MIT OpenCourseWare


» 进阶搜寻
 课程首页
 教学大纲
 教学时程
 相关阅读资料
 课堂讲稿
 作业
 测验
 专题
 下载课程

专题


本页翻译进度

灯号说明

审定:无
翻译:周沛郁(简介并寄信)
编辑:朱学恒(简介并寄信)

学期专题:有竞争力的生态系研究赞助计划书

概述
计划构想书说明
计划的指示与说明
同行评审程序
计划书发表
其他资讯

概述

本专题乃为期一学期之专题,需撰写一个接受赞助的研究计划,计划中包含一至二个生态学研究的大方法:长期生态研究和(或)生态系实验。实际的研究题目由你决定,但必须使用上述的其中一种研究方法。

The学期专题分5部分,其缴交期限如下:

部分内容 期限 占报告整体的分数比例
计划构想书 第7堂 10
计划 第14堂 40*
计划的同行评审 第16堂 10
计划书最后修定稿(与原稿同时呈交) 第20堂 20*
成果发表 第21至 23堂 20


*最后的纸本报告占本作业总分的60%。首次呈交的报告书占大部分的成绩(换言之,首次呈交即应为完整的计划书),而第二次呈交占的20分则可大大提升你的成绩,计划书修改的良莠评定乃依据各“评审”(包括教师)的建议。

计划书可单独完成或以小组合作进行,小组成员负责计划书中各子题的研究或实验。在期末成果发表时,小组应以团队的方式向评审对其计划书说明辩护。

本作叶的目的在于帮助学生:

  • 思考做生态研究,特别是大尺度和长期生态研究的不同方法
  • 利用麻省理工的图书资源对一主题进行研究,并做出文献回顾
  • 建构可测试的假说,并设计研究计划加以检测
  • 依“审合单位”整合出的原则,组织研究计划并规划其细部计划
  • 经组同行评审的程序,并练习对同学的计划提出建设性的批评
  • 回应同行(与教授)给与的批评,并修改计划书准备第二次计划书缴交
  • 最后在口头发表中报告计划内容并做出说明与辩护

课程网站上将公布去年的计划书范本以做参考。

官方长期生态研究站

美国与南极目前共有24个长期生态研究站(LTER) ,国际间尚有许多建构中的长期生态研究站(ILTER),如巴西、加拿大、匈牙利、哥斯大黎加和以色利。这些研究站各代表世界各地不同的生态群落,提供学者绝佳的机会将其研究加入大型资料与资讯的系统。由上述的网站与网站上的连结,可了解长期生态研究站的实际内容,及正在进行中的研究课题。

若你选择长期生态研究做你的中心主题,你有两种选择:

  1. 完全自创:学生自行建构其长期生态研究站、研究课题及团队成员。选择此项者需合理化其原因,包括为何需建立全新的长期生态研究站,及不利用现存研究站的架构,而选用特别的课题的依据与急迫性。

  2. 在现有的长期生态研究站下建立:美国现有的24个站及数个国际的研究站皆有网站及数据库,可择一并设计在该研究站下可执行的计划。

需注意提出之计划并非观察众家计划内容的综合,而是针对你关心的议题提出实验性的计划(如控制一系统以测试假说)。

生态系的实验

生态学上较大的突破多来自于对整个生态系的实验。有时这样的实验是长期研究(部分在长期生态研究站进行),有时为数个独立的实验。随本作业发出由Carpenter等人(1995)所撰的回顾性文献“生态系统的实验”,应该能让你对如何进行实验与计划有个概念。利用文献搜寻的技巧,还可找到其他的相关参考资料。

对生态系的二种研究方式明显的有重叠处,许多长期生态研究站也有进行生态的实验。无需烦恼自己的计划着重于何者,只要确定计划包含至少一种研究方式即可。

计划构想书说明

审查单位通常要求在计划书缴交期限前许久即提交一份简短的计划构想书,本课程中亦有相同要求。计划构想书至少应有三页(包含封面)并具有以下内容:

  1. 封面:独立出的一页,上面要有叙述性的标题、作者名字、地址、联络电话和电子信箱。

  2. 背景资料部分:简要地综合叙述你所做的背景文献回顾,需列出至少10笔探讨你主题的主要的参考文献。

  3. 工作计划部分:简述想要以长期生态研究或生态系实验来检测的假说,并说明研究将如何进行。

若选择以小组方式完成,计划构想书中应明确说明各成员之负责内容。

计划的指示与说明

请确实遵照以下的指示:美国国家科学基金会常退回不依照其特别的规则撰写的计划书,我们不会依样画葫芦,但有兴趣者可参考其审合原则。 计划书包括图片部分不可超过20页(内文1.5倍行高),文献页、题名页、成员列表、预算表或执行概要则不计算在内。字型大小不可小于11。图说的文字以单行间距间隔。

计划书各部分概略的长度指示如下,但除非特别说明,这些只是参考用原则。

参考下一段所列考评审的标准来修改你的计划。在同行评审时计划将照这些标准来评判。

  1. 题名/封面页—(与计划构想书相同)

  2. 执行概要—三段落的文章,各部分从新一页起脚,单行间距。第一部分订下预定工作的各阶段,第二部分描述将检测的假说与检测方式,第三部分则说明预期的结果在环境科学或生态学上的意义。

  3. 背景(至少5页,包括至少10笔主要参考文献

    1. 回顾与你的议题要解决的问题有关的文献。
    2. 研究站的历史与描述。
    3. 综合叙述在该研究站与你题目有关的其他研究。

  4. 提出的研究问题或命题 (约2至4页)

    1. 说明你回顾的文献如何使你想到你的假设。
    2. 描述你的假设(或问题……假设亦可以问题的形式叙述)。
    3. 叙述为了解决问题而提出的研究。完整的试验设计为何?

  5. 解决问题的方式(约2至5页)

    1. 需要进行何种田野试验?测量那些项目?如何测量?
    2. 计划中的研究进行时间表。
    3. 需要用到的材料与资源。
    4. 注意:在此部分重述你的问题/假设,说明如何加以解答(这可强迫你去评估何者可用实验检验。)
    5. 并呈现出部分假设的结果—例加:在假设成立或不成立这两种情况下,你的实验各应得到何种结果?

  6. 增广研究的重要性

    1. 你该如何贡献出自己的资料?准备让大众使用吗?
    2. 如何确定计划具有教育意义?其对学校、社区、生态系的永续发展影响为何?(此项的重要性请见美国国家科学基金会的计划审核原则)。

  7. 人事分配概述部分占一页,另一页为其他成员的叙述。

    1. 描述参与研究的科学家小组如何进行计划中的研究……工作是谁在负责进行?你吗?工程师?学生?需要成员那方面的专业。
    2. 包含对主要研究员(就是你)的概述。

  8. 预算

    1. 估计专题总体所需的预算,包括旅行、研究经费、工资薪水、管理费等。

  9. 参考文献 –请务必使用正确的文献引用方式!见下文。

图和图说—必须清晰。图说除了图片的名称外亦需加上图片内容的叙述。若图片不是自己画的,需注明出处。

同行评审过程

在计划呈交出之后,各同学皆会拿到一份你同学的计划书,并须加以评论。本项作业要求如下:

  1. 以下文所列的评定标准写出1至2页(两倍行高)的不具名评伦(勿在计划书中写上自己的名字,但须附上写了名字的纸片)。不应逐字引用评定标准的内容,或直接在各项后面写个“有”或“无”。评定标准只是指引你分析该计划书的工具。

    典型的评论中包含“概述”这个部分,在其中需说明评论者对计划书的整体看法、计划书的重要性及计划成功的可能性。其后的“细项”部分指出计划书中的各个问题并加以分析。这也就是在修改计划书时作者需特别注意的地方。

  2. 在你浏览计划书时,在你认为需要改进处做评论,或纠正句法文法的错误。图片若不清楚亦需提出。列出在你眼中不合理的地方并指出不合理处。这对你同学为第二次计划书缴交做的修改工作有很大的帮助。

  3. 在评论的末尾,对计划书整体做出评等(这是美国国家科学基金会用的标准):


    极佳:
    从各方面看来都是很杰出的计划书;应优先得到赞助。
    非常好: 在几乎所有方面都有高水准的表现,若情况许可应加以赞助。
    好: 有水准的计划书,具有赞助的价值。
    普通: 计划书内容在某(些)重要部分有所不足;应提出重点议题。
    差: 有严重疏漏的计划书。

评定标准

  1. 作业的要求有达到吗?若无,指出不足的地方。

  2. 计划书的组织如何?内容如何?图片清晰吗?背景部分足以支持你的计划吗?

  3. 假设/问题有无清楚说明、表达?计划进行的工作与问题间的关系有无明确说明?研究可否保证可以解答问题或测试假说?结果会不会模零两可?

  4. 对计划工作内容有无详细叙述?对方法的选择是否提出充分理由?时间表是否合理?

  5. 提出的计划成功的可能性如何?如果很低,这个脑力的成就(在原创性、创新上)是否值得冒险?提出的计划在该领域(或跨领域)的知识与理解的提升上重要性多大?

  6. 预算和人事预估部分合理吗?

  7. 计划的进行有何较远大的影响?(此部分会占整体评定比重的20%)
    • 计划的进行除对教学与训练有意义外,对科学上的发现与对自然的理解是否有帮助?
    • 计划的进行是否能提高企业集团对研究的参与度?
    • 它对研究与教育上的基础设施如设备、仪器、网络或其他部分的改善有多少帮助?
    • 结果可以广泛的传播以增加在我们在科技上的理解吗?
    • 计划进行对社会可能的益处何在?

计划书发表

在最后计划书回顾时(第21至23堂)我们会编制报告的传单,内容包含各个计划的摘要。客座的评审小组会出席聆听计划的口头报告,并对发表的内容提出问题。

其他资讯

对写作有关的问题,包括文法、文体形式、研究报告的格式等,至 麻省理工写作中心寻求协助,该网站有许多有用的联结。网站上并有说明如何与写作中心约谘询时间。一个时段长达45分钟,可以得到充分的指导。

过去学生最常犯的错误

  1. 不必要的逐字引用 科学文章写作用不常做原文的引用,愈少愈好。只有在必须看到原来文句的情形下才做逐字的引用。

  2. 没有用到小标题 计划书的文章内容部分,若有在大标题下使用小标题,会比较容易阅读。用量多寡由作者决定,但通常每隔几段都会重起一个小标题。

  3. 小标题用得太多 每个小标题下的段落数应该超过一段。

  4. 对不同来源的资料并没有完整地整合成一个统一的论述 这是计划书写作中最困难的部分。在一段文章中应试着参考数个资料来源,整合不同研究的构想与结果。如果在这部分有困难,要寻找支援。

  5. 没有明确说明要解决的问题 应在文中详细说明。

  6. 没有明确说明你的试验设计如何解决问题 将假设中的结果呈现出来有助于这部分的撰写。

  7. 用含混的名词 如污染、水质、生态系的“健康”。

  8. 不适当的文献引用方式 —见下文中的引用原则。

  9. 直接引用的文献量不足 至少要有10笔。如果不知道直接引用的文献所指为何,来找我们寻问。

  10. 没有针对你的需求做的图说— 不要一字不修地从原始资料上贴到你的文章中,要自己写图说。

  11. 没有图说。

  12. 图片引用时原始文献未列入。

  13. 使用的图片不足 在计划书中最好有3至4张图片以助对内容的了解。可以由已发表文献的图片重绘(要确定重绘的正确性),或完全自创。

  14. 图片使用杂乱或图片不清 手绘很好,但必须整洁清晰!)在绘制图片时要记得最后要做口头报告。

其他建议

  • 将试验设计以示意图表示,说明重复和各控制组的细节。
  • 不要太花俏。
  • 小标题下要有内容,叙述该部分的重点(如:“人工湿地的历史”)。不要只写出“文献回顾”。
  • 确定图及图说和内容不会区隔不清。
  • 问题或假说以粗体字或以着重号(.)起头。让问题或假说看来显眼。

文献引用的原则

  • 只例出你在文中引用过的文献。
  • 在引用文献时不需加注,注脚别有他用。
  • 引用文献应列于计划书末。

文中引用文献写法范例

  • “气候限制了物种在地理上的分布(Jones, 1975)……”
    或“依Jones(1975)的看法,气候限制了……”

  • 若写到的资料乃是在某篇文献中引用的,而原始文献无法获得(译注:即间接引用),则应写为:“依Jones(1975,引用于Smith 1980)……”

文末列出引用文献的范例格式

  • 书:

    Andrewartha, H. G. and L. C. Birch,1954年,“动物的分布与丰富度”,美国芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版,782页。
  • 期刊文章:

    Connel, J. H.,1961年,“种间竞争及其他因子对藤壶分布的影响”, 《生态学》,42期,710-723页。
  • 研讨议论文集:

    Nicholson, A. J.,1961年,“族群动态在天择中扮演的角色”,出自《达尔文后的演化学》,S. Tax 主编,芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版,629页。

  • 网络资料:
    • 期刊:
      Harnack, Andrew, and Gene Kleppinger.,“在MLA手册之外:网际网络上的电子资源建档”,《Kairos》杂志,第1卷第2期,1996年9月:http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.2/
    • 万维网:
      Walker, Janice R.,“MLA电子资源书目格式”1.0版回顾,1995年4月,http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/cgos/idx_basic.html (依据科学文献引用的规则)。

最后,若有疑问请参考Mayfield手册:科学与技术性写作



Term Project Assignment: A Competitive Grant Proposal on Ecosystem Research

Overview
Pre-proposal Instructions
Proposal Instructions
Peer Review Process
Proposal Presentations
Additional Information

Overview

This is a project that you will work on throughout the semester. The assignment involves writing a research grant proposal which involves one or two broad approaches to studying Ecology: Long Term Ecological Research and/or Ecosystem Experiments. The actual research topic is up to you, but it must be addressed using one of these approaches.

The term project has 5 components with the following deadlines:

COMPONENT DUE PERCENT OF FINAL PROJECT GRADE
Pre-proposal Lecture 7 10
Proposal Lecture 14 40*
Peer Review of Proposal Lecture 16 10
Revised Final Proposal (submit original with this) Lecture 20 20*
Presentations Lectures 21, 22 and 23 20


* The final paper document will be worth a total of 60% of the total grade for this assignment. The bulk of the credit will be given for the first submission (in other words, this should be a completed proposal). The 20 points for the second submission can be used to up your grade significantly. We will judge how much you have improved the proposal based on the suggestions of the "reviewers" (including our suggestions).

While each of you is responsible for writing your own proposal, you can work in teams if you so choose. Each member of the team will be responsible for a different aspect of the proposed study/experiment. You would be expected to defend the proposal as a group during the presentations at the end of the class.

The goal of the assignment is to help you learn how to:

  • Think about different approaches to ecological research, particularly those that involve large scales and/or long time frames
  • Research a topic using MIT's library resources, and write a literature review
  • Formulate testable hypotheses, and design a research program to test them
  • Organize a research proposal into component parts, following the guidelines set out by the "granting agency"
  • Appreciate the peer-review process, and learn to give constructive criticism by reviewing your classmates' proposals
  • Respond to criticisms given to you by your peers (and professor) and modify the proposal for a second submission
  • Formally present and defend your proposal in an oral presentation

Several sample proposals from last year will be posted to the course web page.

Official Long-Term Ecological Research Sites (LTER)

There are currently 24 LTER sites (LTER) in the US and Antarctica with more being established internationally (ILTER sites) in other countries such as Brazil, Canada, Hungary, Costa Rica and Israel. Together these sites represent many of the different ecological communities found throughout the world and offer significant opportunities to scientists wishing to plug their research into a larger network of data and information. By going to the web site given above, and the links shown there, you can see what LTER sites are all about, and the types of research projects that are being conducted there.

If you choose Long Term Ecological Research as the overarching theme of your Proposal, you have two options:

  1. Complete Creativity: Students make up their own LTER site, research topic and staff. Here you would need to be able to justify the need for an entirely novel LTER site as well as the urgency to do research on your particular topic rather than taking advantage of the existing LTER framework.

  2. Build off existing LTER: There are 24 sites listed on the LTER website all with their own websites, data collection etc. There are also several international LTER sites online. You can pick one of these sites and design your proposal to take place at that site.

It is important that your proposed project is not simply observatory in nature, but attempts to experimentally address a research topic of interest (i.e. test something by manipulating the system).

Ecosystem Experiments

Many of the major breakthroughs in Ecology have come about through experiments with whole ecosystems. Sometimes this has been in the context of long term research (some at LTER sites), but other times they have been isolated experiments. Appended to this assignment is a review paper on "Ecosystem Experiments" by Carpenter et al (1995) which should give you an idea of the types of experiments and projects that have been successful. There are others, and they can be found using your literature searching techniques.

Clearly there is overlap between these two approaches to ecological studies, and many LTER sites involve experimentation. You need not worry about focusing your proposal on one or the other. Just make sure it involves at least one of these approaches.

Pre-proposal Instructions

Granting agencies often require a short pre-proposal to be submitted way in advance of proposal deadlines. We will do the same. The pre-proposal should be at least 3 pages (including the cover page) and have the following components:

  1. Cover Page: A page of its own, and should include a descriptive title, the author's name, address, phone number, and email address.

  2. Background Section: This should briefly summarize the background literature review you have done for your proposal, including a list of at least 10 primary references that you have found that deal with your topic.

  3. Proposed Work Section: Briefly describe the hypotheses you want to test with your LTER or Ecosystem Experiment, and how you will execute the study.

If you have chosen to work as a team, the pre-proposal must spell out exactly what the roles of the different team member are.

Proposal Instructions

Follow these instructions carefully! - The National Science Foundation has been known to return proposals that are not written according to their specific guidelines. We are not going to make you go through what the NSF makes us go through, but if you are curious you can look at their guidelines. The proposal must not exceed 20 pages (1.5 line spacing) including figures (but not including references, title page, taff, budget, or executive summary). You should use no smaller than 11 point font. Figure captions should be single spaced.

The approximate lengths of the different sections of the proposal are indicated below. Unless otherwise indicated, these are guidelines only.

You should consult the review criteria described in the next section to help you shape your proposal. It will be judged by these criteria.

  1. Title/Cover Page - (same as for pre-proposal)

  2. Executive Summary - Three paragraphs, single spaced, on their own page. The first setting the stage for the proposed work, the second describing the hypotheses to be tested and how you are going to test them, and the third describing the broad implications of the expected results to environmental science or ecology.

  3. Background (at least 5 pages, including at least 10 primary references)

    1. Review of other literature relevant to the particular research topic(s) you are proposing to address – the broad question.
    2. Site history and description
    3. Summary of other studies conducted at the site that are relevant to the one you are proposing

  4. Research Question/Statement of Purpose (about 2-4 pages)

    1. Set the stage by describing how the literature you have reviewed led you to the hypotheses you are going to test
    2. Describe your hypotheses (or questions…hypotheses can be stated as questions)
    3. Describe the research that you propose to do to address the questions. What is the overall experimental design?

  5. Approaches to Addressing the Questions (about 2-5 pages)

    1. What field experiments need to be done? What will you be measuring? How will you be measuring it?
    2. Proposed timeline of the research
    3. Materials and resources needed
    4. NOTE: Restate your questions/hypotheses here and describe how you will answer each (forces you to evaluate which ones are experimentally testable)
    5. Also show some hypothetical results – i.e. what the results of your experiment might look like if your hypothesis is correct, or not correct.

  6. Broader Significance of your Research

    1. How will you distribute your data? Make it available to the public?
    2. How will you make sure that education is involved in the project? E.g. impact on schools / community / ecosystems / sustainability? (see the NSF Proposal Guide for tips on what is important here).

  7. Personnel (about 1 page for your resume, and 1 page describing the rest of the staff)

    1. Describe how a team of research scientists will carry out the proposed research … Who is doing the work? You? Technicians? Students? What types of expertise is needed?
    2. Include a resume of the chief investigator (you!)

  8. Budget

    1. Estimate the overall budget for the project. Includes travel, research supplies, salaries, overhead, etc…

  9. References - Be sure to use proper citation style! See below.

Figures and Figure Captions - Must be legible. Captions should describe the content of the figure…not just what the figure is about. If you didn’t draw it yourself, you must cite its source.

Peer Review Process

After your proposals are handed in, you will be given one of your classmate's proposals to review. The assignment is as follows:

  1. Using the criteria listed below write a 1-2 page (double spaced) anonymous review (i.e. don't put your name on the review…but do put your name on a slip of paper attached to it). Note that you should not use these criteria verbatim. (In other words, don’t just go through and answer each question "yes" or "no".) Use the questions to guide your analysis.

    A typical review consists of a "General" section in which the reviewer describes his or her overall impression of the proposal, its significance, and its probability of success. This is then followed by a "Specifics" section in which particular problems in the proposal are pointed out and analyzed. Obviously these are the areas that the author will focus on when revising the proposal.

  2. As you read through the proposal, make comments in places that you think need improvement, or correct sentence structure or grammar. If the figures aren't clear, point this out. If something doesn't make sense to you, indicate this. This will help your classmate revise the proposal for "Resubmission".

  3. At the end of your review, rank the overall proposal according to the following scale (this is the one the National Science Foundation Uses):


    Excellent:
    Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support.
    Very Good: High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible.
    Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support.
    Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed.
    Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.

Review Criteria

  1. Was the assignment followed? If not, please point out the shortcomings of the product.

  2. Is the proposal well organized? Well written? Are the figures legible? Is the background section adequate to set the stage for the proposed work?

  3. Are the hypotheses/questions clearly stated? Well conceived? Is the relationship between the proposed work and the questions clearly stated? Is the research guaranteed to answer the questions or test the hypotheses? Or could the results be ambiguous?

  4. Is the proposed work described in adequate detail? Are the methodologies justified? Is the timeline reasonable?

  5. What is the probability of success of the proposed project? If low, is the intellectual merit (originality, novelty) worth the risk? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?

  6. Does the budget and personnel section seem reasonable?

  7. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? (This should be weighed about 20% in your overall review).
    • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?
    • How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups?
    • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?
    • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
    • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Proposal Presentations

For the final proposal reviews (Lec #21, 22 and 23), we will compile a Presentation Flyer which will include a project summary of each proposal. A guest panel of reviewers will be present to hear an oral presentation of the proposals and to pose questions and inquiries about the materials presented.

Additional Information

For guidance with questions about writing, including grammar, style, research paper formats, etc., try the MIT Writing Center. This site has a great many helpful links. It also tells you how to make an appointment at the Writing Center. Note that these sessions are 45 minutes, and you can really accomplish a lot.

Most Common Errors from Students in the Past

  1. Using quotes when they are unnecessary - Scientific writing rarely uses quotes. Paraphrase when at all possible. Quote only when there is a sentence that can only be captured with the original language.

  2. Not using any subheadings - Your text will be much more readable if you use subheadings under the major headings for your proposal. How many you use is up to you, but usually one has a subheading every few paragraphs.

  3. Using too many subheadings - You should have more than one paragraph under a sub-heading.

  4. Not thoroughly integrating material from various sources into a single, unified argument - This is the most difficult part of writing. You should try to use multiple sources in a given paragraph, integrating the ideas/results from different studies. If you are having trouble with this, get help.

  5. Not clearly stating what the question is that you are trying to address - This should be done very explicitly, and put in bold in the text.

  6. Not clearly stating how your experimental design will address the question - This can usually be aided by showing hypothetical results.

  7. Using vague terms like - pollution, water quality, ecosystem "health."

  8. Improper referencing style - See guidelines below.

  9. Not using enough primary references - You must have at least 10. Consult with us if you don't know what a primary reference is.

  10. Not adapting figure legends for your own purposes - (i.e., don’t just copy them from your source. Write your own figure legends.)

  11. No figure legends.

  12. Not citing the sources of your figures.

  13. Not enough figures - It is helpful to have 3-4 figures in your proposal. These can either be redrafted from published figures (make sure you give credit!) or created yourself.

  14. Messy or unclear figures - (hand-done is fine, but make them neat and clean!). Think about your final oral presentation when you are drafting the figures.

Other Suggestions

  • Diagram your experimental design, showing replicates and controls.
  • No binders please.
  • Subheadings should have content. Describe what the section is about (e.g., "The History of Engineered Wetlands"). Don’t just say "Review of Literature."
  • Make sure a figure and caption together can stand alone from the text.
  • Put questions or hypotheses in bold or as bullet points. Make them clear and obvious.

Citation Guidelines

  • Cite only those references you refer to in the text.
  • Do not use footnotes for citing articles (they can be used for other reasons).
  • Your list of references should appear at the end of the paper.

Examples of Citation Style in Text

  • "Climate limits the geographic distribution of species (Jones, 1975)..."
    or "According to Jones (1975), climate limits the..."

  • If you are writing about information that is discussed in another paper and you can’t find the original article, say: "According to Jones (1975, as cited in Smith 1980)..."

Examples of Form to be Used in Reference List

  • Book:

    Andrewartha, H. G. and L. C. Birch. 1954. The distribution and abundance of animals. Univ. Chicago Press: Chicago. 782 pp.
  • Journal Article:

    Connel, J. H. 1961. The influence of inter-specific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle. Ecology 42: 710-723.
  • Symposium:

    Nicholson, A. J. 1961. The role of population dynamics in natural selection. In Evolution After Darwin, S. Tax [ed.], U. Chicago Press: Chicago, 629. pp.

  • On-Line Sources
    • Journal:
      Harnack, Andrew, and Gene Kleppinger. "Beyond the MLA Handbook: Documenting Electronic Sources on the Internet." Kairos 1.2 (1996): http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.2/ (21 Sep. 1996).
    • WWW:
      Walker, Janice R. "MLA-Style Citations of Electronic Sources." Ver. 1.0, Rev. Apr. 1995. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/cgos/idx_basic.html (follow guidelines for Scientific Citations).

Finally, when in doubt consult the Mayfield Handbook for Technical and Scientific Writing.


 
MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy