Your written reports should utilize a format similar to the standard format of scientific papers submitted for publication. That is, we expect you to organize your papers into the major sections outlined below, and to format equations according to standard conventions (all variables and other non-English elements should be italicized, exponents should be superscripted, etc.). The upper right-hand corner of the first page should proclaim two disclaimers indicating that your paper has not yet been approved for submission to a professional journal: "Version of [date]" and "Not for public distribution."

Title & Author List: What's your system? What's your point? Immediately below your title, list your collaborators and institution, making sure to put a special mark by your own name on any papers written individually. For example,

Suz E. Queue^Ý, Chuck E. Boy, G. C. Spalding, J. D. Williams
Department of Physics, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL 61702

Abstract: The abstract is an opportunity to clarify what system is under study and what physical and numerical results you most wish to convey. In one paragraph, summarize the experiment and results. State what was measured or determined and by what method (giving the name of the method is sufficient) and be sure to give the results quantitatively (with uncertainty) where appropriate. (Don't hesitate to be specific.)

The purpose of an abstract is to provide readers of a journal (or attendees of a conference where many papers are presented) a convenient means of learning the significance of any particular paper without having to read the whole paper. The readers will then decide which papers to read based on the abstracts. So, think of the abstract as an advertisement for your paper. Imagine that you are a professional scientist and are publishing your paper in a journal, and keep the following in mind:

a) You want to be sure that people read the abstract--so make it short.

b) The one thing you absolutely want everyone to know, even those who don't read the paper, is your main result (or results). Do not think of your paper as a mystery novel where you might avoid telling the reader your result. If you don't state any results in your abstract, the readers will think that you have no result (that the paper only discusses an attempt to get a result) and will not bother wasting their time reading your paper. If you state the result, then even those who don't read the paper will at least know of your accomplishments ... and that is your main goal in publishing the paper.

Introduction and Background: Here, you summarize the basic physics needed to understand the experiment, introducing essential models and variables in clear physical terms. Try writing this section last, based on an outline devised while writing the other sections. That way, you will know what is needed. However, some difficult concepts are best left until later to avoid disrupting the flow of the introduction.

Consider the introduction as the motivator--use this section to impress upon your readers the importance of the experiment. A fairly common approach to the introduction is to discuss the theory and/or controversy about that aspect of physics and end with a statement such as "We have made a direct measurement of this value by ... and have found that ...." This approach tells the reader straight out that you have performed an experiment that may settle an issue or answer an important question and it tells the reader what your answer is. Again, do not be afraid to give your answer (or answers, if there are multiple results) prematurely. Additionally, the readers will find your paper easier to read if they know where it is headed and the easiest way to establish this is by telling the reader the answer(s) at the start.

Experimental Methods: The purpose of this section is to inform the reader of the method well enough so that the reader can establish an informed opinion of its reliability. For example, in the cold nuclear fusion announcement, the details of the method were not communicated, so many scientists were alerted to be skeptical. Properly educated scientists will not believe a result until they learn enough of the experimental method used to feel confident that it was reliable.

Do not just restate the instructions in the manual. Do not explain unimportant details, such as where a particular switch is or how you place your head to see that something is aligned. Instead summarize the methodology in a way that would allow an intelligent scientist to understand what you have done. Also explain the method by which the uncertainty in the measurements has been assessed. (Separate measurements may be needed to estimate the measurement uncertainty.) If you believe you have identified a significant source of systematic error, please indicate a plausible magnitude of the suggested effect.

Results: Here you fully describe the results of your experiments. Use figures (and tables, if important) generously. Assign a figure number to each figure, and discuss each one in the text. Each figure should also have a brief explanatory caption so that its main point can be grasped independently of the text.

Be sure to include an estimated uncertainty with every significant measurement. Although you may discuss the method by which the uncertainties are determined in the Experimental Methods section, you need also to quote the uncertainties (after a plus-minus sign) when you present the quantitative results. If systematic errors can be significant, they should be discussed also.

One very common mistake (for students) is to calculate the percentage difference between the measurement and an accepted value and to call this the measurement uncertainty. The measurement uncertainty is to be determined without reference to any assumed correct value. By referring to the amount that your differs from an accepted value as the "error" in your result, you are essentially stating a) that the correct answer has been determined, so your experiment is completely pointless, and b) that you know that your answer is the wrong one, and therefore no reader should pay any attention to it. Furthermore, a physicist does not generally know what the correct answer to an experiment is, yet still wants to know how accurate the determined value is. You can (and often should), however, discuss "the percent disagreement" between your result and the theoretical prediction. Don't state this as your uncertainty or error though (note that I used the word "disagreement").

Conclusions: This is essentially a restatement of the whole paper, and may seem redundant, especially if you are a good writer in the humanities. Just keep in mind that the concepts you have discussed can be confusing, so giving a summary at the end helps to establish them in the reader's memory and understanding. It differs from the abstract in that the abstract MUST be short and the abstract is written for someone who hasn't yet read the paper (so no knowledge about the details of the experiment is assumed there). One last piece of advice: don't try to oversell your results. If the results are only marginally significant, you are better off being clear in the paper that you believe this to be the case. Others may still find it interesting enough and follow up on your experiment.

*(Much of this advice is based upon a handout which originated in the Physics Department at Haverford College, Haverford, PA, back in the days when Gabe taught there.)

For this course, your papers should follow the format and general guidelines established for submissions to the American Journal of Physics.
The linked .zip file contains the LaTeX files for that journal's standard sample manuscript.

The Purdue University Online Writing Lab. This link takes you to a handout which discusses Grammar, Spelling, and Punctuation.

Another item from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab. This handout discusses Research Papers, including use of the web, assessment of sources, and other related topics.

The AIP style manual (all sections).