You may have performed supplemental experiments/simulations or repeated your initial experience after receiving your first round of feedback. Feedback should go through the following stages ideally: (a) Self-review and revision (b) Peer review and constructive feedback (c) Advisor/instructor review and feedback
It can help remind yourself of this goal at the beginning of every section before starting writing. When you finish a section of your report, read it through carefully, and at the end of it, ask yourself: was that easy to read and understand? Did I succeed in my goal?
If you believe your paper might be of use to researchers in another discipline, like social science, you may want to include definitions or explanations for the more technical jargon used in your paper.
Since different instructors have different preferences, you should check your lab report handout or course syllabus to verify expectations for the order and content of your report. [4] X Research source Most lab reports are organized, first to last: background information, problem, hypothesis, materials, procedure, data, and your interpretation of what happened as a conclusion.
The organization of the body of your lab report will be specific to your problem/experiment. You may also have a separate section for the statement of your design methodology, experimental methodology, or proving subsidiary/intermediary theorems in your report.
The section-level outline The subsection-level outline The paragraph-level outline
Bullet points are invaluable when you reach the paragraph level of your report. These will allow you to note important terms, phrases, and data that will need to be integrated with the text of your report. Take special note, at the paragraph level, of important symbols, protocols, algorithms, and jargon.
You might also consider using simple figures as a way of cutting down unnecessary wordiness.
The title of your report should reflect what you have done and bring out any eye-catching factor of your work. The abstract should be concise, generally about 2 paragraphs or about 200 words in length. [10] X Research source
(a) Main motivation (b) Main design point (c) Essential differences from previous work (d) Methodology (e) Noteworthy results, if any
What is the setting of the problem? This is, in other words, the background. In some cases, this may be implicit, and in some cases, this question may be merged with your paper’s motivation. What is the problem you are trying to solve? This is also known as the problem statement of your report. Why is your problem important? This is the motivation behind your report. In some cases, it may be implicit in the background, or even the problem statement. Is the problem still unsolved? The constitutes the statement of past/related work, and should be conveyed succinctly. [11] X Research source [12] X Research source
Each section of the body of your report can be thought of as an in-depth look at the points mentioned in the introduction.
Why is your problem difficult to solve? How have you solved the problem? What are the conditions under which your solution is applicable? What are the main results? What is the summary of your contributions? This, in some cases, maybe implicit in the body of your introduction. Sometimes it helps to state contributions explicitly. How is the rest of your report organized?
Describe the equipment or theory in a short paragraph. Consider including a diagram of the apparatus for equipment. Theoretical elements should be included in both natural and derived forms. [17] X Research source Include what strategies and methodologies you are using for the experiment.
A large quantity of work closely related to your work would likely be best closer to the beginning of your report. This will allow you to point out differences best. Relevant work that is substantially different from your own is probably best toward the end of your report. However, this placement risks leaving your readers wondering about differences until the end of your report.
Functionality Performance Approach Note: each of these comparisons can be further distinguished by: 1. Functionality 2. Metric 3. Implementation 4. Anticipated results or successes
Make sure to cite the work of others so you can avoid plagiarism and give yourself more credibility. If you decide to use a chart, it is a general convention that you include your own work in either the first or last column.
All figures and tables should be titled descriptively, numbered sequentially, and include a descriptive legend for symbols, abbreviations, etc. The columns and rows of all tables and the axes of graphs should be labeled. [19] X Research source
What aspects of your system or algorithm are you trying to evaluate? Why? What are the cases of comparison? If you have proposed an algorithm or a design, what do you compare it with? What are the performance metrics? Why? What are the parameters understudy? What is the experimental setup?
Predictions are expected in this section, though these should be clearly identified as such. Future experiments that might clarify your results should be suggested. [20] X Research source
Precisely and in as few words as possible state the main findings of your lab. Answer the question: How has the reader become smarter, or how does your research and work fit into the bigger picture?
Many academic papers are reviewed 3 times by 3 sets of reviewers before they are published. Take constructive criticism for your lab report if you plan to pursue a career in academics.
You might also make use of your campus writing center, if available. Here you can have a fresh set of eyes assess the quality of your report.
Title/abstract logical, understandable, and eye-catching? All relevant questions answered in the introduction? Overall structure of sections and subsections meaningful? Is there a logical flow of information? Differences between related/past work apparent? Technical sections intelligible? Figures/tables explained properly? Use of terminology clear? Symbols defined appropriately? Results explained properly? Technical holes/flaws? Potential problems or alternatives?
Try to keep your comments as impersonal as possible. Locate specific elements that can be isolated, targeted, and improved. While taking feedback from a peer, take the comments on their technical merit and avoid being defensive.
