Please follow the following guidelines for all drafts of your final paper:
rticles::mdpi_article
template.doi
and/or url
field in BibTeX entries. Insert citations into the body of the paper as appropriate in R Markdown. Cite R packages with information from citation()
. You can start a .bib
file with knitr::write_bib()
. The `BibTeX database for this page looks like this.figure
environment (in LaTeX). If the figure is generated as a plot in R, name the chunk and use the fig.cap
chunk option. If the figure is an external image, use knitr::include_graphics()
. All Figures must be referenced explicitly in the text by number. Figures should have expansive captions that tell the reader what they are supposed to see in the figure. All figures should have readable axis labels and explicit units. Figures should be mostly self-explanatory! Spend more time gussying up the figures – not less! Recall the SDS 192 standards for Aesthetics, Context, and Markdown.table
environment (in LaTeX). If the table is generated from data in R, use the kable()
function. If the table is input manually, just put it in a data.frame and use kable()
anyway. Tables should also have expansive captions and must be referenced in the text by number. Simple summary tables are easy to generate and really helpful to readers!wordcountaddin::text_stats()
to count your words.wordcountaddin::text_stats()
So much of revision is realizing how useless 90% of adverbs are.
— Clint Smith (@ClintSmithIII) August 4, 2020
Your final deliverable will be to write up your project as an academic paper. For your convenience, the format should conform to the Undergraduate Research Project Competition (USRESP) guidelines. If possible, you are strongly encouraged to submit your paper to the competition, but that decision will not affect your grade in this class. The paper should be 12–15 pages long, plus references, and an appendix (of arbitrary length) in which you can show more graphics, tables, etc.
paper
.rticles
packages to write the paper in R Markdown.Most commonly, research papers will have five sections like:
Optionally, if you have more stuff:
The following common feedback applies to all groups. Please read carefully – these are mandatory recommendations.
General feedback:
Your final paper must include an ethical statement. The ethical statement may be relegated to the appendix at your discretion.
Your first draft focuses on the mechanics of writing a journal paper in R Markdown. First, you have to get the template to compile. Second, you can fill in easy details about yourselves. Third, write a complete introductory section. This section should be complete and include a compreshensible description of your problem, and why the previous approaches to solving it were insufficient. Fourth, write a complete section about your data. What data do you have? How many rows and columns? What format? What are some basic summary statistics? [This is a good place to include a table.] Fifth, set up BibTeX and cite at least one reference in your introduction.
Your submission should include:
Criteria | Four | Five | Six |
---|---|---|---|
Formatting | Multiple formatting errors. References do not use BiBTeX. | Formatting works, but does not help to structure the paper. Section titles do not clearly indicate what section is about. Figures/images are too big or too small. | Section titles provide clear structure. Figures, tables, and images fit nicely into the narrative. References use BiBTeX and are complete. |
Attention to detail | Title does is not descriptive. References are mostly incomplete. | Author information and/or affiliations are incomplete. References do not include URLs. | Title is informative and catchy. Author information is complete. References include complete information, including URLs. |
Introduction | Introduction does not describe the problem. Introduction does not discuss previous approaches or cite previous work. | Introduction describes the problem, but uses language that is either overly technical (unexplained jargon) or not technical enough (imprecise). Description of previous work is vague. | Introduction clearly describes the problem using appropriate language. Introduction discusses previous work and includes citations. Introduction is written in present tense. |
Data | Description of data is vague, rife with jargon, or inaccurate. Key variables are not defined. Units are not included. | Description of data is not comprehensive. Key variables are summarized but not well-defined. Units are implied or omitted. Tables and/or figures are unclear or barely readable. | Description of data is clear and comprehensive. Basic summary statistics are included in neat, readable tables. Key variables are well-defined and summarized in tables or figures, with units made explicit. |
Second draft criteria include everything in the first draft, plus:
Criteria | Ten | Eleven | Twelve |
---|---|---|---|
General | Corrections from first draft were fully implemented. Methods section is imprecise and/or incomplete. Results section is sparse. | Methods section contains too much narrative about what was tried, rather than focusing on what is important for the reader to know. Results section is largely incomplete and fails to drive home message. | Methods section explains in appropriate scientific language what is important for the reader to know and how it was done. Results section drives home the message of the paper using fully-explained examples, figures, tables, etc. |
Final draft criteria include everything in the first and second drafts, plus:
Criteria | Sixteen | Eighteen | Twenty |
---|---|---|---|
Formatting | Section titles do not clearly indicate what section is about. Figures/images are too big or too small. References do not use BiBTeX. | Section titles provide clear structure. Figures, tables, and images fit nicely into the narrative. References use BiBTeX and are complete. | |
Narrative | Paper tells the story of what you did, including excessive details about data wrangling, and/or failed approaches that are not informative. | Introduction explains key concepts and illustrates why research was necessary. Team’s contribution is clearly communicated. Outside research is extensive and appropriately sourced. Paper focuses on the information that is most important to readers. | |
Completeness | Results section is still largely empty. Methods section is thin on details or largely incomplete. Figures, tables, and references are not working properly. | Results section is substantially complete. Methods section is fully sketched out, if not complete. Figures, tables, and references are working, if not complete. |