the coordinates of a particular point, a
single pair of lines connecting that point to the axes, or an ordered pair of numbers next to the point are most
effective. Of course, axes must always be labeled, and have units. The amount of text should be minimized.
3.

Let it be pleasing to the eye. There is room for style in the visual presentation of scientific information.

What about content? How many figures should you have? What should they contain? Think about
how your paper will be read. A glance at the title is usually followed by flipping through the figures.
Sometimes it is the other way around. A reader should be able to glimpse the whole story from just looking
at the figures and reading their captions.

Finally
When you think you are finished, READ YOUR PAPER ALOUD AND SLOWLY. Is it pleasing to your
ear?