students research work

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Alison l. antes.

1 Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-6006

Leonard B. Maggi, Jr.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-4102

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This “how-to” guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. The article begins with an overview of the responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions and that researchers receive fair credit.

INTRODUCTION

Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. Research is a highly complex activity, so it takes years for beginning researchers to learn everything they need to know to do science well. Part of this large body of knowledge is learning how to do research responsibly. Our purpose in this article is to provide graduate students a guide for how to perform responsible research. Our advice is also relevant to undergraduate researchers and for principal investigators (PIs), postdocs, or other researchers who mentor beginning researchers and wish to share our advice.

We begin by introducing some fundamentals about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), research misconduct, and ethical behavior. We focus on how to do reproducible science and be a responsible author. We provide practical advice for these topics and present scenarios to practice thinking through challenges in research. Our article concludes with decision-making strategies for addressing complex problems.

What is the responsible conduct of research?

To be committed to RCR means upholding the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity ( Steneck, 2007 ). Each day, RCR requires engaging in research in a conscientious, intentional fashion that yields the best science possible ( “Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct,” 2019 ). We adopt a practical, “how-to” approach, discussing the behaviors and habits that yield responsible research. However, some background knowledge about RCR is helpful to frame our discussion.

The scientific community uses many terms to refer to ethical and responsible behavior in research: responsible conduct of research, research integrity, scientific integrity, and research ethics ( National Academies of Science, 2009 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ; Steneck, 2007 ). A helpful way to think about these concepts is “doing good science in a good manner” ( DuBois & Antes, 2018 ). This means that the way researchers do their work, from experimental procedures to data analysis and interpretation, research reporting, and so on, leads to trustworthy research findings and conclusions. It also includes respectful interactions among researchers both within research teams (e.g., between peers, mentors and trainees, and collaborators) and with researchers external to the team (e.g., peer reviewers). We expand on trainee-mentor relationships and interpersonal dynamics with labmates in a companion article ( Antes & Maggi, 2021 ). When research involves human or animal research subjects, RCR includes protecting the well-being of research subjects.

We do not cover all potential RCR topics but focus on what we consider fundamentals for graduate students. Common topics covered in texts and courses on RCR include the following: authorship and publication; collaboration; conflicts of interest; data management, sharing, and ownership; intellectual property; mentor and trainee responsibilities; peer review; protecting human subjects; protecting animal subjects; research misconduct; the role of researchers in society; and laboratory safety. A number of topics prominently discussed among the scientific community in recent years are also relevant to RCR. These include the reproducibility of research ( Baker, 2016 ; Barba, 2016 ; Winchester, 2018 ), diversity and inclusion in science ( Asplund & Welle, 2018 ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ; Meyers, Brown, Moneta-Koehler, & Chalkley, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018a ; Roper, 2019 ), harassment and bullying ( Else, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018b ; “ No Place for Bullies in Science,” 2018 ), healthy research work environments ( Norris, Dirnagl, Zigmond, Thompson-Peer, & Chow, 2018 ; “ Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First,” 2018 ), and the mental health of graduate students ( Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018 ).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( National Institutes of Health, 2009 ) and the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, 2017 ) have formal policies indicating research trainees must receive education in RCR. Researchers are accountable to these funding agencies and the public which supports research through billions in tax dollars annually. The public stands to benefit from, or be harmed by, research. For example, the public may be harmed if medical treatments or social policies are based on untrustworthy research findings. Funding for research, participation in research, and utilization of the fruits of research all rely on public trust ( Resnik, 2011 ). Trustworthy findings are also essential for good stewardship of scarce resources ( Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000 ). Researchers are further accountable to their peers, colleagues, and scientists more broadly. Trust in the work of other researchers is essential for science to advance. Finally, researchers are accountable for complying with the rules and policies of their universities or research institutions, such as rules about laboratory safety, bullying and harassment, and the treatment of animal research subjects.

What is research misconduct?

When researchers intentionally misrepresent or manipulate their results, these cases of scientific fraud often make the news headlines ( Chappell, 2019 ; O’Connor, 2018 ; Park, 2012 ), and they can seriously undermine public trust in research. These cases also harm trust within the scientific community.

The U.S. defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 ). FFP violate the fundamental ethical principle of honesty. Fabrication is making up data, and falsification is manipulating or changing data or results so they are no longer truthful. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty because it includes using someone’s words or ideas and portraying them as your own. When brought to light, misconduct involves lengthy investigations and serious consequences, such as ineligibility to receive federal research funding, loss of employment, paper retractions, and, for students, withdrawal of graduate degrees.

One aspect of responsible behavior includes addressing misconduct if you observe it. We suggest a guide titled “Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide” that provides advice for thinking about your options if you think you have observed misconduct ( Keith-Spiegel, Sieber, & Koocher, 2010 ). Your university will have written policies and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. Making an allegation is very serious. As Keith-Spiegel et al.’s guide indicates, it is important to know the evidence that supports your claim, and what to expect in the process. We encourage, if possible, talking to the persons involved first. For example, one of us knew of a graduate student who reported to a journal editor their suspicion of falsified data in a manuscript. It turned out that the student was incorrect. Going above the PI directly to the editor ultimately led to the PI leaving the university, and the student had a difficult time finding a new lab to complete their degree. If the student had first spoken to the PI and lab members, they could have learned that their assumptions about the data in the paper were wrong. In turn, they could have avoided accusing the PI of a serious form of scientific misconduct—making up data—and harming everyone’s scientific career.

What shapes ethical behavior in the scientific workplace?

Responsible conduct of research and research misconduct are two sides of a continuum of behavior—RCR upholds the ideals of research and research misconduct violates them. Problematic practices that fall in the middle but are not defined formally as research misconduct have been labeled as detrimental research practices ( National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). Researchers conducting misleading statistical analyses or PIs providing inadequate supervision are examples of the latter. Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ( Antes et al., 2007 ; Antes, English, Baldwin, & DuBois, 2018 ; Davis, Riske-Morris, & Diaz, 2007 ; DuBois et al., 2013 ).

These two influences on ethical behavior are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about your behavior. When people think about their ethical behavior, they think about their personal values and integrity and tend to overlook the influence of their environment. While “being a good person” and having the right intentions are essential to ethical behavior, the environment also has an influence. In addition, knowledge of standards for ethical research is important for ethical behavior, and graduate students new to research do not yet know everything they need to. They also have not fully refined their ethical decision-making skills for solving professional problems. We discuss strategies for ethical decision-making in the final section of this article ( McIntosh, Antes, & DuBois, 2020 ).

The research environment influences ethical behavior in a number of ways. For example, if a research group explicitly discusses high standards for research, people will be more likely to prioritize these ideals in their behavior ( Plemmons et al., 2020 ). A mentor who sets a good example is another important factor ( Anderson et al., 2007 ). Research labs must also provide individuals with adequate training, supervision and feedback, opportunities to discuss data, and the psychological safety to feel comfortable communicating about problems, including mistakes ( Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a , 2019b ). On the other hand, unfair research environments, inadequate supervision, poor communication, and severe stress and anxiety may undermine ethical decision-making and behavior; particularly when many of these factors exist together. Thus, (un)ethical behavior is a complex interplay of individual factors (e.g., personality, stress, decision-making skills) and the environment.

For graduate students, it is important to attend to what you are learning and how the environment around you might influence your behavior. You do not know what you do not know, and you necessarily rely on others to teach you responsible practices. So, it is important to be aware. Ultimately, you are accountable for your behavior. You cannot just say “I didn’t know.” Rather, just like you are curious about your scientific questions, maintain a curiosity about responsible behavior as a researcher. If you feel uncomfortable with something, pay attention to that feeling, speak to someone you trust, and seek out information about how to handle the situation. In what follows, we cover key tips for responsible behavior in the areas of reproducibility and authorship that we hope will help you as you begin.

HOW TO DO REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE

The foremost responsibility of scientists is to ensure they conduct research in such a manner that the findings are trustworthy. Reproducibility is the ability to duplicate results ( Goodman, Fanelli, & Ioannidis, 2016 ). The scientific community has called for greater openness, transparency, and rigor as key remedies for lack of reproducibility ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). As a graduate student, essential to fostering reproducibility is the rigor of your approach to doing experiments and handling data. We discuss how to utilize research protocols, document experiments in a lab notebook, and handle data responsibly.

Utilize research protocols

1. learn and utilize the lab’s protocols.

Research protocols describe the step-by-step procedures for doing an experiment. They are critical for the quality and reproducibility of experiments. Lab members must learn and follow the lab’s protocols with the understanding that they may need to make adjustments based on the requirements of a specific experiment.

Also, it is important to distinguish between the experiment you are performing and analyzing the data from that experiment. For example, the experiment you want to perform might be to determine if loss of a gene blocks cell growth. Several protocols, each with pros and cons, will allow you to examine “cell growth.” Using the wrong experimental protocol can produce data that leads to muddled conclusions. In this example, the gene does block cell growth, but the experiment used to produce the data that you analyze to understand cell growth is wrong, thus giving a result that is a false negative.

When first joining a lab, it is essential to commit to learning the protocols necessary for your assigned research project. Researchers must ensure they are proficient in executing a protocol and can perform their experiments reliably. If you do not feel confident with a protocol, you should do practice runs if possible. Repetition is the best way to work through difficulties with protocols. Often it takes several attempts to work through the steps of a protocol before you will be comfortable performing it. Asking to watch another lab member perform the protocol is also helpful. Be sure to watch closely how steps are performed, as often there are minor steps taken that are not written down. Also, experienced lab members may do things as second nature and not think to explicitly mention them when working through the protocol. Ask questions of other lab members so that you can improve your knowledge and gain confidence with a protocol. It is better to ask a question than potentially ruin a valuable or hard-to-get sample.

Be cautious of differences in the standing protocols in the lab and how you actually perform the experiment. Even the most minor deviations can seriously impact the results and reproducibility of an experiment. As mentioned above, often there are minor things that are done that might not be listed in the protocol. Paying attention and asking questions are the best ways to learn, in addition to adding notes to the protocol if you find minor details are missing.

2. Develop your own protocols

Often you will find that a project requires a protocol that has not been performed in the lab. If performing a new experiment in the lab and no protocol exists, find a protocol and try it. Protocols can be obtained from many different sources. A great source is other labs on campus, as you can speak directly to the person who performs the experiment. There are many journal sources as well, such as Current Protocols, Nature Protocols, Nature Methods, and Cell STAR Methods . These methods journals provide the most detailed protocols for experiments often with troubleshooting tips. Scientific papers are the most common source of protocols. However, keep in mind that due to the common brevity of methods sections, they often omit crucial details or reference other papers that may not contain a complete description of the protocol.

3. Handle mistakes or problems promptly

At some point, everyone encounters problems with a protocol, or realizes they made a mistake. You should be prepared to handle this situation by being able to detail exactly how you performed the experiment. Did you skip a step? Shorten or lengthen a time point? Did you have to make a new buffer or borrow a labmate’s buffer? There are too many ways an experiment can go wrong to list here but being able to recount all the steps you performed in detail will help you work through the problem. Keep in mind that often the best way to understand how to perform an experiment is learning from when something goes wrong. This situation requires you to critically think through what was done and understand the steps taken. When everything works perfectly, it is easy to pay less attention to the details, which can lead to problems down the line.

It is up to you to be attentive and meticulous in the lab. Paying attention to the details may feel like a pain at first, or even seem overwhelming. Practice and repetition will help this focus on details become a natural part of your lab work. Ultimately, this skill will be essential to being a responsible scientist.

Document experiments in a lab notebook

1. recognize the importance of a lab notebook.

Maintaining detailed documentation in a lab notebook allows researchers to keep track of their experiments and generation of data. This detailed documentation helps you communicate about your research with others in the lab, and serves as a basis for preparing publications. It also provides a lasting record for the lab that exists beyond your time in the lab. After graduate students leave the lab, sometimes it is necessary to go back to the results of older experiments. A complete and detailed notebook is essential, or all of the time, effort, and resources are lost.

2. Learn the note-keeping practices in your lab

When you enter a new lab, it is important to understand how the lab keeps notebooks and the expectations for documentation. Being conscientious about documentation will make you a better scientist. In some labs, the PI might routinely examine your notebook, while in other labs you may be expected to maintain a notebook, but it may not be regularly viewed by others. It is tempting to become relaxed in documentation if you think your notebook may not be reviewed. Avoid this temptation; documentation of your ideas and process will improve your ability to think critically about research. Further, even if the PI or lab members do not physically view your notebook, you will need to communicate with them about your experiments. This documentation is necessary to communicate effectively about your work.

3. Organize your lab notebook

Different labs use different formats; some use electronic notebooks while others handwritten notebooks. The contents of a good notebook include the purpose of the experiment, the details of the experimental procedure, the data, and thoughts about the results. To effectively document your experiment, there are 5 critical questions that the information you record should be able to answer.

• Why I am doing this experiment? (purpose)
• What did I do to perform the experiment? (protocol)
• What are the results of what I did? (data, graphs)
• What do I think about the results?
• What do I think are the next steps?

We also recommend a table of contents. It will make the information more useful to you and the lab in the future. The table of contents should list the title of the experiment, the date(s) it was performed, and the page numbers on which it is recorded. Also, make sure that you write clearly and provide a legend or explanation of any shorthand or non-standard abbreviation you use. Often labs will have a combination of written lab notebooks and electronic data. It is important to reference where electronic data are located that go with each experiment. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to understand what you did and where to find all the data (electronic and hard copy) that accompanies your experiment.

Keeping a lab notebook becomes easier with practice. It can be thought of almost like journaling about your experiment. Sometimes people think of it as just a place to paste their protocol and a graph or data. We strongly encourage you to include your thoughts about why you made the decisions you made when conducting the experiment and to document your thoughts about next steps.

4. Commit to doing it the right way

A common reason to become lax in documentation is feeling rushed for time. Although documentation takes time, it saves time in the long-run and fosters good science. Without good notes, you will waste time trying to recall precisely what you did, reproduce your findings, and remember what you thought would be important next steps. The lab notebook helps you think about your research critically and keep your thoughts together. It can also save you time later when writing up results for publication. Further, well-documented data will help you draft a cogent and rigorous dissertation.

Handle data responsibly

1. keep all data.

Data are the product of research. Data include raw data, processed data, analyzed data, figures, and tables. Many data today are electronic, but not all. Generating data requires a lot of time and resources and researchers must treat data with care. The first essential tip is to keep all data. Do not discard data just because the experiment did not turn out as expected. A lot of experiments do not turn out to yield publishable data, but the results are still important for informing next steps.

Always keep the original, raw data. That is, as you process and analyze data, always maintain an unprocessed version of the original data.

Universities and funding agencies have data retention policies. These policies specify the number of years beyond a grant that data must be kept. Some policies also indicate researchers need to retain original data that served as the basis for a publication for a certain number of years. Therefore, your data will be important well beyond your time in graduate school. Most labs require you to keep samples for reanalysis until a paper is published, then the analyzed data are enough. If you leave a lab before a paper is accepted for publication, you are responsible for ensuring your data and original samples are well documented for others to find and use.

2. Document all data

In addition to keeping all data, data must be well-organized and documented. This means that no matter the way you keep your data (e.g., electronic or in written lab notebooks), there is a clear guide—in your lab notebook, a binder, or on a lab hard drive—to finding the data for a particular experiment. For example, it must be clear which data produced a particular graph. Version control of data is also critical. Your documentation should include “metadata” (data about your data) that tracks versions of the data. For example, as you edit data for a table, you should save separate versions of the tables, name the files sequentially, and note the changes that were made to each version.

3. Backup your data

You should backup electronic data regularly. Ideally, your lab has a shared server or cloud storage to backup data. If you are supposed to put your data there, make sure you do it! When you leave the lab, it must be possible to find your data.

4. Perform data analysis honestly and competently

Inappropriate use of statistics is a major concern in the scientific community, as the results and conclusions will be misleading if done incorrectly ( DeMets, 1999 ). Some practices are clearly an abuse of statistics, while other inappropriate practices stem from lack of knowledge. For example, a practice called “p-hacking” describes when researchers “collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant” ( Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015 ). In addition to avoiding such misbehavior, it is essential to be proficient with statistics to ensure you do statistical procedures appropriately. Learning statistical procedures and analyzing data takes many years of practice, and your statistics courses may only cover the basics. You will need to know when to consult others for help. In addition to consulting members in your lab or your PI, your university may have statistical experts who can provide consultations.

5. Master pressure to obtain favored results

When you conduct an experiment, the results are the results. As a beginning researcher, it is important to be prepared to manage the frustration of experiments not turning out as expected. It is also important to manage the real or perceived pressure to produce favored results. Investigators can become wedded to a hypothesis, and they can have a difficult time accepting the results. Sometimes you may feel this pressure coming from yourself; for example, if you want to please your PI, or if you want to get results for a certain publication. It is important to always follow the data no matter where it leads.

If you do feel pressure, this situation can be uncomfortable and stressful. If you have been meticulous and followed the above recommendations, this can be one great safeguard. You will be better able to confidently communicate your results to the PI because of your detailed documentation, and you will be more confident in your procedures if the possibility of error is suggested. Typically, with enough evidence that the unexpected results are real, the PI will concede. We recommend seeking the support of friends or colleagues to vent and cope with stress. In the rare case that the PI does not relent, you could turn to an advisor outside the lab if you need advice about how to proceed. They can help you look at the data objectively and also help you think about the interpersonal aspects of navigating this situation.

6. Communicate about your data in the lab

A critical element of reproducible research is communication in the lab. Ideally, there are weekly or bi-weekly meetings to discuss data. You need to develop your communication skills for writing and speaking about data. Often you and your labmates will discuss experimental issues and results informally during the course of daily work. This is an excellent way to hone critical thinking and communication skills about data.

Scenario 1 – The Protocol is Not Working

At the beginning of a rotation during their first year, a graduate student is handed a lab notebook and a pen and is told to keep track of their work. There does not appear to be a specific format to follow. There are standard lab protocols that everyone follows, but minor tweaks to the protocols do not seem to be tracked from experiment to experiment in the standard lab protocol nor in other lab notebooks. After two weeks of trying to follow one of the standard lab protocols, the student still cannot get the experiment to work. The student has included the appropriate positive and negative controls which are failing, making the experiment uninterpretable. After asking others in the lab for help, the graduate student learns that no one currently in the lab has performed this particular experiment. The former lab member who had performed the experiment only lists the standard protocol in their lab notebook.

How should the graduate student start to solve the problem?

Speaking to the PI would be the next logical step. As a first-year student in a lab rotation, the PI should expect this type of situation and provide additional troubleshooting guidance. It is possible that the PI may want to see how the new graduate student thinks critically and handles adversity in the lab. Rather than giving an answer, the PI might ask the student to work through the problem. The PI should give guidance, but it may not be an immediate fix for the problem. If the PI’s suggestions fail to correct the problem, asking a labmate or the PI for the contact information of the former lab member who most recently performed the experiment would be a reasonable next step. The graduate student’s conversations with the PI and labmates in this situation will help them learn a lot about how the people in the lab interact.

Most of the answers for these types of problems will require you as a graduate student to take the initiative to answer. They will require your effort and ingenuity to talk to other lab members, other labs at the university, and even scour the literature for alternatives. While labs have standard protocols, there are multiple ways to do many experiments, and working out an alternative will teach you more than when everything works. Having to troubleshoot problems will result in better standard protocols in the lab and better science.

HOW TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR

Researchers communicate their findings via peer-reviewed publications, and publications are important for advancing in a research career. Many graduate students will first author or co-author publications in graduate school. For good advice on how to write a research manuscript, consult the Current Protocols article “How to write a research manuscript” ( Frank, 2018 ). We focus on the issues of assigning authors and reporting your findings responsibly. First, we describe some important basics: journal impact factors, predatory journals, and peer review.

What are journal impact factors?

It is helpful to understand journal impact factors. There is criticism about an overemphasis on impact factors for evaluating the quality or importance of researchers’ work ( DePellegrin & Johnston, 2015 ), but they remain common for this purpose. Journal impact factors reflect the average number of times articles in a journal were cited in the last two years. Higher impact factors place journals at a higher rank. Approximately 2% of journals have an impact factor of 10 or higher. For example, Cell, Science, and Nature have impact factors of approximately 39, 42, and 43, respectively. Journals can be great journals but have lower impact factors; often this is because they focus on a smaller specialty field. For example, Journal of Immunology and Oncogene are respected journals, but their impact factors are about 4 and 7, respectively.

Research trainees often want to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor because they expect this to be viewed favorably when applying to future positions. We encourage you to bear in mind that many different journals publish excellent science and focus on publishing where your work will reach the desired audience. Also, keep in mind that while a high impact factor can direct you to respectable, high-impact science, it does not guarantee that the science in the paper is good or even correct. You must critically evaluate all papers you read no matter the impact factor.

What are predatory journals?

Predatory journals have flourished over the past few years as publishing science has moved online. An international panel defined predatory journals as follows ( Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ):

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices. (p. 211)

Often young researchers receive emails soliciting them to submit their work to a journal. There are typically small fees (around $99 US) requested but these fees will be much lower than open access fees of reputable journals (often around $2000 US). A warning sign of a predatory journal is outlandish promises, such as 24-hour peer review or immediate publication. You can find a list of predatory journals created by a postdoc in Europe at BeallsList.net ( “Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers,” 2020 ).

What is peer review?

Peer reviewers are other scientists who have the expertise to evaluate a manuscript. Typically 2 or 3 reviewers evaluate a manuscript. First, an editor performs an initial screen of the manuscript to ensure its appropriateness for the journal and that it meets basic quality standards. At this stage, an editor can decide to reject the manuscript and not send it to review. Not sending a paper for peer review is common in the highest impact journals that receive more submissions per year than can be reviewed and published. For average-impact journals and specialty journals, typically your paper will be sent for peer review.

In general, peer review focuses on three aspects of a manuscript: research design and methods, validity of the data and conclusions, and significance. Peer reviewers assess the merit and rigor of the research design and methodology, and they evaluate the overall validity of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. Essentially, reviewers want to ensure that the data support the claims. Additionally, reviewers evaluate the overall significance, or contribution, of the findings, which involves the novelty of the research and the likelihood that the findings will advance the field. Significance standards vary between journals. Some journals are open to publishing findings that are incremental advancements in a field, while others want to publish only what they deem as major advancements. This feature can distinguish the highest impact journals which seek the most significant advancements and other journals that tend to consider a broader range of work as long as it is scientifically sound. It is important to keep in mind that determining at the stage of review and publication whether a paper is “high impact” is quite subjective. In reality, this can only really be determined in retrospect.

The key ethical issues in peer review are fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality ( Shamoo & Resnik, 2015 ). Peer reviewers are to evaluate the manuscript on its merits and not based on biases related to the authors or the science itself. If reviewers have a conflict of interest, this should be disclosed to the editor. Confidentiality of peer review means that the reviewers should keep private the information; they should not share the information with others or use it to their benefit. Reviewers can ultimately recommend that the manuscript is rejected, revised, and resubmitted (major or minor revisions), or accepted. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a judgment about rejecting, accepting, or requesting a revision. Sometimes PIs will ask experienced graduate students to assist with peer reviewing a manuscript. This is a good learning opportunity. The PI should disclose to the editor that they included a trainee in preparing the review.

Assign authorship fairly

Authorship gives credit to the people who contributed to the research. This includes thinking of the ideas, designing and performing experiments, interpreting the results, and writing the paper. Two key questions regarding authorship include: 1 - Who will be an author? 2 - What will be the order in which authors are listed? These seem simple on the surface but can get quite complex.

1. Know authorship guidelines

Authorship guidelines published by journals, professional societies, and universities communicate key principles of authorship and standards for earning authorship. The core ethical principle of assigning authorship is fairness in who receives credit for the work. The people who contributed to the work should get credit for it. This seems simply enough, but determining authorship can (and often does) create conflict.

Many universities have authorship guidelines, and you should know the policies at your university. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides four criteria for determining who should be an author ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2020 ). These criteria indicate that an author should do all of the following: 1) make “substantial contributions” to the development of the idea or research design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting the data, 2) write the manuscript or revise it a substantive way, 3) give approval of the final manuscript (i.e., before it is submitted for review, and after it is revised, if necessary), and 4) agree to be responsible for any questions about the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Several types of authorship violate these guidelines and should be avoided. Guest authorship is when respected researchers are added out of appreciation, or to have the manuscript be perceived more favorably to get it published or increase its impact. Gift authorship is giving authorship to reward an individual, or as a favor. Ghost authorship is when someone made significant contributions to the paper but is not listed as an author. To increase transparency, some journals require authors to indicate how each individual contributed to the research and manuscript.

2. Apply the guidelines

Conflicts often arise from disagreements about how much people contributed to the research and whether those contributions merit authorship. The best approach is an open, honest, and ongoing discussion about authorship, which we discuss in #3 below. To have effective, informed conversations about authorship, you must understand how to apply the guidelines to your specific situation. The following is a simple rule of thumb that indicates there are three components of authorship. We do not list giving final approval of the manuscript and agreeing to be accountable, but we do consider these essentials of authorship.

• Thinking – this means contributing to the ideas leading to the hypothesis of the work, designing experiments to address the hypothesis, and/or analyzing the results in the larger context of the literature in the field.
• Doing – this means performing and analyzing the experiments.
• Writing – this means editing a draft, or writing the entire paper. The first author often writes the entire first draft.

In our experience, a first author would typically do all three. They also usually coordinate the writing and editing process. Co-authors are typically very involved in at least two of the three, and are somewhat involved in the other. The PI, who oversees and contributes to all three, is often the last, or “senior author.” The “senior author” is typically the “corresponding author”—the person listed as the individual to contact about the paper. The other co-authors are listed between the first and senior author either alphabetically, or more commonly, in order from the largest to smallest contribution.

Problems in assigning authorship typically arise due to people’s interpretations of #1 (thinking) and #2 (doing)—what and how much each individual contributed to a project’s design, execution, and analysis. Different fields or PIs may have their own slight variations on these guidelines. The potential conflicts associated with assigning authorship lead to the most common recommendation for responsibly assigning authorship: discuss authorship expectations early and revisit them during the project.

3. Discuss authorship with your collaborators

Publications are important for career advancement, so you can see why people might be worried about fairness in assigning authorship. If the problem arises from a lack of a shared understanding about contributions to the research, the only way to clarify this is an open discussion. This discussion should ideally take place very early at the beginning of a project, and should be ongoing. Hopefully you work in a laboratory that makes these discussions a natural part of the research process; this makes it much easier to understand the expectations upfront.

We encourage you to speak up about your interest in making a contribution that would merit authorship, especially if you want to earn first authorship. Sometimes norms about authoring papers in a lab make it clear you are expected to first and co-author publications, but it is best to communicate your interest in earning authorship. If the project is not yours, but you wish to collaborate, you can inquire what you may be able to contribute that would merit authorship.

If it is not a norm in your lab to discuss authorship throughout the life of projects, then as a graduate student you may feel reluctant to speak up. You could initiate a conversation with a more senior graduate student, a postdoc, or your PI, depending on the dynamics in the group. You could ask generally about how the lab approaches assignment of authorship, but discussing a specific project and paper may be best. It may feel awkward to ask, but asking early is less uncomfortable than waiting until the end of the project. If the group is already drafting a manuscript and you are told that your contribution is insufficient for authorship, this situation is much more discouraging than if you had asked earlier about what is expected to earn authorship.

How to report findings responsibly

The most significant responsibility of authors is to present their research accurately and honestly. Deliberately presenting misleading information is clearly unethical, but there are significant judgment calls about how to present your research findings. For example, an author can mislead by overstating the conclusions given what the data support.

1. Commit to presenting your findings honestly

Any good scientific manuscript writer will tell you that you need to “tell a good story.” This means that your paper is organized and framed to draw the reader into the research and convince them of the importance of the findings. But, this story must be sound and justified by the data. Other authors are presenting their findings in the best, most “publishable” light, so it is a balancing act to be persuasive but also responsible in presenting your findings in a trustworthy manner. To present your findings honestly, you must be conscious of how you interpret your data and present your conclusions so that they are accurate and not overstated.

One misbehavior known as “HARKing,” Hypothesis After the Results are Known, occurs when hypotheses are created after seeing the results of an experiment, but they are presented as if they were defined prior to collecting the data ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). This practice should be avoided. HARKing may be driven, in part, by a concern in scientific publishing known as publication bias. This bias is a preference that reviewers, editors, and researchers have for papers describing positive findings instead of negative findings ( Carroll, Toumpakari, Johnson, & Betts, 2017 ). This preference can lead to manipulating one’s practices, such as by HARKing, so that positive findings can be reported.

It is important to note that in addition to avoiding misbehaviors such as HARKing, all researchers are susceptible to a number of more subtle traps in judgment. Even the most well-intentioned researcher may jump to conclusions, discount alternative explanations, or accept results that seem correct without further scrutiny ( Nuzzo, 2015 ). Therefore, researchers must not only commit to presenting their findings honestly but consider how they can counteract such traps by slowing down and increasing their skepticism towards their findings.

2. Provide an appropriate amount of detail

Providing enough detail in a manuscript can be a challenge with the word limits imposed by most journals. Therefore, you will need to determine what details to include and which to exclude, or potentially include in the supplemental materials. Methods sections can be long and are often the first to be shortened, but complete methods are important for others to evaluate the research and to repeat the methods in other studies. Even more significant is making decisions about what experimental data to include and potentially exclude from the manuscript. Researchers must determine what data is required to create a complete scientific story that supports the central hypothesis of the paper. On the other hand, it is not necessary or helpful to include so much data in the manuscript, or in supplemental material, that the central point of the paper is difficult to discern. It is a tricky balance.

3. Follow proper citation practices

Of course, responsible authorship requires avoiding plagiarism. Many researchers think that plagiarism is not a concern for them because they assume it is always done intentionally by “copying and pasting” someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. Sometimes poor writing practices, such as taking notes from references without distinguishing between direct quotes and paraphrased material, can lead to including material that is not quoted properly. More broadly, proper citation practices include accurately and completely referencing prior studies to provide appropriate context for your manuscript.

4. Attend to the other important details

The journal will require several pieces of additional information, such as disclosure of sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. Typically, graduate students do not have relationships that constitute conflicts of interest, but a PI who is a co-author may. In submitting a manuscript, also make sure to acknowledge individuals not listed as authors but who contributed to the work.

5. Share data and promote transparency

Data sharing is a key facet of promoting transparency in science ( Nosek et al., 2015 ). It will be important to know the expectations of the journals in which you wish to publish. Many top journals now require data sharing; for example, sharing your data files in an online repository so others have access to the data for secondary use. Funding agencies like NIH also increasingly require data sharing. To further foster transparency and public trust in research, researchers must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts that report on research funded by NIH to PubMed Central. PubMed makes biomedical and life science research publicly accessible in a free, online database.

Scenario 2 – Authors In Conflict

To prepare a manuscript for publication, a postdoc’s data is added to a graduate student’s thesis project. After working together to combine the data and write the paper, the postdoc requests co-first authorship on the paper. The graduate student balks at this request on the basis that it is their thesis project. In a weekly meeting with the lab’s PI to discuss the status of the paper, the graduate student states that they should divide the data between the authors as a way to prove that the graduate student should be the sole first author. The PI agrees to this attempt to quantify how much data each person contributed to the manuscript. All parties agree the writing and thinking were equally shared between them. After this assessment, the graduate student sees that the postdoc actually contributed more than half of the data presented in the paper. The graduate student and a second graduate student contributed the remaining data; this means the graduate student contributed much less than half of the data in the paper. However, the graduate student is still adamant that they must be the sole first author of the paper because it is their thesis project.

Is the graduate student correct in insisting that it is their project, so they are entitled to be the sole first author?

Co-first authorship became popular about 10 years ago as a way to acknowledge shared contributions to a paper in which authors worked together and contributed equally. If the postdoc contributed half of the data and worked with the graduate student to combine their interpretations and write the first draft of the paper, then the postdoc did make a substantial contribution. If the graduate student wrote much of the first draft of the paper, contributed significantly to the second half of data, and played a major role in the thesis concept and design, this is also a major contribution. We summarized authorship requirements as contributing to thinking, doing, and writing, and we noted that a first author usually contributes to all of these. The graduate student has met all 3 elements to claim first authorship. However, it appears that the postdoc has also met these 3 requirements. Thus, it is at least reasonable for the postdoc to ask about co-first authorship.

The best way to move forward is to discuss their perspectives openly. Both the graduate student and postdoc want first authorship on papers to advance their careers. The postdoc feels they contributed more to the overall concept and design than the graduate student is recognizing, and the postdoc did contribute half of the data. This is likely frustrating and upsetting for the postdoc. On the other hand, perhaps the postdoc is forgetting how much a thesis becomes like “your baby,” so to speak. The work is the graduate student’s thesis, so it is easy to see why the graduate student would feel a sense of ownership of it. Given this fact, it may be hard for the graduate student to accept the idea that they would share first-author recognition for the work. Yet, the graduate student should consider that the manuscript would not be possible without the postdoc’s contribution. Further, if the postdoc was truly being unreasonable, then the postdoc could make the case for sole first authorship based on contributing the most data to the paper, in addition to contributing ideas and writing the paper. The graduate student should consider that the postdoc may be suggesting co-first authorship in good faith.

As with any interpersonal conflict, clear communication is key. While it might be temporarily uncomfortable to voice their views and address this disagreement, it is critical to avoiding permanent damage to their working relationship. The pair should consider each other’s perspectives and potential alternatives. For example, if the graduate student is first author and the postdoc second, at a minimum they could include an author note in the manuscript that describes the contribution of each author. This would make it clear the scope of the postdoc’s contribution, if they decided not to go with co-first authorship. Also, the graduate student should consider their assumptions about co-first authorship. Maybe they assume it makes it appear they contributed less, but instead, perhaps co-first authorship highlights their collaborative approach to science. Collaboration is a desirable quality many (although arguably not all) research organizations look for when they are hiring.

They will also need to speak with others for advice. The pair should definitely speak with the PI who could provide input about how these cases have been handled in the past. Ultimately, if they cannot reach an agreement, the PI, who is likely to be the last or “senior” author, may make the final decision. They should also speak to the other graduate student who is an author.

If either individual is upset with the situation, they will want to discuss it when they have had time to cool down. This might mean taking a day before discussing, or speaking with someone outside of the lab for support. Ideally, all authors on this paper would have initiated this conversation earlier, and the standards in the lab for first authorship would be discussed routinely. Clear communication may have avoided the conflict.

HOW TO USE DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES TO NAVIGATE CHALLENGES

We have provided advice on some specific challenges you might encounter in research. This final section covers our overarching recommendation that you adopt a set of ethical decision-making strategies. These strategies help researchers address challenges by helping them think through a problem and possible alternatives ( McIntosh et al., 2020 ). The strategies encourage you to gather information, examine possible outcomes, consider your assumptions, and address emotional reactions before acting. They are especially helpful when you are uncertain how to proceed, face a new problem, or when the consequences of a decision could negatively impact you or others. The strategies also help people be honest with themselves, such as when they are discounting important factors or have competing goals, by encouraging them to identify outside perspectives and test their motivations. You can remember the strategies using the acronym SMART .

1. S eek Help

Obtain input from others who can be objective and that you trust. They can assist you with assessing the situation, predicting possible outcomes, and identifying potential options. They can also provide you with support. Individuals to consult may be peers, other faculty, or people in your personal life. It is important that you trust the people you talk with, but it is also good when they challenge your perspective, or encourage you to think in a new way about a problem. Keep in mind that people such as program directors and university ombudsmen are often available for confidential, objective advice.

2. M anage Emotions

Consider your emotional reaction to the situation and how it might influence your assessment of the situation, and your potential decisions and actions. In particular, identify negative emotions, like frustration, anxiety, fear, and anger, as they particularly tend to diminish decision-making and the quality of interactions with others. Take time to address these emotions before acting, for example, by exercising, listening to music, or simply taking a day before responding.

3. A nticipate Consequences

Think about how the situation could turn out. This includes for you, for the research team, and anyone else involved. Consider the short, middle-term, and longer-term impacts of the problem and your potential approach to addressing the situation. Ideally, it is possible to identify win-win outcomes. Often, however, in tough professional situations, you may need to select the best option from among several that are not ideal.

4. R ecognize Rules and Context

Determine if any ethical principles, professional policies, or rules apply that might help guide your choices. For instance, if the problem involves an authorship dispute, consider the authorship guidelines that apply. Recognizing the context means considering the situational factors that could impact your options and how you proceed. For example, factors such as the reality that ultimately the PI may have the final decision about authorship.

5. T est Assumptions and Motives

Examine your beliefs about the situation and whether any of your thoughts may not be justified. This includes critically examining the personal motivations and goals that are driving your interpretation of the problem and thoughts about how to resolve it.

These strategies do not have to be engaged in order, and they are interrelated. For example, seeking help can help you manage emotions, test assumptions, and anticipate consequences. Go back to the scenarios and our advice throughout this article, and you will see many of our suggestions align with these strategies. Practice applying SMART strategies when you encounter a problem and they will become more natural.

Learning practices for responsible research will be the foundation for your success in graduate school and your career. We encourage you to be reflective and intentional as you learn and hope that our advice helps you along the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Antes, K01HG008990) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345).

LITERATURE CITED

• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Connelly S, & Devenport LD (2007). Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 2 ( 4 ), 15–34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules in Science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019a). The Lab Management Practices of “Research Exemplars” that Foster Research Rigor and Regulatory Compliance: A Qualitative Study of Successful Principal Investigators . PloS One , 14 ( 4 ), e0214595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019b). Leading for Research Excellence and Integrity: A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationship-Building Practices of Exemplary Principal Investigators . Accountability in Research , 26 ( 3 ), 198–226. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antes AL, & Maggi LB Jr. (2021). How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asplund M, & Welle CG (2018). Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back . Neuron , 99 ( 4 ), 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker M (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? Nature , 533 , 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barba LA (2016). The Hard Road to Reproducibility . Science , 354 ( 6308 ), 142. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers . (2020). Retrieved from https://beallslist.net/#update [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, & Betts JA (2017). The Perceived Feasibility of Methods to Reduce Publication Bias . PloS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0186472–e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chappell B (2019). Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million in Research Fraud Settlement . NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706604033/duke-whistleblower-gets-more-than-33-million-in-research-fraud-settlement [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeMets DL (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 5 ( 1 ), 97–117. doi: 10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• DePellegrin TA, & Johnston M (2015). An Arbitrary Line in the Sand: Rising Scientists Confront the Impact Factor . Genetics , 201 ( 3 ), 811–813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, & Rubbelke T (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing . Account Res , 20 ( 5–6 ), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuBois JM, & Antes AL (2018). Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity . Academic Medicine , 93 ( 4 ), 550–555. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Else H (2018). Does Science have a Bullying Problem? Nature , 563 , 616–618. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, & Grady C (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association , 283 ( 20 ), 2701–2711. doi:jsc90374 [pii] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, & Vanderford NL (2018). Evidence for a Mental Health Crisis in Graduate Education . Nature Biotechnology , 36 ( 3 ), 282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank DJ (2018). How to Write a Research Manuscript . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques , 16 ( 1 ), e20. doi: 10.1002/cpet.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman SN, Fanelli D, & Ioannidis JPA (2016). What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine , 8 ( 341 ), 341ps312. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, … Lalu MM (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence . Nature , 576 ( 7786 ), 210–212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, & Jennions MD (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science . PLoS Biology , 13 ( 3 ), e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, & McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 17 ), 9284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors . Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
• Keith-Spiegel P, Sieber J, & Koocher GP (2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide . Retrieved from http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/0/20883041/assets/RRW_11-10.pdf
• McIntosh T, Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2020). Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: A Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making . Journal of Academic Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09369-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, & Chalkley R (2018). Survey of Checkpoints along the Pathway to Diverse Biomedical Research Faculty . PloS One , 13 ( 1 ), e0190606–e0190606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, … Ioannidis JPA (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science . Nature Human Behaviour , 1 ( 1 ), 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research . Washington DC: National Academics Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018a). An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018b). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine : National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research . NOT-OD-10-019 . Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html
• National Science Foundation. (2017). Important Notice No. 140 Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – A Reminder of the NSF Requirement . Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/issuances/in140.jsp
• No Place for Bullies in Science. (2018). Nature , 559 ( 7713 ), 151. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05683-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norris D, Dirnagl U, Zigmond MJ, Thompson-Peer K, & Chow TT (2018). Health Tips for Research Groups . Nature , 557 , 302–304. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05146-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, … Yarkoni T (2015). Scientific Standards . Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science , 348 ( 6242 ), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuzzo R (2015). How Scientists Fool Themselves - and How They Can Stop . Nature , 526 , 182–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor A (2018). More Evidence that Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Park A (2012). Great Science Frauds . Time. Retrieved from https://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, … Esterling KM (2020). A Randomized Trial of a Lab-embedded Discourse Intervention to Improve Research Ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 3 ), 1389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First. (2018). Nature , 557 ( 7705 ), 279–280. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05159-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct . (2019). ( 570 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnik DB (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 3 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roper RL (2019). Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews , 83 ( 3 ), e00018–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamoo AE, & Resnik DB (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steneck NH (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (Updated ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winchester C (2018). Give Every Paper a Read for Reproducibility . Nature , 557 , 281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Journal of Student Research

Journal of Student Research (JSR) is an Academic, Multidisciplinary, and Faculty-reviewed Journal (Houston, Texas) devoted to the Rapid Dissemination of Current Research Published by High School Edition , Undergraduate and Graduate students.

Articles Indexed in Scholarly Databases

The journal seeks articles that are novel, integrative, and accessible to a broad audience, including an array of disciplines. The content of the journal ranges from Applied research to Theoretical research. In general, papers on all topics are welcome to submit. The journal uses an automated process from manuscript submission to publication. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled online, and the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review.

Trusted By Student Authors Globally

Focus and Scope

Students strive to be successful at publications, and with JSR, authors aspiring to publish will receive scholarly feedback after the reviews of their submissions are received. This feedback will help authors identify areas of improvement to their submission and help them better understand the process to be successful at publication. Once published, we strive to provide a global platform for our authors to showcase their work.

Faculty-Refereed Review Process

This journal uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Authors need to ensure that their manuscripts do not give away their identity to facilitate this. To find out more about the review process, please visit the  Author Guidelines  page. We invite teachers and faculty interested in reviewing articles for this journal; please visit our  Reviewers  page for more information.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides access to its published content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Learn more about  Open Access .

Authors Retain Copyright

Articles published in this journal are under a  Creative Commons License , and the authors retain the copyright to their work.

Announcements

Call for papers: volume 13 issue 3.

If you are an undergraduate or graduate student at a college or university aspiring to publish, we are accepting submissions. Submit Your Article Now!

Deadline: 11:59 p.m. May 31, 2024

What are you looking for?

Suggested searches.

• Majors & Minors
• Research & Creativity
• Research & Innovation

Student Research

Nothing beats real world experience. With a student-faculty ratio of 9:1, students work closely with faculty on exploring research opportunities in the lab, the local community and around the world. Many schools have funding programs to support student research so that research experience is accessible for all.

Research Opportunities & Scholarships

The chance to practice high-level scholarly inquiry is at your fingertips. Take advantage of a wide range of centers and scholarships that can propel you forward.

Using Your Education to Solve Problems

Being enrolled at USC comes with beyond-the-classroom learning opportunities, such as improving the well-being of our immediate community, addressing questions with national and global implications, and much more.

Student Research News

Take a peek at just a few standout examples of students taking their inquiry out into the real world.

Exactly what opportunities does quantum computing present, anyway?

In science fiction, quantum computers have often been touted as “magical” devices. Experts at USC’s Information Sciences Institute are figuring out exactly how the computers will impact real life.

Study explores the future of at-home cancer treatment

A first-of-its-kind clinical trial from Keck Medicine of USC will investigate if immunotherapy administered at home can achieve the same outcomes as in-clinic therapy.

The best place to see the total solar eclipse in 2024

Here’s where the skies will be clearest — and the surroundings most beautiful.

Election law expert Franita Tolson named dean of the USC Gould School of Law

Tolson brings a deep knowledge of constitutional law and voting rights to the position.

How to watch the eclipse

Looking at the solar eclipse without protective eyewear can cause blindness. Here’s how to view it safely.

Mutation in mitochondrial DNA appears to help Alzheimer’s gene carriers live longer, stay sharper

The discovery by USC researchers represents a new direction in drug development.

As students head back to school, experts share wellness tips

MEDIA ADVISORY: Massive Move-in at USC

Usc bridge institute.

A launchpad for projects combining diverse disciplines in science, engineering, medicine and the arts, Bridge Institute leverages the strengths of diverse experts to act as a connector that trains fearless researchers, supports convergence and empowers collaborative problem-solving.

Opportunities for Graduate Students

Center for Advanced Genocide Research

Recognizing USC undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students who use USC’s Visual History Archive or other genocide-related resources at USC for innovative research projects, this award is open to students across all academic disciplines.

Center for Dark Energy Biosphere Investigations (C-DEBI)

While the search for extraterrestrial life is neverending, USC scientists have launched the search intra-terrestrially — they’re hunting for life below the ocean floor. Graduate students contemplating a career in scientific research are encouraged to apply for a variety of opportunities.

Institute on Inequalities in Global Health (IIGH)

With partners in civil society, academia, government and the UN, IIGH offers several fellowship opportunities for students and postdocs interested in conducting research both in the U.S. and internationally.

More Research Opportunities

These are just a sample of the many research opportunities  available to graduate students. Find one that works for you.

Opportunities for Undergraduate Students

Undergraduate research is a key part of the complex, robust research ecosystem that makes up USC. Take a look at just some of the many funding opportunities you can explore.

Various schools and divisions offer funding for fields of research that fall under their disciplines.

• USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
• USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
• USC Sol Price School of Public Policy
• USC Viterbi School of Engineering

The USC Bridge Institute is training the next generation of students to explore across scientific disciplines and connect with the arts to understand science in a deeper way. Learn more.

MMUF is a partnership between the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences  and USC’s Office of the Provost to identify, support and mentor highly qualified underrepresented undergraduate students and other students interested in diversifying fields of study in higher education. Learn more.

Founded to increase the number of women in faculty positions and increase the representation of women in science and engineering, WiSE gives upper-level undergraduate women first-hand experience in laboratory-based research and other programs. Learn more.

Tech4Good Opportunities

Students also lead their own initiatives to better the world. There are several Tech4Good organizations that allow students to engage with issues that matter to them: Code the Change , Shift SC , and CAIS++ .

Shift SC is USC’s student-led platform for human-centered and socially responsible technology. Students who participate are focused on interdisciplinary conversation and action around the social implications and ethical issues of tech.

Keep Exploring

• Research and Innovation Events
• Faculty Research
• Research and Scholarship

Take the Next Step

• Request Information
• Apply to USC

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 14 November 2018

How to make undergraduate research worthwhile

• Shaun Khoo 0

Shaun Khoo is a postdoc at the Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, where he studies the neural mechanisms underlying appetitive motivation in rats.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

One of the things that excited me about taking up a Canadian postdoctoral position was that, for the first time, I would get a chance to work with and mentor enthusiastic undergraduate researchers. I looked forward to the chance to gain mentorship skills while helping out future scientists, and maybe, eventually, freeing up some of my own time.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07427-5

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Klowak, J., Elsharawi, R., Whyte, R., Costa, A. & Riva, J. Can. Med. Educ. J. 9 , e4–e13 (2018).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Smaglik, P. Nature 518 , 127–128 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ankrum, J. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05823-5 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Trant, J. Nature 560 , 307 (2018).

Download references

Related Articles

Bring training forward for undergraduate researchers

A guide to mentoring undergraduates in the lab

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

How a spreadsheet helped me to land my dream job

Career Column 28 MAR 24

The neuroscientist formerly known as Prince’s audio engineer

Career Feature 14 MAR 24

This geologist communicates science from the ski slopes

Career Q&A 11 MAR 24

No installation required: how WebAssembly is changing scientific computing

Technology Feature 11 MAR 24

Senior Scientist, Research

Be part of something altogether life-changing!  Working at Cytiva means being at the forefront of providing new solutions to transform human heal...

Vancouver, British Columbia (CA)

Postdoctoral positions in the integrative structural biology of cancer and immunity

Postdoctoral positions in the integrative structural biology study of signaling complexes important in cancer and the immune system

Farmington, Connecticut (US)

University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC)

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Postdoctoral Scholar - PHAST Alzheimer

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Associate- Neurodevelopmental Disease

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Empowering students to develop research skills

February 8, 2021

This post is republished from   Into Practice ,  a biweekly communication of Harvard’s  Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning

Terence D. Capellini, Richard B Wolf Associate Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology, empowers students to grow as researchers in his Building the Human Body course through a comprehensive, course-long collaborative project that works to understand the changes in the genome that make the human skeleton unique. For instance, of the many types of projects, some focus on the genetic basis of why human beings walk on two legs. This integrative “Evo-Devo” project demands high levels of understanding of biology and genetics that students gain in the first half of class, which is then applied hands-on in the second half of class. Students work in teams of 2-3 to collect their own morphology data by measuring skeletons at the Harvard Museum of Natural History and leverage statistics to understand patterns in their data. They then collect and analyze DNA sequences from humans and other animals to identify the DNA changes that may encode morphology. Throughout this course, students go from sometimes having “limited experience in genetics and/or morphology” to conducting their own independent research. This project culminates in a team presentation and a final research paper.

The benefits: Students develop the methodological skills required to collect and analyze morphological data. Using the UCSC Genome browser  and other tools, students sharpen their analytical skills to visualize genomics data and pinpoint meaningful genetic changes. Conducting this work in teams means students develop collaborative skills that model academic biology labs outside class, and some student projects have contributed to published papers in the field. “Every year, I have one student, if not two, join my lab to work on projects developed from class to try to get them published.”

“The beauty of this class is that the students are asking a question that’s never been asked before and they’re actually collecting data to get at an answer.”

The challenges:  Capellini observes that the most common challenge faced by students in the course is when “they have a really terrific question they want to explore, but the necessary background information is simply lacking. It is simply amazing how little we do know about human development, despite its hundreds of years of study.” Sometimes, for instance, students want to learn about the evolution, development, and genetics of a certain body part, but it is still somewhat a mystery to the field. In these cases, the teaching team (including co-instructor Dr. Neil Roach) tries to find datasets that are maximally relevant to the questions the students want to explore. Capellini also notes that the work in his class is demanding and hard, just by the nature of the work, but students “always step up and perform” and the teaching team does their best to “make it fun” and ensure they nurture students’ curiosities and questions.

Takeaways and best practices

• Incorporate previous students’ work into the course. Capellini intentionally discusses findings from previous student groups in lectures. “They’re developing real findings and we share that when we explain the project for the next groups.” Capellini also invites students to share their own progress and findings as part of class discussion, which helps them participate as independent researchers and receive feedback from their peers.
• Assign groups intentionally.  Maintaining flexibility allows the teaching team to be more responsive to students’ various needs and interests. Capellini will often place graduate students by themselves to enhance their workload and give them training directly relevant to their future thesis work. Undergraduates are able to self-select into groups or can be assigned based on shared interests. “If two people are enthusiastic about examining the knee, for instance, we’ll match them together.”
• Consider using multiple types of assessments.  Capellini notes that exams and quizzes are administered in the first half of the course and scaffolded so that students can practice the skills they need to successfully apply course material in the final project. “Lots of the initial examples are hypothetical,” he explains, even grounded in fiction and pop culture references, “but [students] have to eventually apply the skills they learned in addressing the hypothetical example to their own real example and the data they generate” for the Evo-Devo project. This is coupled with a paper and a presentation treated like a conference talk.

Bottom line:  Capellini’s top advice for professors looking to help their own students grow as researchers is to ensure research projects are designed with intentionality and fully integrated into the syllabus. “You can’t simply tack it on at the end,” he underscores. “If you want this research project to be a substantive learning opportunity, it has to happen from Day 1.” That includes carving out time in class for students to work on it and make the connections they need to conduct research. “Listen to your students and learn about them personally” so you can tap into what they’re excited about. Have some fun in the course, and they’ll be motivated to do the work.

Student Research

Explore the Questions that Need Answers

UCLA Offers Experiences for Undergraduate, Graduate and Visiting Students

CONDUCTING UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH HELPS STUDENTS EXPLORE THEIR INTERESTS, GAIN EXPERIENCE AND DEVELOP SKILLS.

Digital humanities students create a database of African-American silent films ― and inspire a museum exhibit. Environmental science students survey the impact of oil drilling on a neighborhood and share results at a public forum. Biology students conduct field research in French Polynesia and publish their results in a scientific journal. At UCLA, undergraduates have the opportunity to work on original research not only in the STEM sciences, but in the humanities, arts and social sciences. Two on-campus centers help match faculty and students for research opportunities.

The Undergraduate Research Center for Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences works to serve students and faculty in the humanities, arts, social science and behavioral science disciplines. The center promotes, develops and celebrates undergraduate student research with the overall goal of enhancing undergraduate education and preparing students for careers in all areas.

The Undergraduate Research Center for Sciences works to serve students and faculty in the life and physical sciences, engineering and mathematics. The center focuses on increasing the retention of science majors in all disciplines, as well as preparing students for academic and research careers.

Continue to Research Center — Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Continue to Research Center — Sciences

GRADUATE STUDENTS WORK WITH FACULTY MENTORS ON THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF RESEARCH PROJECTS.

Thousands of original research projects are undertaken each year by UCLA graduate and professional students, working as part of a team or independently. Their research may create scientific and medical advances, address urgent societal problems or deepen understanding of arts and cultures.

Continue to Graduate Education — Research

UCLA welcomes visiting undergraduate students for research experiences. Please see the process that must be followed in connection with the faculty host's department.

(310) 825-7943 [email protected]

© 2024 Regents of the University of California

• Accessibility
• Report Misconduct
• Privacy & Terms of Use

How Undergraduates Benefit From Doing Research

Undergraduate research isn't just for STEM subjects.

Benefits of Undergraduate Research

Getty Images

Studies show students who participate in research earn better grades, are more likely to graduate and are better equipped for graduate school or careers.

Jessica Stewart understands from personal experience the value of doing research as a college undergraduate. In her junior year at the University of California, Berkeley , Stewart worked with art historian Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby on her book, "Colossal," researching the Suez Canal, Eiffel Tower and other massive art and engineering monuments.

She loved the research so much that she went on to get her Ph.D. in art history. Almost 20 years after working on "Colossal," Stewart now directs the program that gave her the opportunity: UC Berkeley’s Undergraduate Research Apprenticeship Program.

But the initial benefit of doing undergraduate research was even more practical. When she was deciding which projects to apply for as an undergraduate, she got to explore many academic disciplines. This process opened her eyes.

“From the moment I set foot on campus, URAP allowed me to see what kinds of ideas I could study,” Stewart says. “The research and credit are great, but there’s this wayfinding side, too, where students can learn who researchers are, what research looks like and fields they may not have had any exposure to.”

A long tradition at some universities, mentored research projects are now offered at undergraduate institutions around the U.S. While many programs started out focused on science, today most universities offer opportunities across disciplines, including all aspects of STEM as well as architecture, business and theater arts.

No matter the subject area, research participation is an asset for undergrads. Studies show students who participate earn better grades , are more likely to graduate and are better equipped for graduate school or careers.

“It’s often most transformative for nontraditional learners and underrepresented students,” Stewart says. “They learn to triangulate life experience and studies in ways that may not have been intuitive for them. It greatly improves academic performance, retention and persistence.”

Research Roots in STEM

Every year, 6,000 undergraduates participate in research experiences through the National Science Foundation, mostly during the summer. Projects span nearly 20 subject areas , such as astronomy and ocean sciences. Most take place in the U.S., but some research is done abroad, including a marine sciences project at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences.

Experiences like these increase students’ confidence in their research skills and boost awareness of what graduate school will be like, according to a 2018 study . They also help students identify whether they want to pursue a science career.

“It’s one of the best ways to recruit students into STEM careers and retain them,” says Corby Hovis, a program director at the NSF's Division of Undergraduate Education. “That’s why we do it. It’s an effective way to get students from classrooms into doing STEM.”

The NSF is especially interested in applications from students who might not have had past opportunities to do research, including those who are the first in their families to attend college, and Black and Latino students.

Research institutions apply for NSF grants to mentor undergraduate students and guide them through participation in an ongoing project. For students, the experience includes orientation and training, as well as a stipend and allowances for housing and travel. In most cases, students write a paper about their contribution to research and may even present at a conference or seminar.

Some opportunities require that students have specific math courses under their belts, but all focus on helping students build other skills, aside from lab or research techniques, that they’ll need for future academic work or careers.

“Communicating clearly the results of research is a skill that could carry over into any field,” Hovis says. “The teamwork and cohort experience not only encourages them to continue in science, but (is) translatable to any number of other activities they will do later on.”

Connecting With Faculty

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , research has been part of the undergraduate experience for more than 50 years. Some students choose the school specifically for this reason, and more than 90% of students participate. As at other schools, research is part of a bigger initiative around experiential learning, which also includes service learning and study abroad .

The biggest challenge for students is usually figuring out what kind of research they’re interested in.

“We depend on students to do some of that footwork,” says Michael Bergren, director of MIT's Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. “There are a lot of supports, but at the end of the day a student needs to understand what they’re interested in, who's doing the work they’re interested in and what the steps are to participating in that research.”

But there is hand-holding, if needed. Before applying to work on a project, students have to approach the lead faculty member and introduce themselves.

“This is really intimidating. We don’t take that for granted,” Bergren says. “Part of life skills development is approaching a lab or faculty member and advocating for themselves.”

Peers offer tips about how to navigate that face-to-face encounter, such as find out a faculty member's office hours, send an email with a resume attached and attend a departmental event.

The networking doesn’t stop there. Get to know which graduate students work on the project, talk to other students who might be exploring the same opportunities and make sure you know what the work involves.

“As the research progresses, deliverables amp up,” Bergren says. “You may find you need to put more time into this right when finals are happening.”

The Future of Undergraduate Research

Some undergraduate researchers might share their work at academic conferences or seminars, or even be published in journals. Some might participate in the Council on Undergraduate Research annual conference , the largest symposium of its kind. Every year, more than 4,000 students attend a graduate school and career fair and present work that spans the disciplines.

Students have come to expect that they’ll get a chance to do research as undergrads, says Lindsay Currie, the council's director.

“More recent generations grew up in a different climate. They learned by doing in classrooms,” Currie says. “That, combined with a workforce that expects people to have lived experience, means students want to be able to say that they’ve already done research as part of their coursework.”

What’s next, Currie says, is universities that integrate research into coursework so that students start a project their first year and continue through their time in college. Working with a network of universities, the Council on Undergraduate Research has completed a study of how schools can modify their curricula to incorporate research from the very beginning.

“Starting as freshmen, students would work on research that would build,” Currie says. “This would be significantly more advanced projects that would be consistent across the particular department. This is how they’re going to teach, because they know students benefit from doing.”

Tips to Make Your Final College Choice

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

You May Also Like

How to decide if an mba is worth it.

Sarah Wood March 27, 2024

What to Wear to a Graduation

LaMont Jones, Jr. March 27, 2024

FAFSA Delays Alarm Families, Colleges

Sarah Wood March 25, 2024

Help Your Teen With the College Decision

Anayat Durrani March 25, 2024

Toward Semiconductor Gender Equity

Alexis McKittrick March 22, 2024

March Madness in the Classroom

Cole Claybourn March 21, 2024

20 Lower-Cost Online Private Colleges

Sarah Wood March 21, 2024

How to Choose a Microcredential

Sarah Wood March 20, 2024

Basic Components of an Online Course

Cole Claybourn March 19, 2024

Can You Double Minor in College?

Sarah Wood March 15, 2024

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

• Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
• Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
• Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

• A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
• A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

• Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
• Are there any heated debates you can address?
• Do you have a unique take on your topic?
• Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

• Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
• Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
• Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

• topic sentences against the thesis statement;
• topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
• and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

• Offer new arguments or essential information
• Take up any more space than necessary
• Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

• Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
• Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
• Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
• If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

• Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
• Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
• Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

• each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
• no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
• all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
• Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
• Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

• Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
• How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Unlimited Academic AI-Proofreading

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• Request new password
• Create a new account

The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project

Student resources.

Examples of Student Research Projects

High School Students Thrive as Researchers

Authentic exploratory research hones students’ investigation and analysis skills..

Posted April 1, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

• Why Education Is Important
• Find a Child Therapist

This post is Part I in a series.

I got to speak with students at Laguna Beach High School (LBHS) recently when giving a career talk there. They kept asking me advanced questions about conducting studies, writing, and science, and they spoke with passion about their own research projects. I was taken aback by how much these high school teens sounded like my adult college students and peers. They kept mentioning “AER”, and I had to learn more.

LBHS’s Authentic Exploratory Research (AER) Program is an independent research course inspired by Palo Alto Unified School District’s Advanced Authentic Research Program. In AER, students are paired with adult mentors (such as LBUSD staff, industry experts, and academics) who assist the teens in researching their own big questions in fields of their choice. Students spend about 60 hours per semester on coursework that includes both instruction and working on each project itself.

No such courses were offered at LBHS when I graduated there back in 1990, and I wonder how much sooner I could have enjoyed my career as a researcher if I had gotten to participate in AER as a youth. Though the program was introduced in 2019 by Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) Superintendent Jason Viloria, Ed.D., Jun Shen is the passionate teacher and edtech coordinator who runs it. I had the pleasure of partnering with Shen for an interview series where we’ll first explore how AER works before hearing from students about their experiences with AER honing skills for future success. Students’ feedback (in interviews to follow) and Shen’s answers (which follow each question below) can help others implement such a program.

Jenny Grant Rankin: What were the biggest challenges to implementing a successful AER program, and how did you tackle them?

Jun Shen: The biggest ongoing challenge is to find the balance between respecting the students’ individual freedom in their projects on one hand, and on the other, closely managing the students so they’d make adequate progress. Tackling this is an iterative process. Through the last four years, I have tried many different methods like online journaling, different grading rubrics and requirements, different communication protocols, and it seems to be steadily getting better.

JGR: When pairing students with adult mentors, how do you find and secure mentors who are appropriate for students' different interests?

JS: We have a dedicated Mentor Coordinator for AER, at first the ASB Director Jennifer Lundblad, then our District’s Career Education Coordinator Kellee Shearer. After students register for AER in March, we interview them in April and May to get a good feel for their field of interest, and Kellee spends the summer finding them mentors.

JGR: When speaking to your students about AER, I was impressed by the sophistication with which they discussed their studies. What was the most powerful strategy you used to help high schoolers understand research concepts that are hard for even college students to grasp?

JS: Most AER students are definitely wise beyond their years but I can’t claim credit for this one. It’s definitely a team effort, with a splash of selection bias thrown in. Most (though not all) students who take on the challenge of AER are already high-performing and highly-motivated students; thus, they’ve already learned a lot of the research and analysis skills in some of their other upper-level classes. In addition to that, we have a full-time Library Media Specialist, first Stephanie Gamache then Glen Warren, who works with the students to help them find what they need. Their mentor is another obviously valuable asset. As for me, I do very little whole-group, one-size-fits-all instruction about research and data analysis. Most of the students’ research methodologies are created individually with my advice.

JGR: What can you tell educators who are nervous about giving students so much independence and freedom in a course?

JS: First, be curious. If you love learning new things, then you’ll have a great time with your students as you explore some obscure topics together. The more you communicate that you’re personally invested in their study, the harder they will work with you. Second, it won’t be perfect your first year and that’s OK. Looking back, my first year running AER was rather lackluster, with a sizable portion of students dropping out or barely finishing their projects. Every year we learn our lessons and improve the course for the following year. Third, don’t reinvent the wheel. We based our program on Palo Alto USD’s program and, year after year, have modified it to suit our culture and needs. Start with their or our curriculum and see where it leads you.

JGR: What else should readers know about AER?

JS: It’s one of the highlights of my career. I’ve always been that kid who watched as many Discovery Channel Documentaries as I could because I loved learning about everything. I never thought that I’d get to geek out with kids about Aerospace Engineering and Fashion Design in a high school teaching job!

I’ve always been that kid, too. It’s heartwarming to learn how AER can be as rewarding for staff as it is for students, who we’ll hear from next. To continue reading, look for Part II.

Jenny Grant Rankin, Ph.D., is a Fulbright Specialist for the U.S. Department of State.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Course Design

Engaging Students in Research

• November 16, 2022
• Amanda Cappon, MEd, and Lynne N. Kennette, PhD

Students’ experiences in higher education goes far beyond the curriculum in their programs. Beyond the classroom walls there are extra-curricular and social activities and numerous other opportunities to gain unique skills and experiences. One such opportunity is for students to become involved in research. This could be in the form of a paid research assistantship (RA), volunteering in a research lab, or by completing an independent project (out of general interest or as a thesis requirement). An additional opportunity to involve students in research could be by embedding it directly into the curriculum via course-based research. The types of research-related opportunities available to students will differ based on the type of institution (interested readers may refer to our previous article, “ Writing Your First Grant ,” (Cappon & Kennette, 2022) for tips to secure some funding). There may be more opportunities at a research-focused university than a community college or a school more focused on liberal arts. For example, at our institution, faculty are not required to engage in research, so there are fewer opportunities for students. Despite this, 53% of student respondents at our two-year college have indicated they would be interested in research opportunities and identified far more benefits than barriers. This is data from a survey we administered to a group of first semester students enrolled in a two-year social service work diploma program at a Canadian college in Ontario. We will share additional data from this survey throughout this article.

Benefits and barriers

It is clear that there are advantages for us as faculty to include students in research. For example, hiring a Research Assistant (RA) or having a student volunteer to help us with projects reduces our workload. But what are the advantages for students?

There are documented benefits for soft or transferable skills for students, including critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and organization (Harris et al., 2016; Landrum & Nelson, 2002; Valdez & Liu, 2020). And these soft skills, among others, are so important for graduates to have in order to be competitive on the job market (Schultz, 2008; Succi  & Canovi, 2020). In fact, many RA job postings do request some of these soft skills in order to be hired for the position.

To get a better idea of the benefits and barriers in greater detail, we also asked our student sample about these issues. They identified a number of benefits, including the perception that a research position: might help them in their future careers (84.38%), would be experience they could include on their resumé (84.38%), would help them learn how to conduct research (78.13%), could help them stand out and land a job (78.13%), and would help them gain skills beyond those acquired in their program (75.00%). On average, students identified 3.91 barriers to their participation in research but averaged 9.28 benefits, so it’s clear they understand that there are disproportional advantages to participating in research.

Unfortunately, there are also barriers to students engaging in research during their studies, which include a lack of time, mentorship, and/or funding (Lovern, 2018; Marais et al., 2019; Schauer, 2018). This sentiment was echoed in our student responses as well, with most students citing a lack of time due to school (68.75%) or work (68.75%) and many expressing concerns that they would not do a good job (53.13%). Additional barriers have been recently documented for STEM students of color (see Pierszalowski et al., 2021), and while that discussion is beyond the scope of this article, it warrants further exploration.

Suggestions for increasing participation

How can we help minimize barriers and encourage students to participate in research endeavors during their studies? Our first suggestion is to share opportunities far and wide. Announce them to your classes (in person and/or online), send students to a college-wide job/volunteer board (if one exists), and post information outside your office door and in common areas. Although paid opportunities might be more appealing to students, many would be equally interested in volunteer positions if they realize they are gaining valuable skills that they can add to their experience and resumes, and that it might help them in their future job searches. So, explicitly sharing the value of research opportunities with students can also help.

The two most significant barriers that students identified were related to not having enough time (due to school or work). Although we cannot give our students additional time in a 24-hour day (we would all like more time in our day, wouldn’t we?), we can help them by being sensitive and flexible to their academic schedule such that we plan research activities during less stressful times in their semester. For example, during spring break/reading week they could try to line up some data entry or literature review work, or a more active or traditional research role (e.g., RA) during the summer months when they are less likely to be taking a full course load.

Students in our survey also identified a concern that they would not do a good job in a research-related position (likely due to not having enough knowledge) as a possible barrier. So, incorporating research-related training into our courses (e.g., ethics training certificate or course-based research) can help with building capacity for students to engage in research by increasing their confidence in their research skills. Perhaps your institution’s library has the capacity to offer research-related workshops that will aid in orienting the student in a research role as well as connecting with fellow students interested in research.

In addition, webinars or panel discussions, especially those that feature other students discussing their own worries prior to successfully engaging in their own research endeavors, can help address this barrier. Finally, ensuring that postings for research positions clearly articulate that training and support will be provided should help to reduce this concern in potential students.

In addition to minimizing barriers, we can also leverage the benefits that students see in research to help recruit volunteers or paid positions. As our survey suggests, one of the main values that students see in research is for their future careers and/or landing them a job. We can make those things salient in the job ad or when discussing research opportunities with students, highlighting that it counts as volunteer and/or work experience that they can include on their resumes.

Students report time constraints as the biggest barrier to engaging in research activities but they do recognize the value of those endeavors. Faculty can encourage research engagement among students by sharing these opportunities with students and trying to schedule research activities during times that might be less busy for students.

Amanda Cappon is a professor in the Social Service Work Program at Durham College, in Oshawa, Ontario.  She has a masters of education in counselling and psychotherapy and is a registered psychotherapist in the province of Ontario.  

Lynne N. Kennette is a professor of psychology and the research coordinator in the Faculty of Liberal Studies at Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario. She has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology, and is passionate about the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Cappon, A., &Kennette, L. N.(2022, January 31). Writing your first grant. Faculty Focus https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/writing-your-first-grant/

Harris, A., Babkoor, M., Gu, T., & Kremer, G.E. (2016). Course-based undergraduate research: A review of models & practices. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Volume 3 , Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2015-46126

Landrum, R. E., & Nelsen, L. R. (2002). The undergraduate research assistantship: An analysis of the benefits. Teaching of Psychology , 29 (1), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2901_04

Lovern, S. B. (2018). Barriers to transformative learning in undergraduate research: Helping student researchers to embrace the hurdles. Journal of Transformative Learning , 5 (2), 28-35.

Marais, D. L., Kotlowitz, J., Willems, B., Barsdorf, N. W., & Van Schalkwyk, S. (2019). Perceived enablers and constraints of motivation to conduct undergraduate research in a Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences: What role does choice play?. Plos One , 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212873

Pierszalowski, S., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Marlow, L. (2021). A Systematic Review of Barriers to Accessing Undergraduate Research for STEM Students: Problematizing Under-Researched Factors for Students of Color. Social Sciences , 10 (9), 328-. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090328

Schauer, D. J. (2018). Identifying, Recruiting, and Motivating Undergraduate Student Researchers at a Community College. In Strategies Promoting Success of Two-Year College Students (pp. 145-154). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1280.ch009

Schulz, B. (2008). The Importance of Soft Skills: Education beyond Academic Knowledge. NAWA Journal of Language & Communication, 2 (1), 146-154.

Succi, C., & Canovi, M. (2020). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in higher education , 45 (9), 1834-1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420

Valdez, I., & Liu, T. (2020). Assessing student perceptions to enhance undergraduate research in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review , 9 (4), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0038

Stay Updated with Faculty Focus!

Get exclusive access to programs, reports, podcast episodes, articles, and more!

• Opens in a new tab

Already a subscriber, log in now.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Lifting a few with my chatbot

Hate mosquitoes? Who doesn’t? But maybe we shouldn’t.

‘Harvard Thinking’: Climate alignment is no easy task

Lessons in learning.

Sean Finamore ’22 (left) and Xaviera Zime ’22 study during a lecture in the Science Center.

Photos by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

Peter Reuell

Harvard Staff Writer

Study shows students in ‘active learning’ classrooms learn more than they think

For decades, there has been evidence that classroom techniques designed to get students to participate in the learning process produces better educational outcomes at virtually all levels.

And a new Harvard study suggests it may be important to let students know it.

The study , published Sept. 4 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that, though students felt as if they learned more through traditional lectures, they actually learned more when taking part in classrooms that employed so-called active-learning strategies.

Lead author Louis Deslauriers , the director of science teaching and learning and senior physics preceptor, knew that students would learn more from active learning. He published a key study in Science in 2011 that showed just that. But many students and faculty remained hesitant to switch to it.

“Often, students seemed genuinely to prefer smooth-as-silk traditional lectures,” Deslauriers said. “We wanted to take them at their word. Perhaps they actually felt like they learned more from lectures than they did from active learning.”

In addition to Deslauriers, the study is authored by director of sciences education and physics lecturer Logan McCarty , senior preceptor in applied physics Kelly Miller, preceptor in physics Greg Kestin , and Kristina Callaghan, now a physics lecturer at the University of California, Merced.

The question of whether students’ perceptions of their learning matches with how well they’re actually learning is particularly important, Deslauriers said, because while students eventually see the value of active learning, initially it can feel frustrating.

“Deep learning is hard work. The effort involved in active learning can be misinterpreted as a sign of poor learning,” he said. “On the other hand, a superstar lecturer can explain things in such a way as to make students feel like they are learning more than they actually are.”

To understand that dichotomy, Deslauriers and his co-authors designed an experiment that would expose students in an introductory physics class to both traditional lectures and active learning.

For the first 11 weeks of the 15-week class, students were taught using standard methods by an experienced instructor. In the 12th week, half the class was randomly assigned to a classroom that used active learning, while the other half attended highly polished lectures. In a subsequent class, the two groups were reversed. Notably, both groups used identical class content and only active engagement with the material was toggled on and off.

Following each class, students were surveyed on how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “I feel like I learned a lot from this lecture” and “I wish all my physics courses were taught this way.” Students were also tested on how much they learned in the class with 12 multiple-choice questions.

When the results were tallied, the authors found that students felt as if they learned more from the lectures, but in fact scored higher on tests following the active learning sessions. “Actual learning and feeling of learning were strongly anticorrelated,” Deslauriers said, “as shown through the robust statistical analysis by co-author Kelly Miller, who is an expert in educational statistics and active learning.”

Those results, the study authors are quick to point out, shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting students dislike active learning. In fact, many studies have shown students quickly warm to the idea, once they begin to see the results. “In all the courses at Harvard that we’ve transformed to active learning,” Deslauriers said, “the overall course evaluations went up.”

Co-author Kestin, who in addition to being a physicist is a video producer with PBS’ NOVA, said, “It can be tempting to engage the class simply by folding lectures into a compelling ‘story,’ especially when that’s what students seem to like. I show my students the data from this study on the first day of class to help them appreciate the importance of their own involvement in active learning.”

McCarty, who oversees curricular efforts across the sciences, hopes this study will encourage more of his colleagues to embrace active learning.

“We want to make sure that other instructors are thinking hard about the way they’re teaching,” he said. “In our classes, we start each topic by asking students to gather in small groups to solve some problems. While they work, we walk around the room to observe them and answer questions. Then we come together and give a short lecture targeted specifically at the misconceptions and struggles we saw during the problem-solving activity. So far we’ve transformed over a dozen classes to use this kind of active-learning approach. It’s extremely efficient — we can cover just as much material as we would using lectures.”

A pioneer in work on active learning, Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics Eric Mazur hailed the study as debunking long-held beliefs about how students learn.

“This work unambiguously debunks the illusion of learning from lectures,” he said. “It also explains why instructors and students cling to the belief that listening to lectures constitutes learning. I recommend every lecturer reads this article.”

Dean of Science Christopher Stubbs , Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy, was an early convert. “When I first switched to teaching using active learning, some students resisted that change. This research confirms that faculty should persist and encourage active learning. Active engagement in every classroom, led by our incredible science faculty, should be the hallmark of residential undergraduate education at Harvard.”

Ultimately, Deslauriers said, the study shows that it’s important to ensure that neither instructors nor students are fooled into thinking that lectures are the best learning option. “Students might give fabulous evaluations to an amazing lecturer based on this feeling of learning, even though their actual learning isn’t optimal,” he said. “This could help to explain why study after study shows that student evaluations seem to be completely uncorrelated with actual learning.”

This research was supported with funding from the Harvard FAS Division of Science.

Share this article

You might like.

Sociologist Sherry Turkle warns against growing trend of turning to AI for companionship, counsel

Entomologist says there is much scientists don’t know about habitats, habits, impacts on their environments

Experts at the Salata Institute outline tensions between global and local priorities

College accepts 1,937 to Class of 2028

Students represent 94 countries, all 50 states

Pushing back on DEI ‘orthodoxy’

Panelists support diversity efforts but worry that current model is too narrow, denying institutions the benefit of other voices, ideas

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

Findings from the Field: Students and Professionals Connect at Research Symposium

On March 18, 2024, 65 middle and high school scientists gathered at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) in Portland, Maine to share their science research projects with one another and with professional scientists from GMRI, Mount Washington Observatory (MWOBS), and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. GMRI is the anchor institution for the NASA Science Activation Program's Learning Ecosystems Northeast (LENE) project, which supports Findings from the Field , a journal of student scientific research. Annually, youth submitting research to the journal have the opportunity to come together to share their work during the Student Research Symposium.

This year, student and professional scientists alike prepared and delivered lightning talks and discussed their research during poster sessions. This year’s symposium featured student research on invasive green crabs, smelt population estimates using eDNA technology, climate impacts on bees and blueberries, ocean plastics, and more. Presentations by five early career scientists from GMRI and MWOBS provided an opportunity for youth to talk with near-peer role models. The program featured a scientific talk by Brandon Rodriguez from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that inspired youth to think about the breadth of possibilities for working in planetary science. It was an exciting day for all, topped off with evening news coverage on three local television channels! Volume 7 of Findings from the Field will be released later this spring after students complete the journal’s peer review process and polish up their pieces for publication.

Odin Bravo from Baxter Academy in Portland, Maine, said, "I plan on going into science for my career, so being able to do something outside of school like this is very helpful to get me ready and to get feedback to make me better."

The Learning Ecosystems Northeast project is supported by NASA under cooperative agreement award number NNX16AB94A and is part of NASA’s Science Activation Portfolio. To learn more, visit: https://science.nasa.gov/sciact-team/gmri/

Related Terms

• Opportunities For Students to Get Involved
• Science Activation

Explore More

8 Must-Have NASA Resources for Science Teachers in 2024

Earn Awards for Doing NASA Science with GLOBE Observer

Introduction to STEM Learning Ecosystems: Video Series

Discover more topics from nasa.

James Webb Space Telescope

Perseverance Rover

Parker Solar Probe

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)

• REU Program Overview
• Program Solicitation

For Students

• Search for an REU Site
• For Faculty
• REU Contacts
• Research Areas

NSF funds a large number of research opportunities for undergraduate students through its REU Sites program. An REU Site consists of a group of ten or so undergraduates who work in the research programs of the host institution. Each student is associated with a specific research project, where he/she works closely with the faculty and other researchers. Students are granted stipends and, in many cases, assistance with housing and travel. Undergraduate students supported with NSF funds must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States or its possessions. An REU Site may be at either a US or foreign location.

By using the web page, Search for an REU Site , you may examine opportunities in the subject areas supported by various NSF units. Also, you may search by keywords to identify sites in particular research areas or with certain features, such as a particular location.

Student Research Symposium

It's back on! Join us for our annual Student Research Symposium, an afternoon dedicated to the amazing work being done by grads and undergrads!

Support UGA Women's Studies

The Institute of Women's Studies appreciates your financial support. Your gift is important to us and helps support critical opportunities for students and faculty alike, including lectures, travel support, and any number of educational events that augment the classroom experience.

Click here to learn more

Every dollar contributed to the department has a direct impact on our students and faculty.

Humanities Lab transforms in-class research into real-world impact

Asu library, humanities lab partnership connects students with resources for research inquiry, information literacy.

(From left) Student Jessica Hladik and ASU Associate Liaison Librarian Mimmo Bonanni in front of the "Ecofeminist Expressions" featured collection on the second floor of Hayden Library. The collection was inspired by the Gendering Peace and Security Humanities Lab. Photo by Jordyn Kush/ASU Library

As fall 2024 humanities labs launch in the new semester, the Arizona State University Library and Humanities Lab commemorate an eight-year partnership in addition to the latest outcome of their collaboration: the unveiling of a new student and librarian-driven featured book collection, titled " Ecofeminist Expressions ."

The Humanities Lab’s unique format offers collaborative and transdisciplinary learning experiences for students and faculty by tackling pressing social challenges through a framework that leads with the humanities. 

The embedded librarian partnership, which launched in fall 2017, pairs Humanities Lab courses and their corresponding social challenges (i.e., deconstructing race; sustainable fashion; Indigenous food systems) with expert librarians from specialized areas such as humanities, social sciences and Indigenous knowledge. 

“Librarians have special skills in information and material collection, storage and retrieval, which is a major asset for students who’ve never had to work with specialized databases,” said Humanities Lab Program Manager and Humanizing Digital Culture co-faculty Monica Boyd . “An embedded lab librarian also means that the librarian is engaged with the course material alongside the student. Librarians have worked closely with student teams to create outcomes ... and enriched their lab’s inquiry through their own interests.”

With librarians in each lab course, the collaboration ignites students' ability to turn research inquiries into public-facing and actionable outcomes, including the new “Ecofeminist Expressions” collection, curated for the ASU community. 

These transdisciplinary teams enrich the labs and student experiences, connecting students with the abundant resources available in the library. 

“This partnership has allowed both entities to collaborate around a shared vision of creating a space for the deeper exploration of the challenging topics offered by the Humanities Labs,” said Debra Riley-Huff , associate university librarian for Engagement and Learning Services at the ASU Library. “Having librarians embedded in the labs means the students get to experience the relevance of both information literacy and the required levels of research and understanding needed to be information literate. The embedded librarians can bring tools and research methodology closer to students who may need to be made aware of them.”

This has been a welcome opportunity for librarians to work closely with faculty and students throughout the entire course.

“What's most fulfilling for me is being able to work with the two Humanities Lab faculty members, as a team and collaboratively, creating a course that engages students' curiosity and intellectual research and creativity,” said Mimmo Bonanni , a social sciences librarian at ASU. Bonanni has participated in four different labs, including " Deconstructing Race " and " Gendering Peace and Security ," the first in a series of UNESCO BRIDGES Humanities Labs. 

Photo by Jordyn Kush/ASU Library

For students like Jessica Hladik, an academic senior majoring in business (sustainability) and supply chain management (with minors in Spanish and economics), having Bonanni in her Gendering Peace and Security Lab made all the difference. 

“Mimmo was an incredibly supportive figure whose passion for learning and storytelling was clear to myself and my peers in the lab,” which includes her lab and "Ecofeminist Expressions" partner, Chimerezie Okezie, an informatics major in the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering . “Not only did he help us with our research, but he taught us how to better navigate the resources available to us through the ASU Library system so that we could become better researchers on our own,” Hladik said.

Humanities Labs are open to all ASU students regardless of their major. The labs are the only program of its kind in the U.S.

Miki Caul Kittilson , professor and vice dean in the College of Global Futures , was the co-lead for the Gendering Peace and Security Lab . “In this lab, students connected the goals of peace, gender equity and sustainable futures for all through a transdisciplinary and comparative focus. Despite the fundamentally interconnected challenges of climate, security and gender equality, advocates and policymakers often treat each problem in isolation,” Kittilson said.

This particular lab worked with the UNESCO and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and brought together a team to help answer a global call to action to improve human lives and protect the environment.

“The SDGs are built on decades of work,” Kittilson said. “Students in our lab explored the conditions that created the possibility of the SDGs, and through question-based learning, worked together to re-imagine them.” 

Fall 2024 Humanities Lab offerings

Interested in learning more about future labs?

Review the fall 2024 list .

For the lab's final project, Hladik and Okezie worked on an "ecofeminism in media" book list with the idea of sharing the list throughout the ASU and Tempe communities and libraries. Bonanni was impressed with the bibliography and connected with the ASU Library’s Open Stack Collections team to collaborate to turn the original list into a featured collection. The result is the “Ecofeminist Expressions'' book and film collection that is currently located on the second floor of Hayden Library .

Kittilson emphasized how the project skillfully connects issues with sustainability. “Jessica and Chimereze’s project draws on literature to raise fundamental questions central to the analysis and re-imagining: What is gender? What do we mean by gender equality? What is peace? How do we define conflict? What do we mean by environment? How are these things connected?” Kittilson said.

“Ecofeminist Expressions” includes thought leaders who have contributed to the field, a branch of feminism and political ecology wherein people draw on the concept of gender to analyze the relations between humans and the natural world. Materials in the collection include fictional books, films and foundational titles from ecofeminist theorists.  

Kittilson said, “Jessica and Mimmo’s book display is important because it provides an opportunity for students to explore these important and urgent questions through literature. Data and research are always important, and yet this connection through literature and art is vital to connecting us as human beings to these complex and urgent challenges of planetary health and peace.” 

For Hladik, she hopes the featured collection can serve as a resource for students and visitors interested in learning more about the intersectionality of gender equality, women’s rights and environmental challenges. 

“The original project sought to address the disconnect that may exist between how individuals understand the bond between social and environmental sides of sustainability,” Hladik said. "Although sustainability is built on environmental and social themes, there may be a lack of understanding of how they are intertwined.

“I believe creating a space where these stories are more accessible for members of the ASU community gives power to the ecofeminist movement and promotes learning for anyone who happens to come across it.”

This story was co-written by Marilyn Murphy and Maureen Kobierowski.

More Arts, humanities and education

ASU grad student establishes first comprehensive public-school cybersecurity curriculum

Written by Tony Roth, [email protected] As a school superintendent based in Pennsylvania, Arizona State University graduate student Phil Martell is leveraging his online degree to integrate…

First-of-its-kind online Italian minor launches at ASU

As a member of the U.S. Air Force, Angelo Chaknis needed an academic program that would allow him the flexibility to schedule his studies around his work in the military without the stress of…

Story of 'The Kite Runner' soars to incredible heights with musical accompaniment

By Alexis Alabado Close your eyes and hear the music: tuneful plinks, thumps and a fast-paced rhythmic tempo that drives the story home. Open your eyes, and you come to discover this kind of…

Skip to Main Landmark (Press Enter)

Spartan Alert

Graduate students present their work at research and creativity showcase.

Posted on April 01, 2024

Please plan to join us as the UNC Greensboro Graduate School hosts the 12th Annual Graduate Research and Creativity Showcase: “Scholarship That Matters.” This showcase of talent will be held on Thursday, April 4 from 1:00-3:30 p.m. in the Elliott University Center Cone Ballroom at UNCG.

New this year, the Graduate School is introducing People’s Choice Awards. Several People’s Choice Awards are available in addition to the judges’ category winners, and will be based on audience selections.

Previews of the students and their research can be read here .

The purpose of the Showcase is to present the accomplishments of UNCG’s graduate students to the Greater Greensboro community and to provide a venue for students to communicate their research and creative activities to the public. Graduate students explain and present their work through posters.

This event is designed to showcase graduate research and creative work to a variety of non-specialized audiences. It is not intended to replicate an academic conference in a specific discipline, as students present their work to judges and individuals, not in their field of study.

Trending Stories

Two Shooting Stars, Just Like Spartan Dad

April 1, 2024

Keyford Langley ’92, star UNCG point guard, still holds the program record for three-point percentage after three decades. But nothi...

Dr. Patricia Sullivan: First in Leadership

March 28, 2024

Dr. Sullivan led UNCG through a period of growth in the 1990s and 2000s. Her impact was felt in academics and all over the campus gr...

UNCG Alumna Turns Family Recipes into Healthy Dips

Bryan School Alumna '16 M.B.A. Mehek Khera credits her UNCG experience with shaping her entrepreneurial journey as she launches her ...

• Print Friendly

Ruopeng An Showcases the Power of AI to the St. Louis Community

A Brown School professor is joining forces with St. Louis community leaders to teach the rudiments of Artificial Intelligence to a wide array of local audiences with a variety of interests. He discovered just how varied the appetite for AI is when a dozen students from the Missouri School for the Blind showed up to participate in a session he led at a branch of the St. Louis Public Library on creating art with AI.

“They were absolutely amazing,” said the associate professor, Ruopeng An . “After the lecture, they practiced on the computer. The AI system generated artwork that was a reflection of themselves.”

The event, recently released on  video , attracted 29 participants from around the St. Louis area, with more sessions to come, according to An, as part of the school’s Open Classroom and AI certificate program . The idea was sparked by Sarah Sims, assistant director of Professional Development , whose husband is on staff at the St. Louis Library. An was approached to offer local training, and brought his students to the library to help.

The event gave people their first taste of AI.  “They had heard of it, but never experienced the power of AI for themselves,” An said.  He said creating art was a great way to showcase that power, and suitable for students of all ages – more than half were under 18. The lecture provided guidance on how to write “prompts” for AI to use. The students generated artworks printed at the library and mailed home.

In addition to the library events, An plans to offer training sessions to non-profit organizations in the St. Louis area through Delmar DivINe.  He will offer an AI workshop in April at the St. Louis Modern Chinese School for students and their parents.

Mary Meyer, manager of Digital Services for the St. Louis Public Library, said the November program at the Julia Davis branch was “a perfect space” for the workshop. The library offers digital maker spaces that focus on creativity and bringing together community resources. “We’ve seen a huge use of these resources,” she said. “The AI workshop was really engaging, everyone was excited to create something, and our staff had so much fun seeing what people were creating. We would definitely hope to host another AI event in the future.” 

One participant was Rachel Tang, a high school senior who’ll be attending Washington University in the fall. She plans to major in environmental analysis, but has a side interest in art. “I thought it would be a good introduction to AI,” she said. “It was really interesting to see how you can use words to come up with an art piece.  It really opened up a new door for my art hobby.”