What this handout is about.
This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.
Why do we write research reports.
You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?
To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.
So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:
Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.
Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:
This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.
The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.
states your hypothesis | explains how you derived that hypothesis and how it connects to previous research; gives the purpose of the experiment/study | |
details how you tested your hypothesis | clarifies why you performed your study in that particular way | |
provides raw (i.e., uninterpreted) data collected | (perhaps) expresses the data in table form, as an easy-to-read figure, or as percentages/ratios | |
considers whether the data you obtained support the hypothesis | explores the implications of your finding and judges the potential limitations of your experimental design |
Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.
Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.
The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:
Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.
How do i write a strong introduction.
For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.
The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.
For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.
As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.
Not a hypothesis:
“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”
Hypothesis:
“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”
Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.
You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?
Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.
This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.
Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.
Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:
“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”
Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.
As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.
Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.
With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.
Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:
Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:
“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”
Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.
Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.
Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.
Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.
Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.
This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:
“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”
“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”
If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.
Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:
“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”
This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.
As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)
You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.
Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?
As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.
As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:
As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.
When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:
It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:
The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.
1058 |
432 |
7 |
Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.
Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.
If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.
Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.
Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.
At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.
Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:
The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.
Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:
Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.
This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,
“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”
Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.
Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).
You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.
Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.
If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.
This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.
We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.
If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)
This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.
Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.
We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.
American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.
Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.
Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.
You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Make a Gift
Discover the world's research
If you already have a headache trying to understand what research paper is all about, we have created an ultimate guide for you on how to write a research paper. You will find all the answers to your questions regarding structure, planning, doing investigation, finding the topic that appeals to you. Plus, you will find out the secret to an excellent paper. Are you at the edge of your seat? Let us start with the basics then.
What is a research paper.
Get 10% off with 24start discount code.
You probably know the saying ‘the devil is not as black as he is painted’. This particular saying is absolutely true when it comes to writing a research paper. Your feet are cold even with the thought of this assignment. You have heard terrifying stories from older students. You have never done this before, so certainly you are scared. What is a research paper? How should I start? What are all these requirements about?
Luckily, you have a friend in need. That is our writing service. First and foremost, let us clarify the definition. A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides information about a particular topic that you’ve researched . In other words, you choose a topic: about historical events, the work of some artist, some social issues etc. Then you collect data on the given topic and analyze it. Finally, you put your analysis on paper. See, it is not as scary as it seems. If you are still having doubts, whether you can handle it yourself, we are here to help you. Our team of writers can help you choose the topic, or give you advice on how to plan your work, or how to start, or craft a paper for you. Just contact us 24/7 and see everything yourself.
Why should I spend my time writing some academic paper? What is the use of it? Is not some practical knowledge more important? The list of questions is endless when it comes to a research paper. That is why we have outlined 5 main reasons why writing a research paper is a good thing.
If you want to write a research paper, you will have to learn how to manage your time. This type of assignment cannot be done overnight. It requires careful planning and you will need to learn how to do it. Later, you will be able to use these time-managing skills in your personal life, so why not developing them?
You cannot know something before you try it. This rule relates to writing as well. You cannot claim that you cannot write until you try it yourself. It will be really difficult at the beginning, but then the words will come to your head themselves.
Writing a research paper is all about investigation and analysis. You will need to collect data, examine and classify it. These skills are needed in modern life more than anything else is.
Once you do your own research, it gives you the feeling of confidence in yourself. The reason is simple human brain likes solving puzzles and your assignment is just another puzzle to be solved.
When you write your paper, you should always remember that you are writing it for someone to read. Moreover, you want this someone to believe in your ideas. For this reason, you will have to learn different convincing methods and techniques. You will learn how to make your writing persuasive. In turns, you will be able to use these methods in real life.
A common question is ‘what is the difference between a report paper and a thesis paper?’ The difference lies in the aim of these two assignments. While the former aims at presenting the information, the latter aims at providing your opinion on the matter. In other words, in a report paper you have to summarize your findings. In a thesis paper, you choose some issue and defend your point of view by persuading the reader. It is that simple.
A thesis paper is a more common assignment than a report paper. This task will help a professor to evaluate your analytical skills and skills to present your ideas logically. These skills are more important than just the ability to collect and summarize data.
Research comes from the French word rechercher , meaning “to seek out.” Writing a research paper requires you to seek out information about a subject, take a stand on it, and back it up with the opinions, ideas, and views of others. What results is a printed paper variously known as a term paper or library paper, usually between five and fifteen pages long—most instructors specify a minimum length—in which you present your views and findings on the chosen subject.
It is not a secret that the majority of students hate writing a research paper. The reason is simple it steals your time and energy. Not to mention, constant anxiety that you will not be able to meet the deadline or that you will forget about some academic requirement.
We will not lie to you; a research paper is a difficult assignment. You will have to spend a lot of time. You will need to read, to analyze, and to search for the material. You will probably be stuck sometimes. However, if you organize your work smart, you will gain something that is worth all the effort – knowledge, experience, and high grades.
The reason why many students fail writing a research paper is that nobody explained them how to start and how to plan their work. Luckily, you have found our writing service and we are ready to shed the light on this dark matter.
We have created a step by step guide for you on how to write a research paper. We will dwell upon the structure, the writing tips, the writing strategies as well as academic requirements. Read this whole article and you will see that you can handle writing this assignment and our team of writers is here to assist you.
It all starts with the assignment. Your professor gives you the task. It may be either some general issue or specific topic to write about. Your assignment is your first guide to success. If you understand what you need to do according to the assignment, you are on the road to high results. Do not be scared to clarify your task if you need to. There is nothing wrong in asking a question if you want to do something right. You can ask your professor or you can ask our writers who know a thing or two in academic writing.
It is essential to understand the assignment. A good beginning makes a good ending, so start smart.
Learn how to start a research paper .
We have already mentioned that it is not enough to do great research. You need to persuade the reader that you have made some great research. What convinces better that an eye-catching topic? That is why it is important to understand how to choose a topic for a research paper.
First, you need to delimit the general idea to a more specific one. Secondly, you need to find what makes this topic interesting for you and for the academia. Finally, you need to refine you topic. Remember, it is not something you will do in one day. You can be reshaping your topic throughout your whole writing process. Still, reshaping not changing it completely. That is why keep in your head one main idea: your topic should be precise and compelling .
Learn how to choose a topic for a research paper .
If you do not know what a proposal is, let us explain it to you. A proposal should answer three main questions:
In other words, proposal should show why your topic is interesting and how you are going to prove it. As to writing requirements, they may differ. That is why make sure you find out all the details at your department. You can ask your departmental administrator or find information online at department’s site. It is crucial to follow all the administrative requirements, as it will influence your grade.
Learn how to write a proposal for a research paper .
The next step is writing a plan. You have already decided on the main issues, you have chosen the bibliography, and you have clarified the methods. Here comes the planning. If you want to avoid writer’s block, you have to structure you work. Discuss your strategies and ideas with your instructor. Think thoroughly why you need to present some data and ideas first and others second. Remember that there are basic structure elements that your research paper should include:
You should keep in mind this skeleton when planning your work. This will keep your mind sharp and your ideas will flow logically.
Learn how to write a research plan .
Your research will include three stages: collecting data, reading and analyzing it, and writing itself.
First, you need to collect all the material that you will need for you investigation: films, documents, surveys, interviews, and others. Secondly, you will have to read and analyze. This step is tricky, as you need to do this part smart. It is not enough just to read, as you cannot keep in mind all the information. It is essential that you make notes and write down your ideas while analyzing some data. When you get down to the stage number three, writing itself, you will already have the main ideas written on your notes. Plus, remember to jot down the reference details. You will then appreciate this trick when you will have to write the bibliography.
If you do your research this way, it will be much easier for you to write the paper. You will already have blocks of your ideas written down and you will just need to add some material and refine your paper.
Learn how to do research .
To make your paper well organized you need to write an outline. Your outline will serve as your guiding star through the writing process. With a great outline you will not get sidetracked, because you will have a structured plan to follow. Both you and the reader will benefit from your outline. You present your ideas logically and you make your writing coherent according to your plan. As a result, this outline guides the reader through your paper and the reader enjoys the way you demonstrate your ideas.
Learn how to write an outline for a research paper . See research paper outline examples .
Briefly, the thesis is the main argument of your research paper. It should be precise, convincing and logical. Your thesis statement should include your point of view supported by evidence or logic. Still, remember it should be precise. You should not beat around the bush, or provide all the possible evidence you have found. It is usually a single sentence that shows your argument. In on sentence you should make a claim, explain why it significant and convince the reader that your point of view is important.
Learn how to write a thesis statement for a research paper . See research paper thesis statement examples .
Do you know any writer who put their ideas on paper, then never edited them and just published? Probably, no writer did so. Writing a research paper is no exception. It is impossible to cope with this assignment without writing a rough draft.
Your draft will help you understand what you need to polish to make your paper perfect. All the requirements, academic standards make it difficult to do everything flawlessly at the first attempt. Make sure you know all the formatting requirements: margins, words quantity, reference requirements, formatting styles etc.
Learn how to write a rough draft for a research paper .
Let us make it more vivid for you. We have narrowed down the tips on writing an introduction to the three main ones:
Remember to include the thesis statement in your introduction. Usually, it goes at the end of the first paragraph.
You should tell the main topics you are going to discuss in the main body. For this reason, before writing this part of introduction, make sure you know what is your main body is going to be about. It should include your main ideas.
When you finish the main body of your paper, come back to the thesis statement and introduction. Restate something if needed. Just make it perfect; because introduction is like the trailer to your paper, it should make the reader want to read the whole piece.
Learn how to write an introduction for a research paper . See research paper introduction examples .
A body is the main part of your research paper. In this part, you will include all the needed evidence; you will provide the examples and support your argument.
It is important to structure your paragraphs thoroughly. That is to say, topic sentence and the evidence supporting the topic. Stay focused and do not be sidetracked. You have your outline, so follow it.
Here are the main tips to keep in head when writing a body of a research paper:
See? When it is all structured, it is not as scary as it seemed at the beginning. Still, if you have doubts, you can always ask our writers for help.
Learn how to write a body of a research paper . See research paper transition examples .
Writing a good conclusion is important as writing any other part of the paper. Remember that conclusion is not a summary of what you have mentioned before. A good conclusion should include your last strong statement.
If you have written everything according to the plan, the reader already knows why your investigation is important. The reader has already seen the evidence. The only thing left is a strong concluding thought that will organize all your findings.
Never include any new information in conclusion. You need to conclude, not to start a new discussion.
Learn how to write a conclusion for a research paper .
An abstract is a brief summary of your paper, usually 100-200 words. You should provide the main gist of your paper in this short summary. An abstract can be informative, descriptive or proposal. Depending on the type of abstract, you need to write, the requirements will differ.
To write an informative abstract you have to provide the summary of the whole paper. Informative summary. In other words, you need to tell about the main points of your work, the methods used, the results and the conclusion of your research.
To write a descriptive abstract you will not have to provide any summery. You should write a short teaser of your paper. That is to say, you need to write an overview of your paper. The aim of a descriptive abstract is to interest the reader.
Finally, to write a proposal abstract you will need to write the basic summary as for the informative abstract. However, the difference is the following: you aim at persuading someone to let you write on the topic. That is why, a proposal abstract should present your topic as the one worth investigating.
Learn how to write an abstract for a research paper .
Revising and editing your paper is essential if you want to get high grades. Let us help you revise your paper smart:
If you need assistance with proofreading and editing your paper, you can turn to the professional editors at our service. They will help you polish your paper to perfection.
Learn how to revise and edit a research paper .
First, let us make it clear that bibliography and works cited are two different things. Works cited are those that you cited in your paper. Bibliography should include all the materials you used to do your research. Still, remember that bibliography requirements differ depending on the formatting style of your paper. For this reason, make sure you ask you professor all the requirements you need to meet to avoid any misunderstanding.
Learn how to write a bibliography for a research paper .
Now when you know all the stages of writing a research paper, you are ready to find the key to a good research paper:
Feeling more confident about your paper now? We are sure you do. Still, if you need help, you can always rely on us 24/7.
We hope we have made writing a research paper much easier for you. We realize that it requires lots of time and energy. We believe when you say that you cannot handle it anymore. For this reason, we have been helping students like you for years. Our professional team of writers is ready to tackle any challenge.
All our authors are experienced writers crafting excellent academic papers. We help students meet the deadline and get the top grades they want. You can see everything yourself. All you need to do is to place your order online and we will contact you. Writing a research paper with us is truly easy, so why do not you check it yourself?
This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of suggestions for presenting statistical information. An appendix compares several common types of graphs.
4596 Accesses
Preparing a report of a research trial is a special type of medical writing. The experienced author of research reports follows the IMRAD model: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, although this scheme is often expanded to include subheadings such as participants, randomization and intervention, data collection, outcomes, and statistical analysis. This chapter discusses clinical trial registration, statistics, reference citations, reproducibility, and generalizability.
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Italian physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Westport, CT: Oryx; 1998. p. 34.
Google Scholar
Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Whimster WF. Biomedical research: how to plan, publish, and present it. New York: Springer; 1997. p. 101, 105.
Book Google Scholar
Wager E, Altman DG, Simera I, Toma TP. Do declarative titles affect readers’ perceptions of research findings? Research integrity. Peer Rev. 2016;1:11.
Article Google Scholar
Jacques TS, Sebire NJ. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Rep. 2010;1:2.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ .
Meyer H, Varpio L, Gruppen L, Gurjit S. The ethics and etiquette of research collaboration. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):e13.
Strasburger VC. Righting medical writing. JAMA. 1985;254(13):1789–90.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki S, Naito M. Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(2):237–42.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Journal of the American Medical Association. Instructions for authors. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors#SecAbstractsforReportsofOriginalData .
Strasak AM, Zaman Q, Marinel G, Pfeiffer KP, Ulmer H. The use of statistics in medical research: a comparison of The New England Journal of Medicine and Nature Medicine. Am Stat. 2007;61(1):47–55.
Gotta AW. Review of Taylor RB. The clinician’s guide to medical writing. Ed. 1. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2005. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1142.
CAS Google Scholar
Alexandrov AV. How to write a research paper. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135–8.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wager E. What medical writing means to me. Mens Sana Monogr. 2007;5(1):169–78.
Dirckx J. Dx+Rx: a physician’s guide to medical writing. Boston: G.K. Hall; 1977. p. 99.
Horton R. The hidden research paper. JAMA. 2002;287:2775–8.
Hoff JT. Research by academic surgeons. Am J Surg. 2003;85(1):13–5.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Robert B. Taylor
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Reprints and permissions
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
Taylor, R.B. (2018). How to Write a Report of a Research Study. In: Medical Writing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70126-4_11
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70126-4_11
Published : 15 December 2017
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-70125-7
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-70126-4
eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Learning objectives.
In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report , an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, how that information is formatted and organized, and tips for writing each section. At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles.
Title page and abstract.
An APA-style research report begins with a title page . The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. This sometimes requires a main title followed by a subtitle that elaborates on the main title, in which case the main title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Here are some titles from recent issues of professional journals published by the American Psychological Association.
Below the title are the authors’ names and, on the next line, their institutional affiliation—the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research. As we have already seen, the authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order.
How Informal Should an Article Title Be?
In some areas of psychology, the titles of many empirical research reports are informal in a way that is perhaps best described as “cute.” They usually take the form of a play on words or a well-known expression that relates to the topic under study. Here are some examples from recent issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .
Individual researchers differ quite a bit in their preference for such titles. Some use them regularly, while others never use them. What might be some of the pros and cons of using cute article titles?
For articles that are being submitted for publication, the title page also includes an author note that lists the authors’ full institutional affiliations, any acknowledgments the authors wish to make to agencies that funded the research or to colleagues who commented on it, and contact information for the authors. For student papers that are not being submitted for publication—including theses—author notes are generally not necessary.
The abstract is a summary of the study. It is the second page of the manuscript and is headed with the word Abstract . The first line is not indented. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one.
The introduction begins on the third page of the manuscript. The heading at the top of this page is the full title of the manuscript, with each important word capitalized as on the title page. The introduction includes three distinct subsections, although these are typically not identified by separate headings. The opening introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting, the literature review discusses relevant previous research, and the closing restates the research question and comments on the method used to answer it.
The opening , which is usually a paragraph or two in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. To capture the reader’s attention, researcher Daryl Bem recommends starting with general observations about the topic under study, expressed in ordinary language (not technical jargon)—observations that are about people and their behavior (not about researchers or their research; Bem, 2003). Concrete examples are often very useful here. According to Bem, this would be a poor way to begin a research report:
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance received a great deal of attention during the latter part of the 20th century (p. 191)
The following would be much better:
The individual who holds two beliefs that are inconsistent with one another may feel uncomfortable. For example, the person who knows that he or she enjoys smoking but believes it to be unhealthy may experience discomfort arising from the inconsistency or disharmony between these two thoughts or cognitions. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in whatever way they can (p. 191).
After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it.
Researcher Larry Jacoby reported several studies showing that a word that people see or hear repeatedly can seem more familiar even when they do not recall the repetitions—and that this tendency is especially pronounced among older adults. He opened his article with the following humorous anecdote (Jacoby, 1999).
A friend whose mother is suffering symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) tells the story of taking her mother to visit a nursing home, preliminary to her mother’s moving there. During an orientation meeting at the nursing home, the rules and regulations were explained, one of which regarded the dining room. The dining room was described as similar to a fine restaurant except that tipping was not required. The absence of tipping was a central theme in the orientation lecture, mentioned frequently to emphasize the quality of care along with the advantages of having paid in advance. At the end of the meeting, the friend’s mother was asked whether she had any questions. She replied that she only had one question: “Should I tip?” (p. 3).
Although both humor and personal anecdotes are generally discouraged in APA-style writing, this example is a highly effective way to start because it both engages the reader and provides an excellent real-world example of the topic under study.
Immediately after the opening comes the literature review , which describes relevant previous research on the topic and can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. However, the literature review is not simply a list of past studies. Instead, it constitutes a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.
Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation.
Looking at the literature review in this way emphasizes a few things. First, it is extremely important to start with an outline of the main points that you want to make, organized in the order that you want to make them. The basic structure of your argument, then, should be apparent from the outline itself. Second, it is important to emphasize the structure of your argument in your writing. One way to do this is to begin the literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and links it to the preceding points. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have difficulty with. Instead of beginning a paragraph by launching into a description of a previous study, such as “Williams (2004) found that…,” it is better to start by indicating something about why you are describing this particular study. Here are some simple examples:
Another example of this phenomenon comes from the work of Williams (2004).
Williams (2004) offers one explanation of this phenomenon.
An alternative perspective has been provided by Williams (2004).
We used a method based on the one used by Williams (2004).
Finally, remember that your goal is to construct an argument for why your research question is interesting and worth addressing—not necessarily why your favorite answer to it is correct. In other words, your literature review must be balanced. If you want to emphasize the generality of a phenomenon, then of course you should discuss various studies that have demonstrated it. However, if there are other studies that have failed to demonstrate it, you should discuss them too. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are consistent with that theory. However, if there are other findings that are inconsistent with it, again, you should discuss them too. It is acceptable to argue that the balance of the research supports the existence of a phenomenon or is consistent with a theory (and that is usually the best that researchers in psychology can hope for), but it is not acceptable to ignore contradictory evidence. Besides, a large part of what makes a research question interesting is uncertainty about its answer.
The closing of the introduction—typically the final paragraph or two—usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the main research question or hypothesis. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables. The second is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:
These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions (p. 378).
Thus the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.
The method section is where you describe how you conducted your study. An important principle for writing a method section is that it should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.
The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends with the heading “Method” (not “Methods”) centered on the page. Immediately after this is the subheading “Participants,” left justified and in italics. The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, the number of women and men, some indication of their age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.
Figure 11.1 Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method
Simple method | Typical method | Complex method |
---|---|---|
The participants were…
There were three conditions… |
The participants were…
There were three conditions…
Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen… |
The participants were…
The stimuli were…
There were three conditions…
Participants viewed each stimulus on the computer screen… |
After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure 11.1 “Three Ways of Organizing an APA-Style Method” shows three common approaches. In the first, the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs. In the second approach, the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs.
What is the difference between design and procedure? The design of a study is its overall structure. What were the independent and dependent variables? Was the independent variable manipulated, and if so, was it manipulated between or within subjects? How were the variables operationally defined? The procedure is how the study was carried out. It often works well to describe the procedure in terms of what the participants did rather than what the researchers did. For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused.
In the third basic way to organize a method section, the participants subsection is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well when there are complicated materials to describe. This might mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual stimuli, and so on. The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on.
The results section is where you present the main results of the study, including the results of the statistical analyses. Although it does not include the raw data—individual participants’ responses or scores—researchers should save their raw data and make them available to other researchers who request them. Some journals now make the raw data available online.
Although there are no standard subsections, it is still important for the results section to be logically organized. Typically it begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. For example, if participants rated the attractiveness of 20 stimulus people, you might have to explain that you began by computing the mean attractiveness rating for each participant. Or if they recalled as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did you count the number correctly recalled, compute the percentage correctly recalled, or perhaps compute the number correct minus the number incorrect? A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items. A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is where you would report the results of any manipulation checks.
The results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:
Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.
The discussion is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:
The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. Do the results provide support for any existing theories? If not, how can they be explained? Although you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least need to outline one or more possible explanations. In applied research—and often in basic research—there is also some discussion of the practical implications of the research. How can the results be used, and by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal?
The theoretical and practical implications are often followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations. Perhaps there are problems with its internal or external validity. Perhaps the manipulation was not very effective or the measures not very reliable. Perhaps there is some evidence that participants did not fully understand their task or that they were suspicious of the intent of the researchers. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them.
Most discussions end with some suggestions for future research. If the study did not satisfactorily answer the original research question, what will it take to do so? What new research questions has the study raised? This part of the discussion, however, is not just a list of new questions. It is a discussion of two or three of the most important unresolved issues. This means identifying and clarifying each question, suggesting some alternative answers, and even suggesting ways they could be studied.
Finally, some researchers are quite good at ending their articles with a sweeping or thought-provoking conclusion. Darley and Latané (1968), for example, ended their article on the bystander effect by discussing the idea that whether people help others may depend more on the situation than on their personalities. Their final sentence is, “If people understand the situational forces that can make them hesitate to intervene, they may better overcome them” (p. 383). However, this kind of ending can be difficult to pull off. It can sound overreaching or just banal and end up detracting from the overall impact of the article. It is often better simply to end when you have made your final point (although you should avoid ending on a limitation).
The references section begins on a new page with the heading “References” centered at the top of the page. All references cited in the text are then listed in the format presented earlier. They are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author. If two sources have the same first author, they are listed alphabetically by the last name of the second author. If all the authors are the same, then they are listed chronologically by the year of publication. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both within and between references.
Appendixes, tables, and figures come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for supplemental material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections. An appendix could be used to present lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or references to the studies that are included in a meta-analysis. Each appendix begins on a new page. If there is only one, the heading is “Appendix,” centered at the top of the page. If there is more than one, the headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first mentioned in the text of the report.
After any appendixes come tables and then figures. Tables and figures are both used to present results. Figures can also be used to illustrate theories (e.g., in the form of a flowchart), display stimuli, outline procedures, and present many other kinds of information. Each table and figure appears on its own page. Tables are numbered in the order that they are first mentioned in the text (“Table 1,” “Table 2,” and so on). Figures are numbered the same way (“Figure 1,” “Figure 2,” and so on). A brief explanatory title, with the important words capitalized, appears above each table. Each figure is given a brief explanatory caption, where (aside from proper nouns or names) only the first word of each sentence is capitalized. More details on preparing APA-style tables and figures are presented later in the book.
Figure 11.2 “Title Page and Abstract” , Figure 11.3 “Introduction and Method” , Figure 11.4 “Results and Discussion” , and Figure 11.5 “References and Figure” show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many high-level and low-level style conventions can be seen here too.
Figure 11.2 Title Page and Abstract
This student paper does not include the author note on the title page. The abstract appears on its own page.
Figure 11.3 Introduction and Method
Note that the introduction is headed with the full title, and the method section begins immediately after the introduction ends.
Figure 11.4 Results and Discussion
The discussion begins immediately after the results section ends.
Figure 11.5 References and Figure
If there were appendixes or tables, they would come before the figure.
Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 , 377–383.
Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Crowdstrike reveals what happened, why—and what’s changed.
CrowdStrike’s Root Cause Analysis report elaborates on the information previously shared in its ... [+] preliminary Post Incident Review.
Nearly three weeks after a botched CrowdStrike update caused one of the biggest IT outages in history, the firm has published its in-depth investigation into what happened and why. CrowdStrike’s Root Cause Analysis report elaborates on the information previously shared in its preliminary Post Incident Review .
In its new post mortem report, CrowdStrike delves deeper into the root causes of the error that led Windows machines to display blue screen of death—and admits its testing process left a lot to be desired.
The firm has certainly faced a tough time in the weeks since the outage, after it was sued by investors last week. CrowdStrike and the CEO of Delta are also exchanging words after the airline blamed the security company for $500 million of losses.
In its RCA, the firm describes how its CrowdStrike Falcon sensor “delivers AI and machine learning to protect customer systems by identifying and remediating the latest advanced threats.”
The problem that led to the outage stems from a new feature that was added to its sensor in February, “to enable visibility into possible novel attack techniques that may abuse certain Windows mechanisms.”
Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.
This capability, which used a pre-defined a set of fields for Rapid Response Content to gather data, was developed and tested according to the firm’s “standard software development processes.”
But these do not appear to have been good enough to catch the issue.
“On March 5, 2024, following a successful stress test, the first Rapid Response Content for Channel File 291 was released to production as part of a content configuration update, with three additional Rapid Response updates deployed between April 8, 2024 and April 24, 2024,” CrowdStrike said. These “performed as expected” in production.
However, on July 19, 2024, a Rapid Response Content update was delivered to certain Windows hosts, “evolving the new capability first released in February 2024.”
The sensor expected 20 input fields, but the update provided 21 input fields. “In this instance, the mismatch resulted in an out-of-bounds memory read, causing a system crash,” CrowdStrike wrote.
This scenario with Channel File 291 is now “incapable of recurring,” CrowdStrike said, adding that what happened is now informing how it tests things going forward.
Based on the findings in the RCA, CrowdStrike said it will update content configuration system test procedures, including upgraded tests for template type development, with “automated tests for all existing template types.”
It’s also adding deployment layers and acceptance checks for the content configuration system.
A lot of people have complained about not having the ability to control updates. From now, CrowdStrike will provide customers additional control over the deployment of Rapid Response Content updates.
Meanwhile, it will prevent the creation of problematic Channel 291 files by implementing validation for the number of input fields.
CrowdStrike will also implement additional checks in the content validator and enhance bounds checking in the content interpreter for Rapid Response Content in Channel File 291.
Finally, it will engage “two independent third-party software security vendors” to conduct further review of the Falcon sensor code and quality control and release processes.
“Looking ahead, CrowdStrike is focused on using the lessons learned from this incident to better serve our customers,” the firm said in an emailed statement. “CrowdStrike remains steadfast in our mission to protect customers and stop breaches.”
The RCA is a long document—12 pages to be precise—but experts have praised CrowdStrike for being transparent about what happened on July 19. “It is positive they have been transparent and that they are taking this seriously,” says cybersecurity consultant Daniel Card.
Yet point six of the RCA, “template instances should have a staged deployment” seems to have garnered the attention of cybersecurity experts.
As a result of its RCA investigation, CrowdStrike says its content configuration system has been updated “with additional deployment layers and acceptance checks.” In other words, it will now deploy canary testing and roll things back if issues are found. At the same time, customers can now choose where and when Rapid Response Content updates like the one that caused the crash are deployed.
However, Card points out a company deploying globally to military, critical national infrastructure and governments should have had a robust test process in place in the first instance. “I'm happy to see they are going to change the design to be what it should have had in the first place.”
He points out the critical balance CrowdStrike needed to manage. “When you run this type of software, you can't be taking risks. Releasing globally without adequate testing is not a risk you want to be taking lightly as a company, but that seems to have been the design.”
The report shows that the problem wasn’t that the update was malformed—or that that the validator didn’t catch the error before it was deployed, Florian Roth , head of research at Nextron Systems, a competitor of CrowdStrike, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “The real problem is that they didn’t have any canary system to which they deployed the update before rolling it out to millions of endpoints all at once.”
CrowdStrike has hit back at Roth’s claims. “Since our founding, we have always put customer protection at the forefront, and that continues to be our singular focus,” a CrowdStrike spokesperson wrote on an email.
“As we describe in the RCA, the parameter count mismatch evaded the multiple layers of build validation and testing in our process. The RCA also describes the process improvements and mitigation steps that CrowdStrike is deploying to ensure further enhanced resilience.”
The changes to its processes come better late than never, but the general feeling seems to be that CrowdStrike shouldn’t have been in this situation in the first place.
One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.
Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.
Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.
Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .
Loading metrics
Open Access
Peer-reviewed
Research Article
Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]
Affiliation Paleotechnic., Paris, France
Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, Grenoble, France
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization
Affiliation Sicame Group, Arnac-Pompadour, France
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation CEDETE—Centre d’études sur le Développement des Territoires et l’Environnement, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization
Affiliation AtoutsCarto, Bourges, France
Roles Methodology, Project administration
Affiliation Verilux International, Brienon-sur-Armançon, France
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing
Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation
Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation
The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we show that one of the unexplained massive Saqqara structures, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure, has the features of a check dam with the intent to trap sediment and water. The topography beyond the dam suggests a possible ephemeral lake west of the Djoser complex and water flow inside the ’Dry Moat’ surrounding it. In the southern section of the moat, we show that the monumental linear rock-cut structure consisting of successive, deep compartments combines the technical requirements of a water treatment facility: a settling basin, a retention basin, and a purification system. Together, the Gisr el-Mudir and the Dry Moat’s inner south section work as a unified hydraulic system that improves water quality and regulates flow for practical purposes and human needs. Finally, we identified that the Step Pyramid’s internal architecture is consistent with a hydraulic elevation mechanism never reported before. The ancient architects may have raised the stones from the pyramid centre in a volcano fashion using the sediment-free water from the Dry Moat’s south section. Ancient Egyptians are famous for their pioneering and mastery of hydraulics through canals for irrigation purposes and barges to transport huge stones. This work opens a new line of research: the use of hydraulic force to erect the massive structures built by Pharaohs.
Citation: Landreau X, Piton G, Morin G, Bartout P, Touchart L, Giraud C, et al. (2024) On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0306690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690
Editor: Joe Uziel, Israel Antiquities Authority, ISRAEL
Received: December 7, 2023; Accepted: June 22, 2024; Published: August 5, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Landreau et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The computer codes are available upon request.
Funding: The Sicame Group, The Atoutscarto Company and The Verilux Company provided support in the form of salaries for GM, CG and J-CM, respectively. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.
Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests: GM, CG and J-CM are paid employees of The Sicame Group, The Atoutscarto Company and The Verilux Company, respectively. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
The funerary complex of King Djoser, built at Saqqara in Egypt around 2680 B.C., is considered a significant milestone in monumental architecture. It is the first to disclose two crucial innovations: a pyramid shape for the pharaoh’s grave and the exclusive use of fully dressed stones for masonry. In practice, it is also revolutionary in the ability to extract and raise stones by millions before stacking them with precision [ 1 ]. Djoser’s complex visible achievements are such that its architect, Vizier, and Great Priest of Ra, Imhotep, was deified by the New Kingdom.
The knowledge and innovations implemented in the Djoser mortuary complex profoundly influenced future developments and were widely perfected throughout the Old Kingdom’s III rd and IV th Dynasties, i . e . circa 2680–2460 B.C. These developments resulted in a substantial increase in the megaliths’ size [ 2 ], leading to pyramids of spectacular dimensions, such as those of the Meidum, Dahshur, and Giza plateaus. In less than 150 years, the average weight of the typical large stones was thus multiplied by ≈8 and went from ≈300 kg for Djoser’s pyramid to more than 2.5 tons for Chephren’s pyramid’s structural blocks [ 3 ]. For the largest lintels, the weight increases by two orders of magnitude, with several blocks of ≈50 – 100 tons for Cheops’ pyramid. On this short timeframe on the scale of human history, Egyptians carried and raised some 25 million tons of stones [ 4 ] to build seven monumental pyramids. Assuming an annual work schedule of 300 days at a rate of 10 hours/day, meaning 450,000 hours spread over less than 150 years, this requires a technical and logistical organization capable, on average, of cutting, moving, and adjusting about 50 tons of stone blocks per hour. Even if one admits that not every pyramid’s blocks are fitted with millimeter precision, the amount of work accomplished is truly remarkable. Interestingly, the pyramids later built in Egypt tended to be smaller with time and never reached the volume of the Old Kingdom’s monumental structures again.
As authentic sources from the working sphere of pyramid architects are currently lacking, no generally accepted wholistic model for pyramid construction exists yet. Although many detailed publications dedicated to pyramid-building procedures have given tangible elements [ 5 , 6 ], they usually explain more recent, better documented, but also smaller pyramids [ 7 ]. These techniques could include ramps, cranes, winches, toggle lifts, hoists, pivots, or a combination of them [ 8 – 10 ]. Studies of the pyramid’s construction sites also revealed a high level of expertise in managing the hydraulic and hydrological environment, such as utilizing waterways to deliver materials, constructing ports and locks, or setting up irrigation systems [ 11 , 12 ]. These achievements have led some scholars to refer to ancient Egypt as an ‘early hydraulic civilization [ 11 ].’ However, there is actually very little multidisciplinary analysis combining the rich archaeological findings on pyramids with other disciplines such as hydrology, hydraulics, geotechnics, paleoclimatology, or civil engineering [ 9 ]. Therefore, the topic of water force in the context of pyramid construction remains insufficiently addressed in the academic literature.
Moreover, a second question accentuates the enigma: the Pharaohs who built these pyramids are missing. Until now, neither written record nor physical evidence reports the discovery of one of the III rd and IV th Dynasties’ Pharaohs. Old Kingdom’s ‘big’ pyramids’ rooms were allegedly plundered [ 13 – 15 ] during the millennia that followed the construction of the pyramids, leaving little evidence behind [ 12 ]. The III rd and IV th Dynasties’ rooms present little or no funerary attributes, such as those observed in other high-dignitary figures’ tombs contemporary to the period [ 16 , 17 ], with no King’s remains found inside. In addition, the walls of the pyramids’ chambers do not exhibit any hieroglyphs, paintings, engravings, or drawings, which would allow us to qualify them as funerary with certainty. Despite this lack of evidence, many authors [ 18 ] still support that these rooms can be attributed to Pharaohs’ burials mainly based on royal cartouches or Kings’ names found elsewhere within the pyramid or nearby temples.
Over the recent years, Dormion & Verd’Hurt [ 19 , 20 ], Hamilton [ 21 – 24 ] or others [ 1 , 25 ] were among the first to consider possible non-funerary functions of pyramids’ internal layouts by pointing out some architectural inconsistencies and highlighting the high degree of complexity of several structures, irrelevant for a burial chamber. Their analysis provided both chambers and gallery systems with a technical dimension, emphasizing a level of engineering on the part of the ancient builders that is quite remarkable and sometimes challenges any apparent explanation. This technical level is at once reflected in the geometry of the rooms and ducts, as well as in the stonework, which includes materials selection, extraction, cutting, and then assembling with exceptional accuracy [ 20 ]. This precision involved several advanced sub-techniques, such as inter-block mortar joint realization [ 26 – 29 ] or stone polishing with flatness and roughness values that reach levels of contemporary know-how. Apart from surfaces and interfaces, the builders’ technical ability is also evident throughout sophisticated mechanical systems set up in the pyramids [ 30 ], as swivel stone flaps’ designs in the Meidum and Bent pyramids [ 21 , 24 ] or tilted portcullises found in the Bent pyramid, as well as at Giza [ 20 ]. These elements suggest that, rather than an aesthetic rendering or a funerary use for these layouts, ancient Egyptians intended technical functions for some walls, tunnels, corridors, shafts, and chambers where more straightforward existing techniques were insufficient.
In summary, the analysis of the pyramids’ construction and the investigation of their internal layouts seem to require more research to provide a wholistic explanation to their purpose. This study aims to provide a fresh look at these topics by applying an alternative, multi-disciplinary, wholistic approach. It revisits the Old Kingdom’s pyramids’ construction methodology and seeks to explain the significance of internal layouts during construction. Based on current archaeological knowledge, we demonstrate that the Saqqara’s topography and the layout of several structures are consistent with the hypothesis that a hydraulic system was used to build the pyramid. The paper is divided into three main sections that analyze the current scientific literature to address the following inquiries: (i) Was the plateau of Saqqara supplied with water? (ii) If so, how was it possibly stored and treated? and (iii) How was it used to build the pyramid? A discussion and some concluding remarks and perspectives follow.
Our study began with the postulate that the larger Cheops’ and Chephren’s pyramids of Giza plateau were the outcomes of technical progress from previous pyramids, with the Step Pyramid as a technological precursor. While many literature studies focus on the construction of Cheops’ pyramid, we found it more relevant to examine the building techniques used for the Step Pyramid first. This would provide insight into the processes used by ancient builders that were later refined in subsequent pyramids. As a first approach, we analyzed potential reasons for the specific building of King Djoser’s Complex on the Saqqara Plateau.
Although detailed measurements of the Nile flood levels have been reported since the V th Dynasty (2480 B.C.) [ 31 – 33 ], there is very little information available about the hydrology of its desert tributaries, known as ’wadis’, in ancient Egypt. Sedimentological evidence of heavy rainfalls and flash floods exists [ 31 , 34 ] but little is known beyond that.
Determining the rainfall regime that the Saqqara region experienced about 4,700 years B.P. is challenging and uncertain. Past studies demonstrated that, from about 11,000 to 5,000 B.P, during the so-called ‘Green Sahara’ period, the whole Sahara was much wetter than today, and the landscape was savannah rather than desert [ 35 , 36 ]. Around 4500–4800 years B.P. too, the Eastern Mediterranean region was wetter than it is now, despite drying up later [ 37 – 39 ]. A range of annual precipitation value of 50–150 mm/year is assumed in the following calculation to perform crude computations of water resource. It covers the range between the >150 mm/year suggested by Kuper & Kropelin [ 40 ] for the end of the Green Sahara period, before the subsequent drier period, during which rainfall decreased to <50 mm/year. The range of variability, i . e . 50 to 150 mm/yr is also consistent with the typical inter-annual rainfall variability observed in the region [ 38 ].
Then, current hydrological monitoring on Egyptian wadis located further to the north and experiencing comparable annual rainfall ( i . e ., 100–200 mm/yr) showed that only 1–3% of this mean annual precipitation was measured as runoff, i.e., surface flows [ 41 ]. This average range is hereafter used for conservative, first-order estimations of available water volume, referred hereafter to as the ‘water resource’. Note that the infrequent, most intense events can reach 50 mm of rainfall and trigger devastating flash floods where the runoff coefficients have been measured up to 30%, i . e ., one order of magnitude higher than the mean annual [ 41 – 43 ]. Note that these water resource and flash flood hydrology estimates neglect that the soils were probably richer in clay and silt just after the Green Sahara period, with several millennia of a wetter climate and savannah landscape [ 35 , 36 ], which would increase the runoff coefficient and available surface water resource in the wadis.
The Saqqara necropolis is located on a limestone plateau on the west bank of the Nile River, about 180 km from the Mediterranean Sea ( Fig 1 ). The entire site lies in the desert, less than two kilometers from the plateau’s edge (elevation 40–55 m ASL— Above Sea Level ), which overlooks the Nile floodplain (height ≈ 20 m ASL). Further to the west, the desert rises gently for about 20 km (hills’ top elevation ≈ 200–300 m ASL).
(Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g001
The reasons behind the construction of the Djoser complex at Saqqara remain unclear. The contribution of economic, socio-political, and religious factors was previously highlighted [ 44 , 45 ], but environmental factors were also possibly influential. In 2020, Wong provided evidence that the climate, geology, and hydrology would have influenced building choices and may have contributed to, or perhaps accelerated, the emergence of stone architecture on the Saqqara plateau [ 37 ].
From a geological standpoint, the layered structure of the limestone at Saqqara was indeed stressed as a favorable factor for excavating large amounts of construction stones [ 46 , 47 ]. These layers, which consist of 30–60 cm thick sand-rich calcareous beds alternated with calcareous clay and marl layers, made it easy to extract the limestone blocks from their parent beds by vertical cuttings, the original thickness being reflected in the building stones’ thickness of Djoser’s complex.
From a hydrological standpoint, the Abusir wadi is considered a second environmental factor that strongly influenced the Early Dynastic development of the Saqqara necropolis at least [ 45 , 48 – 50 ]. The Abusir wadi is the ephemeral stream draining the hills west of Saqqara ( Fig 1 ) . Before this study, academic research mainly focused on the downstream part of the wadi [ 45 , 48 – 50 ], namely the Abusir Lake [ 51 ] located north of Saqqara Plateau. However, the upstream portion has remained undocumented.
In order to analyze the relationships between the Abusir wadi and the Step Pyramid’s construction project, the drainage networks west of the Saqqara area were mapped for the first time to the best of our knowledge, using various satellite imagery ( Fig 1 ) and Digital Elevation Models (see S1 Fig in S2 File ).
A paleo-drainage system can be identified upstream of the Gisr el-Mudir structure as the origin of the Abusir wadi ( Fig 1 , pink line). The boundaries of this runoff system form a catchment area never reported so far, although easily recognizable from the geomorphological imprints of surface paleochannels in the desert and on historical maps [ 52 ]. Although it currently has a 15 km 2 surface area, we cannot rule out the possibility that the drainage divides shifted and changed due to land alterations and aeolian sand deposits over the past 4,500 years.
The current catchment summit is about 110 m ASL, giving the Abusir wadi a 1% average slope over its slightly more than 6 km length. In the field of hydrology, a 1% gradient is described as ‘rather steep’. With such steep slopes, transportation of sand and gravel is expected during flashfloods, which can cause severe downstream damage (scouring or burying of structures, filling of excavations and ponding areas). In comparison, irrigation channels are rather at least ten times less steep (about 0.1%), and the Nile slope is less than 0.01% (less than 200m of elevation gain between Aswan and Cairo).
Reported since the early 1800s, a former tributary to the Nile called the Bahr Bela Ma [ 53 , 54 ] or ‘ Wadi Taflah’ flowed parallel to the Abusir wadi catchment, less than two kilometers south of the Saqqara plateau. From satellite imagery, we identified that the Wadi Taflah arises from a drainage area of almost 400 km 2 and consists of three main branches ( Fig 2 , numbered black dots) still visible from the desert’s geomorphological marks. This network is also visible on the radar imagery provided by Paillou [ 55 ] that can penetrate multiple meters of sand ( S2 Fig in S2 File ). The similarity of the optical and radar drainage patterns confirms the existence and old age of this hydrological network.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g002
Although no canal was detected from the satellite data, the close proximity of Abusir wadi with the Wadi Taflah ( Fig 2 ) is intriguing and raises the question about a potential ancient, artificial connection between them. According to the 18 th -century maps published by Savary [ 54 ], the Wadi Taflah was ‘closed by an ancient King of Egypt.’ Such a testimony, although imprecise, could suggest the construction of a water diversion by a former ruler. A geophysical investigation could help to find such a structure if existing. The drainage area of Wadi Taflah covers nearly 400 km 2 at an elevation >58 m ASL. This elevation is high enough to allow the diversion of the drainage area toward the Abusir wadi. This would result in an increase in the drained area and associated availability of water resources by a factor of >25 times. Based on the hydrological conditions described in section 2.1, the estimated water resource from Abusir wadi and Wadi Taflah is crudely between 7,500 to 68,000 m 3 /year and 200,000 to 1,800,000 m 3 /year, respectively.
According to the Saqqara topography ( Fig 3 ), the Abusir wadi flowed through the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure before heading north towards the Nile floodplain, where it used to feed an oxbow lake, the Abusir Lake [ 51 ]. With such a localization, the Gisr el-Mudir walls literally dam the Abusir wadi valley’s entire width. The sparse vegetation only growing in the valley bottom upstream of Gisr el-Mudir and not elsewhere in the area evidences this damming and interception of surface and subsurface flows ( Fig 4A , green line). This slight moist area is dominated by plants commonly found in desert margins and wadis, such as Panicum thurgidum and Alhagi graecorum [ 56 ], and is typical of hypodermal flows.
Contour lines extracted from the 1:5,000 topographical map [ 52 ] “Le Caire, sheet H22”.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g003
a. The Gisr el-Mudir check dam (Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021); b.: Digital Elevation Model generated from the 1:5,000 topographical map “Le Caire, sheet H22”.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g004
Downstream of the Gisr el-Mudir, the Abusir wadi joins the Saqqara Plateau. Its boundaries are defined to the south by an outcropping limestone ridge and to the east by the Sekhemkhet and Djoser’s enclosures ( Fig 3 ).
The landform of this area seems inconsistent with a pure fluvial formation. Instead, the very flat topography on about 2–2.5 km 2 , according to the Saqqara Geophysics Survey Project (SGSP) [ 57 – 60 ] and possibly allowed some ephemeral ponding water which may have resulted in an episodic upper Abusir lake after the most intense rainfalls. However, due to the several-meter deep wind-blown and alluvial sand cover accumulated over the past millennia [ 57 ], the riverbed altitudes during Djoser’s reign are challenging to establish without further investigations, and only broad patterns can be determined from the local topography [ 52 ].
As with many other small wadis, the Early Dynastic hydrology of the Abusir wadi remains largely unknown. According to fluvial sediment analysis in the Abusir Lake area, the Abusir wadi was probably a perennial stream during the Old Kingdom period [ 51 ]. Although the climate is hot and arid nowadays, several studies support a more humid environment during the Old Kingdom [ 34 ] . Multiple strands of evidence indeed suggest that Egypt experienced considerable rainfalls around the reign of Djoser, resulting in frequent flooding and heavy runoffs on the Saqqara Plateau. This climatic feature is supported by sedimentary deposits resulting from flowing water of ‘considerable kinetic force’ contemporary to Djoser’s reign [ 61 , 62 ] . According to Trzciński et al.[ 34 ], the strongly cemented structure L3 found in the Great Trench surrounding the Djoser Complex was due to cyclical watering while the high content of Fe3+ indicates that the region experienced intensive weathering in a warm and humid environment. In 2020, Wong concluded that the ‘ intriguing possibility that the Great Trench that surrounds the Djoser complex may have been filled with water ’ during Djoser’s reign [ 37 ]. If so, this might explain why tombs were built on the northern part of the Saqqara plateau which has a higher altitude [ 45 ] and nothing was constructed inside the Trench until the reign of Userkaf and Unas (V th Dynasty).
3.1 the gisr el-mudir check dam.
Reported at least since the 18 th century [ 63 ] and extensively described within a decade of a geophysical survey by Mathieson et al ., see also [ 45 ] for a summary, the Gisr el-Mudir is a rectangular enclosure located a few hundred meters west of the Djoser’s complex ( Fig 3 , Fig 4A & 4B ). This monumental structure has a footprint of about 360 m x 620 m, i . e ., larger than the Djoser complex (545 m x 277 m). The walls have an estimated volume of >100,000 m 3 (SGSP, 1992–1993 report), meaning about one-third of the Step Pyramid’s volume. Field inspection and geophysical results from the SGSP [ 57 ] found no construction inside except for a couple of more recent, small graves, thus confirming that the enclosure is mainly empty. Moreover, several elements in the building suggest that this structure predated the Step Pyramid’s complex and was tentatively dated to the late II nd or early III rd Dynasty [ 57 , 64 ], which might turn it into the oldest substantial stone structure in Egypt discovered so far.
Before this study, several conflicting theories about the Gisr el-Mudir’s purpose were put forward [ 59 ]: e . g ., an unfinished pyramid complex (but the lack of a central structure made it improbable to be a funerary monument), a guarded fortress [ 65 ] protecting the Saqqara necropolis from nomadic Bedouin incursions, an embankment to raise a monument to a higher level [ 66 ], a celebration arena [ 64 , 67 ], or even a cattle enclosure. However, given the low level of exploratory work afforded to the structure, no generally accepted explanation exists yet, and its purpose has remained more conjectural than substantiated.
In light of the upstream watershed and its transversal position across the Abusir River, the Gisr el-Mudir’s western wall meets the essential criteria of a check dam, i . e ., a dam intending to manage sediment and water fluxes [ 68 , 69 ]. This comparison is particularly striking regarding its cross-section ( Fig 5 ). According to Mathieson et al . [ 59 ], the basic structure of this wall consists of a hollow construction of two rough-hewn limestone masonry skin-walls, ≈3.2 m high, separated by a 15 m interspace filled with three layers of materials extracted from the surrounding desert bedrock [ 70 ] and cunningly arranged. The first layer ( Fig 5 , ‘ A ’ dot) is made of roughly laid local limestone blocks forming a buttress against the inside of the facing blocks. The secondary fill ( B ) comprises coarse sand and medium to large limestone fragments. Then, the third fill ( C ) consists of rough to fine sand and silt, small limestone fragments, and chippings with pebble and flint nodules. Finally, these A, B, and C backfill layers are positioned symmetrically to the median axis of the wall.
Figure adapted from [ 58 ].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g005
Civil engineering was used during the Old Kingdom to protect settlements from flash floods, such as the Heit el-Ghurab (’Wall of the Crow’) safeguarding the village of the pyramid builders at Giza [ 71 ]. Regarding the Gisr el-Mudir structure, the abovementioned elements strikingly echo the transversal profile and slope protection of another famous Old Kingdom structure: the Sadd el-Kafara dam built on the Wadi al-Garawi , a colossal building found to be contemporary to that of the Gisr el-Mudir [ 72 – 74 ]. Both structures present the technical signature of zoned earthen dams: a wide embankment made of a central impervious core surrounded by transition filters, i . e ., filling material with coarser grain size, preventing erosion, migration, and potential piping of the core fine material due to seepage. The semi-dressed limestone walls stabilized the inner material and protected it against erosion when water flowed against and above the dam. Both dams have much broader profiles than modern dams. This oversizing could be due to the unavailability of contemporary compaction systems or an empirical and conservative structural design. They both have narrower cores of fine material at the bottom of the dam than at their crest, contradicting modern design [ 75 ]. This can be attributed to the construction phasing that would have started by raising the sidewalls buttressed against the coarse and intermediate filling ( B and C fills in Fig 5 ), followed by a phase of filling the wide core with finer, compacted material [ 72 ].
Finally, the eastern wall’s north-south profile ( Fig 6 , line A-B ) presents a parabolic profile relevant to guide the flows to the basin’s center formed by Gisr el-Mudir. This guidance would have prevented the dam failure by outflanking during flooding events when the dam outlet was saturated. We estimate that the accumulated water crossed the dam through an outlet likely located at the valley’s lowest elevation, i . e ., near 48.7 m ASL ( G1 in Figs 4B and Fig 6 ). In summary, the Gisr el-Mudir’s western wall likely acted as a first check dam to the Abusir wadi flows.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g006
The excavations performed on the eastern wall of the Gisr el-Mudir highlighted a lower structural quality [ 45 ]. Its shape is similar to that of the western wall, with a distinctive parabolic profile ( Fig 6 , line C-D ). Furthermore, it discloses two topographical singularities: first, its overall altitude is a few meters lower than the western wall ( Fig 7A ). Then, in the southern part of the eastern wall, a geophysics anomaly ( G2 in Figs 4B and Fig 6 ) was found to be a series of massive, roughly cut, ‘L’-shaped megaliths [ 45 , 66 ]. Before our study, these megaliths were thought to possibly be the remains of a monumental gateway–due to their similarities with the Djoser’s complex enclosure’s entrance–but their purpose was not specified [ 66 ]. According to our analysis, these megaliths could be the side elements of the water outlets, possibly slit openings [ 76 ] that were likely closed off by wood beams but could be opened to drain the basin. They are consistently found near a trench that is 2.2 m deep [ 45 ], which we believe is possibly the canal that guided outflowing water. In a nutshell, the eastern wall likely acted as a second check dam to the Abusir flows.
a. West-east elevation profile of the Gisr el-Mudir structure. b: Schematic reconstitution of the profile with water flow.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g007
In addition to the two dams formed by the western and eastern walls, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure forms a basin ( Fig 4 ). It is closed to the north by another wall made of limestone blocks, though not very tall (likely <2m) because it is built on a natural ridge [ 45 ]. The basin’s southern boundary is also mostly made of a natural ridge. The possible absence of a masonry wall on certain portions on this side was unexplained by previous analyses [ 45 ]. However, it makes perfect sense when considering a reservoir function. Anchoring dams against side slopes is indeed the standard approach to guide flows and prevent outflanking [ 68 ].
In essence, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure exhibits the defining features of a check dam ( Fig 7B ). The catchment it intercepts is large enough (15 km 2 ), plus eventual water derivation from the Wadi Taflah to produce flash floods transporting significant amounts of gravel, sand, mud, and debris due to its slope during intense rainfalls. The valley upstream of the western wall likely served as a first reservoir where the coarsest gravels tended to deposit. The overflowing water then filled the inner basin of the Gisr el-Mudir, where coarse sand would again deposit. Assuming a storage depth between 1 and 2 meters, the retention capacity of the basin would be approximately 220,000–440,000 m 3 . This volume is in line with the overall water volume of a flash flood that could be produced by the Abusir wadi, which is estimated to be about 75,000–225,000 m 3 , assuming 50 mm of rainfall and a 0.30 runoff coefficient. This key, first structure of the Saqqara hydraulic system would have then delivered clear water downstream in normal time, as well as muddy water with an eventually suspended load of fine sand and clay during rainfall events.
3.2.1 general configuration..
The Djoser’s Complex is surrounded by a vast excavation area, commonly referred to as the ’Dry Moat’ since Swelim spotted its outlines [ 77 , 78 ] ( Fig 3 , blue strip). The Dry Moat is alleged to be a continuous trench cut in the bedrock, up to 50 m wide and ≈3 km long, enclosing an area of ≈600 m by ≈750 m around the Djoser complex [ 77 , 79 , 80 ]. When considering an average depth of 20 m for the four sides of the trench [ 61 ], the total excavated volume is estimated at ≈3.5 Mm 3 , approximately ten times the Step Pyramid‘s volume. Due to the thick cover of sand and debris [ 61 ] accumulated over the past millennia, its precise geometry is incompletely characterized. The moat’s east and south channels are particularly debated [ 61 ].
According to Swelim, the moat’s south channel probably split into two parts, known as the Inner and Outer south channels [ 78 ] ( Fig 8 , blue strips). The Inner south channel is relatively shallow (5–7 m deep), 25–30 m wide, and spans approximately 350 m parallel to the southern wall of Djoser’s complex.
Water from the Abusir Lake can follow two parallel circuits.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g008
The ‘Deep Trench’ [ 81 ] ( Fig 8 , red rectangles and dotted lines) is built inside the Inner south channel, along its south wall. It is a ≈27 m-deep, 3 m-wide, and hundreds of meter-long rock-cut channel with several ‘compartments’. So far, only about 240 m [ 78 ] of its probable 410 m length have been subject to archaeological excavations in 1937–1938 [ 78 ], 1937–1945 [ 81 ], and 1975 [ 82 ]. Consequently, approximately 170 m remains unexplored, mainly due to the presence of the later Old Kingdom two groups of mastabas built above the trench and at risk of collapse if submitted to underground excavation (transparent grey parts in Fig 8 ).
Generally, two leading theories are highlighted in the literature to explain the purpose of the trench: (i) a quarry for the Djoser’s complex [ 47 , 83 ], or (ii) a spiritual function [ 78 , 84 , 85 ]. However, over recent years, authors have pointed out several specificities in the trench’s architectural layout, which seem irrelevant in a religious or mining context [ 1 , 86 , 87 ]. In particular, on the mining aspect, several authors estimate [ 45 , 86 ] that the form of the track suggests that the extraction of stones was not its sole or even primary function, as it does not match with the ancient Egyptian quarrying methods. Reader also considers that some parts of the trench which are ~27 m deep and covered with a rocky ceiling, are wholly unrealistic for quarrying operations and unlikely to have required the paving found near the trench’s bottom [ 45 ]. This point is further emphasized by the narrow width of the excavated Deep Trench (3m), which is impractical in a mining scenario.
On the spiritual aspect, Kuraszkiewicz suggests that the trench may have developed a ritual significance as a gathering place for the souls of the nobles to serve the dead King [ 86 ]. Monnier [ 1 ] considers that the discovery of several niches in the channel does not fully demonstrate the moat’s religious purpose and considers it secondary. The trench’s ritual significance is also regarded as secondary by Reader [ 45 ], who suggests the ritual aspects developed only after the complex’s construction and do not reflect the original function of the structure.
In 2020, based on the archaeological, geological, and climatic evidence, Wong was the first to introduce the idea that the trench may have had a completely different function, being filled with runoff water following downpours [ 37 ]. If so, this would explain why it was not until the reigns of Unas and Userkaf (V th Dynasty) that new graves occupied the moat. The onset of drier climatic conditions [ 31 , 88 ] around the end of the IV th Dynasty would have created more favorable conditions for new constructions inside the moat. Despite the potential impact of Wong’s assumption, it did not receive much attention in the literature. Nonetheless, the current authors believe that Wong’s conclusions make sense when considering Saqqara’s downstream localization of a watershed.
The Inner south channel and the Deep Trench are built inside the Unas Valley, a hydrological corridor connecting the Abusir wadi plain to the Nile floodplain ( Fig 3 ). Both were thus possibly submitted to (un)controlled flooding [ 34 , 61 ] from the Abusir wadi plain.
The Deep Trench connects at least three massive subterranean compartments [ 45 , 47 ] ( Fig 8 , red parts) meticulously carved out with precisely cut surfaces [ 78 ] ( Fig 9 ) and joined by a tunnel [ 77 ] . A fourth compartment, retroactively named compartment-0 ( Fig 10 ), likely exists [ 45 , 78 ]. On a large scale, the perfect geometric alignment of these compartments is remarkable, as well as their parallelism with the Djoser’s complex and their bottom level similar to those of the southern and northern shafts (≈27 m ASL). These spatial relationships have led some authors to consider that the trench was created as a part of Djoser’s Complex [ 86 , 89 , 90 ]. This assumption has been reinforced by Deslandes’ discoveries of at least two east-west pipes, about 80 m long, connecting the Djoser’s Complex’s subterranean layouts to the Dry Moat’s eastern side [ 91 ].
a: View from the west; b: View from the east. The workers in the background provide a sense of the structure’s immense scale and technicity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g009
View of the south face.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g010
Taken together, the Deep Trench architecture highlights technical proficiency and suggests that the ancient Egyptians intended a technical function rather than a spiritual one. Surprisingly, despite the available clues, the Deep Trench has never undergone detailed engineering studies to analyze its features and identify its purpose. The following sections suggest a hydraulic rationale behind the trench’s internal layout (more details in the Supplement ).
Being largely described in the literature [ 77 , 86 , 92 ] , the compartments’ layouts are presented in detail in the Supplement . Considering its architecture and geographical location, the Dry Moat’s southern section combines the technical requirements of a water treatment system, including sedimentation, retention, and purification. Fig 10 illustrates a comprehensive outline of the installation’s functioning process. Similarly to the Gisr el-Mudir, we found that the Deep Trench compartments likely served to transfer water with low suspended sediment concentration to the downstream compartments by overflowing. The process of using a series of connected tanks to filter water and remove sediment is an ancient technique that has been extensively documented in archaeological and scientific literature [ 93 – 96 ]. This method has been employed for centuries to clean water and has played a significant role in the development of water treatment practices.
Compartment-0 presents the minimum requirements of a settling basin (considerable length and width, low entry slope, position at the entry of Unas hydrological corridor) whose purpose is to facilitate the coarse particles’ settling that would overflow from Gisr el-Mudir during heavy rainfalls. The descending ramp along the south wall identified by Swelim [ 97 ] may have permitted workers to dredge the basin and remove the accumulated sediments along the east wall ( Fig 10 ) . The very probable connection [ 45 , 97 ] between compartment-0 and compartment-1, blocked with rough masonry ( Fig 9B and S3 Fig in S2 File ), is consistent with an outlet overflowing structure. Additionally, when the flow rate in compartment-0 was too high, the tunnel or even the northern portion of the trench may have been used as a spillway bypass to evacuate excess water toward the eastern portion of the Unas wadi valley ( Fig 8 , safety circuit).
Compartment-1 is then consistent with a retention basin with > 3000 m 3 capacity ( Fig 10 , left part). The bottom stone paving with mortar joints probably limited water seepage through the bedrock. Its eastern end could go until the compartment-2 [ 45 ] to form a single compartment, but this point remains debated [ 78 , 97 ] .
Compartment-2’s is, unfortunately, largely unexplored ( Fig 10 ). Its downstream position might indicate a second retention basin or possibly an extension [ 45 ] of the first one. The western part of this compartment (stairs area) perfectly aligns with the base levels of the Djoser’s complex south and north shafts, which points towards a connection between the three [ 86 ] . If so, it would be aligned with the recently discovered pipe of a 200 m-long tunnel linking the bottom of Djoser’s Complex’s southern and northern shafts [ 91 ] (see next section, Fig 11 ). Compartment-2 would then be another, or an extended, retention basin equipped with a water outlet toward the north.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g011
Compartment-3 ( Fig 10 , right part) is likely a side purification basin for drinking water. Its position as an appendix of the primary water circuit connecting Gisr el-Mudir to Djoser’s complex seems optimal to minimize water circulation and maximize water-settling time, thus increasing its purification. The second and third sections likely allowed further settling of particles and would have served as reservoirs during dry periods. The relatively smooth walls of the whole structure would have hindered the growth of microbes, plants, and other contaminants, thereby helping maintain the water’s cleanliness [ 98 ] . Four surface wells allowed access to the end of the last compartment where the water, kept clear and fresh in the shadow of this subterranean monumental cistern, could be used by the building site workforce [ 99 ] .
The excavated volume of the Deep Trench is greater than 14,000 m 3 [ 77 , 86 , 92 ]. If we assume that most of the water available in the Wadi Taflah was diverted toward Saqqara, this volume could be filled about a dozen to more than one hundred times per year on average. We hypothesize a typical filling level of 45 m ASL in the Deep Trench, but an accurate topographical survey is lacking, and the maximum water level could vary between 40–52 m ASL, according to the surrounding terrain elevation.
In essence, we discovered and highlighted for the first time that the Deep Trench’s position and design are consistent with possible use as a water treatment and storage system capable of cleaning and storing thousands of cubic meters of water.
4.1 overview of the djoser’s complex’ substructure.
The internal and external architecture of the Djoser’s Complex is thoroughly documented [ 1 , 3 , 100 , 101 ]. The Supplement provides an overview of this structure. Basically, the six-step Step Pyramid itself stands slightly off-center in a rectangular enclosure toward the south and reaches a height of approximately 60 m ( Fig 11 ). The pyramid consists of more than 2.3 million limestone blocks, each weighing, on average [ 2 ], 300 kg, resulting in a total estimated weight of 0.69 million tons and a volume of ≈330,400 m 3 .
The substructure features at least 13 shafts, including two significantly sizeable twin shafts located at the north and south of the complex ( Fig 11 , insets 3&4), and an extensive and well-organized network of galleries descending up to 45 m below ground level [ 102 ]. The north shaft is surrounded by four comb-shaped structures distributed on each side and angled 90° apart. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) revealed that the twin shaft layouts are connected [ 91 , 102 ] by a 200 m-long tunnel. Moreover, at least two of the twelve shafts on the pyramid’s east side are connected to the supposed eastern section of the Dry Moat by two 80 m long pipes ( Fig 11 and Supplement ).
From our 3D models, we estimate that ancient architects extracted more than 30,000 tons of limestone from the bedrock to dig the whole underground structure. The total length of the tunnels and subterranean rooms combined is ~6.8 km. However, its layout and purpose remain primarily poorly known and debated [ 6 ].
The ‘north shaft’ is located under the pyramid of Djoser and is almost aligned with its summit. This shaft is ≈28 m deep and has a square shape with 7 m sides. Its bottom part widens to ≈10 m on the last, deepest 6 m, forming a chamber ( Fig 12 and S6 Fig in S2 File ). On its upper part, the shaft extends above the ground level by at least four meters inside the Step Pyramid in the shape of a hemispherical vault that was recently reinforced ( Fig 11 , inset 5 ). This upper part inside the pyramid body remains unexplored. However, as noticed by Lauer, the shaft sides above ground level display comparable masonry to that of the southern shaft, indicating a possible upward extension [ 3 ]. On the pyramid’s north side, a steep trench with stairs provides access to the shaft.
a.: Granite box of Djoser’s complex north shaft serving as an opening-closing system for the water flow coming from side tunnels -source: [ 113 ]. b.: Limestone piles supporting the box - source: [ 3 ]. c: Diagram of the North Shaft plug system. Redrawn from Lauer sketches [ 108 ].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g012
The ‘south shaft’ is located ~200 m south of the north shaft, close to the Deep Trench ( Fig 11 , inset 1 ). Its dimensions and internal layout are broadly similar to the north shaft’s. The substructure of the south shaft is entered through a west-facing tunnel-like corridor with a staircase that descends about 30 m before opening up inside the shaft. The staircase then continues east and leads to a network of galleries whose layout imitates the blue chambers below the Step Pyramid. As mentioned earlier, a 200 m-long tunnel connects the lower part of the north and south shafts ( Fig 11 , orange pipe). A series of deep niches located on the south face of the south shaft [ 97 ], the shape of which resembles that of the Deep Trench’s compartments 1 and 2, might indicate a former connection between both. This point remains to be confirmed by additional investigation.
The south shaft is connected to a rectangular shaft to the west via a tunnel-like corridor with a staircase that descends approximately 30 meters before opening up into the south shaft ( Fig 11 , inset 2 ). At the corridor level, a chamber has been cut into the bedrock parallel to the descending passage [ 3 ], towards the south. This chamber features several incompletely excavated niches on its south wall, which could extend under the south wall of the Djoser complex ( Fig 8 ). Pending further excavations, they might indicate a connection with the Deep Trench.
The initial purpose of the twin shafts’ granite boxes has been largely debated [ 15 , 100 ]. The presence of two shafts with two similar granite boxes and almost identical substructures was previously explained as a separation of the body and spirit of Djoser [ 100 ]. However, the Pharaoh’s body is actually missing and was not found during modern excavations. Several authors and explorers excluded the possibility of King Djoser’s burial in the north shaft [ 15 , 103 ]. Vyse claimed [ 15 ] that the box’s internal volume was too narrow for moving a coffin without breaking the body. Firth and Quibell considered [ 103 ] the fragments found by Gunn and Lauer [ 104 ] to be of mummies of ‘late date’, possibly belonging to the Middle or New Kingdom. Finally, a thorough radiocarbon dating [ 105 ] on almost all retrieved remains [ 104 , 106 , 107 ] located near the granite box excluded the possibility that ‘ even a single one of them ’[ 105 ] could have belonged to King Djoser. Therefore, although the northern shaft had clear funerary significance much later, its original purpose during the time of Djoser may have been different.
Unfortunately, the main part of the materials that filled the twin shafts was removed during past archaeological excavations, mainly in the 1930s [ 108 ], leaving only the two granite boxes at their bottom ( Fig 11 , insets 3 and 4 ). Therefore, the shafts’ internal layout description is mainly based on the explorers’ archaeological reports and testimonies[ 109 – 111 ].
The two granite boxes are broadly similar in shape and dimensions. Both are made of four layers of granite blocks and present top orifices closed by plugs that weigh several tons ( Fig 12A ). The southern box is slightly smaller, with a plug made of several pieces, making it less versatile. The north box does not lay directly on the underlying bedrock but is perched on several piles of limestone blocks supporting the lower granite beams ( Fig 12B ), tentatively attributed to robbers by Lauer [ 3 ]. The space around the box is connected with four tunnels arranged perpendicularly on each side of the shaft (see Supplement ). This space was filled with several successive layers [ 108 ] ( Fig 12C , grey parts). The lowermost layer consisted of coarse fragments of limestone waste and alabaster, making it permeable. Meanwhile, the upper layer, going up to the box ceiling’s level, was made of limestone jointed with clay mortar [ 108 ], i . e ., less permeable [ 112 ]. This ceiling was itself covered by a 1.50 m thick layer of alabaster and limestone fragments plus overlying filling ( Fig 12C , blue part), except around the plug hole, which was encircled by a diorite lining, a particularly solid rock ( Fig 12C , green part).
Directly above the granite boxes were ‘maneuvering chambers [ 108 ]’ that enabled the plug to be lifted. The plug closing the north shaft’s box has four vertical side grooves, 15 cm in diameter, intended for lifting ropes ( Fig 12C ) and a horizontal one, possibly for sealing. Below the chamber ceiling and just above the orifice, an unsheathed wooden beam was anchored in the east and west walls ( Fig 12C ). This beam likely supported ropes to lift the plug, similar to those found in the south shaft with friction traces [ 108 ].
Interestingly, the granite stones forming the granite box ceiling were bounded by mortar ( Fig 12A ), creating an impermeable barrier with the shaft’s lower part and leaving the plug’s hole as the only possible connection between the shaft and the inside of the box. Conversely, most joints between the box’s side and bottom stones, connected with the permeable bottom layer, were free from mortar.
These details, thoroughly documented during Lauer’s excavation [ 3 , 108 ] and visible on pictures ( Fig 12A and 12B ), clearly point to technical rather than symbolic application. Taken together, the granite box’s architecture and its removable plug surrounded by limestone clay-bound blocks present the technical signature of a water outlet mechanism.
When opened, such a plug system would have allowed the north shaft to be filled with water from the Deep Trench or, in another scenario, from the Dry Moat’s eastern section. The permeable surrounding filling would have permitted water discharge control from the four side tunnels. Then, the water could only seep through the granite box’s lower joints. This design would have prevented water from rushing through the system at high speed and with pressure shocks.
Considering water coming from the Deep Trench (elevation delta: 10–20 m), the retaining walls and the many layers’ cumulated weight stacked over the granite box acted as a lateral blockage and would have prevented the box ceiling from being lifted due to the underlying water pressure.
After gathering all the elements of this study, we deduce that the northern shaft’s layout is consistent with a hydraulic lift mechanism to transport materials and build the pyramid. Elements at our disposal indicate that the south and north shafts could be filled with water from the Dry Moat. A massive float inside the north shaft could then raise stones, allowing the pyramid’s construction from its center in a ‘volcano’ fashion ( Fig 13 ).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g013
Although a connection between the Compartment -2 and the Djoser shafts has yet to be identified, it is highly probable that sediment-free water from the Deep Trench was used in this system ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 1 ’). This water quality would have reduced the risk of fouling and malfunction because it minimizes the presence of sand and clay that feed into the north shaft. This would prevent the deposition and progressive filling in the tunnels and connections, as well as the clogging of the joints between the bottom and side granite blocks of the box. The 200 m-long underground pipe [ 91 ] that connects the north and south shafts is then consistent with the transfer of water from the Deep Trench’s water treatment system to the north shaft, possibly via the south shaft.
Furthermore, there is a proven connection between the tunnels surrounding the north shaft and the Dry Moat through the Deslandes’ pipes [ 91 ] on the eastern side of the complex ( Figs 11 and 13 ). Pending further investigation, we hypothesize that the water inlet was located to the south ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 1 ’), with the outlet(s) sending water toward the east through two juxtaposed pipes (disk ‘ 2 ’). Several horizontal galleries connected to these two pipes were acacia-cased [ 3 ], a technique commonly used to safeguard the walls in hydraulic works in ancient Egypt. A large stone portcullis [ 108 ] found in one of these galleries may have served as a versatile gate closed during the water filling of the north shaft.
In another scenario, the Deslandes’ juxtaposed pipes ( Fig 13 , disk ‘ 2 ’) could be considered as a water inlet for unfiltered water.
Finally, we hypothesize that a hydraulic lift, a massive float that was possibly made of wood and weighed several tons (see Supplement ), should run slowly inside the shaft to prevent instabilities and friction with the sides. The stones could have been elevated by filling and emptying cycles, allowing the lift to move up and down with stones ( Fig 13 ). These stones could have passed along the northern entrance until the central shaft. Recent discoveries have shown that this gallery was kept open until the very end of the pyramid’s construction, after which it was closed [ 1 , 91 ]. In our scenario, the stones could have been transported directly at ground level, corresponding to the pyramid’s first course, or slightly higher through a ramp penetrating in a (currently sealed) corridor some meters above the ground level. This configuration would have had the particular advantage of minimizing the elevation gain for which the hydraulic lift would be required. The stones could have been transported via the so-called ‘Saite gallery [ 114 ]’ in a final scenario. Although Firth [ 114 ] considers this gallery to postdate the III rd Dynasty, it remains possible that it was recut on the basis of an earlier gallery.
We developed a simple numerical model of the hydraulic lift to study its water consumption and loading capacity (see Supplement ). The model was kept as simple as possible to be easily checked and only intended to give relevant orders of magnitudes.
The hydraulic lift is modelled as a float loaded with stones to build the pyramid and with a vertical extension to raise this material at the necessary level. Based on the initial altitude of the lift, Z m , which cannot be below 17m from ground level (the bottom of the shaft was filled with the box and overlying rocks, see Fig 12C ), and assuming a loading of the material on the lift at the ground level, the maximum height that can be reached in one cycle is <17m. To achieve greater heights, we hypothesize that the lift platform was blocked during the float descent, e . g ., using beams (see Fig 14 ). This modification would have allowed the platform to reach higher altitudes by adding or unfolding an extension. For the top of the pyramid, the float could be conversely used as a counterweight when descending, pulling on ropes that would haul the platform after passing over pulleys above the shaft head. A dual-use method involving hauling during shaft draining and elevating during water filling would have been the optimal management approach.
The lift platform (red line), and extension support (orange line) during the unfolding of the lower element are represented. The associated holes are to be localized in further excavation of the upper part of the shaft.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g014
The beginning of the pyramid building was most probably performed using ramps prolonging the path from the local quarry, possibly the Dry Moat [ 44 ]. To provide an upper bound of water consumption, we modelled the pyramid building using the hydraulic lift from the first layer at ground level. Our model suggests that this upper bound value is 18 Mm 3 of water required to build the whole pyramid using the float to lift stones only when the shaft is filled (see Supplement ). A few million were required to build the first 20 m and could be saved if ramps were used instead. The total amount of water needed would have been reduced by about one-third if the float had been used as a counterweight, pulling on ropes to haul stones on a platform suspended in the top part of the shaft rather than being located on a wooden frame extension attached to the float. Finally, if both lifting (when filling the shaft) and hauling (when draining the shaft) were used, the water consumption would decrease by two-thirds. If the loading was not performed at ground level but rather through a ramp and gallery above ground level, about one-quarter of the water would be saved if, for instance, using a 5 m-high ramp and 43% for a 10 m-high ramp. Further investigation above the vault and on the pyramid sides could help to identify such an eventual gallery. If, conversely, the loading was performed about 13 m below ground level in the top part of the northern gallery ( S6 Fig in S2 File ), the water consumption would typically increase by two-thirds.
On the other hand, through our research and calculations, we have determined that the Wadi Taflah catchment had the capacity to supply 4–54 Mm 3 over 20–30 years of construction, therefore not enough when assuming only pessimistic values (lower bound for rainfall and runoff coefficient, fast construction and sub-optimal use of the lift just using it when water rose), but sufficient when assuming intermediate values, and eight-times enough water to meet this demand when assuming optimistic values (upper bounds of parameters and dual lifting-hauling functioning). If further research demonstrates that the higher clay and silt content possibly present at that time shortly after the Green Sahara period probably led to increased runoff coefficients by a factor of 2–3 or even more, the resource would be increased by the same factor.
The climatological conditions on the Saqqara plateau during the III rd Dynasty are still not well understood [ 37 ]. As a first assumption, we estimate that the water supply may have been continuous even without an upper Abusir lake’s permanent existence, thanks to the flow from the wadi Abusir and, more significantly, through a probable derivation system from the nearby Wadi Taflah, assuming this large catchment had a more perennial runoff regime. Pedological investigations would be worthwhile in the plateau area and in the talweg of both wadis to look for evidence of more frequent water flow.
As a result, the hydraulic mechanism may have only been usable when sufficient water supply was available, so it may have only been used periodically. Other techniques, such as ramps and levees, were likely used to bring the stones from the quarries and adjust their positions around the lifting mechanism or when it was not in operation.
A unified hydraulic system.
Based on a transdisciplinary analysis, this study provides for the first time an explanation of the function and building process of several colossal structures found at the Saqqara site. It is unique in that it aligns with the research results previously published in the scientific literature in several research areas: hydrology, geology, geotechnics, geophysics, and archaeology. In summary, the results show that the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure has the feature of a check dam intended to trap sediment and water, while the Deep Trench combines the technical requirements of a water treatment facility to remove sediments and turbidity. Together, these two structures form a unified hydraulic system that enhances water purity and regulates flow for practical uses and vital needs. Among the possible uses, our analysis shows that this sediment-free water could be used to build the pyramid by a hydraulic elevator system.
By its scale and level of engineering, this work is so significant that it seems beyond just building the Step Pyramid. The architects’ geographical choices reflect their foresight in meeting various civil needs, making the Saqqara site suitable for settling down and engaging in sedentary activities, such as agriculture, with access to water resources and shelter from extreme weather conditions. This included ensuring adequate water quality and quantity for both consumption and irrigation purposes and for transportation, navigation, or construction. Additionally, after its construction, the moat may have represented a major defensive asset, particularly if filled with water, ensuring the security of the Saqqara complex [ 115 ].
The hydraulic lift mechanism seems to be revolutionary for building stone structures and finds no parallel in our civilization. This technology showcases excellent energy management and efficient logistics, which may have provided significant construction opportunities while reducing the need for human labor. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether the other Old Kingdom pyramids, besides the Step Pyramid, were constructed using similar, potentially upgraded processes, a point deserving further investigation.
Overall, the hydraulic lift could have been a complementary construction technique to those in the literature for the Old Kingdom [ 8 , 10 ]. Indeed, it is unlikely that a single, exclusive building technique was used by the ancient architects but that a variety of methods were employed in order to adapt to the various constraints or unforeseen circumstances of a civil engineering site, such as a dry spell. Therefore, the beginning of the pyramid building was most probably performed using ramps prolonging the path from the local quarry. According to petrographic studies [ 47 ], the main limestone quarry of the Saqqara site could correspond to the Dry Moat that encircles the Djoser Complex, providing access on the four sides of the pyramid for the extracted blocks and reducing the average length of the ramps.
By their technical level and sheer scale, the Saqqara engineering projects are truly impressive. When considering the technical implications of constructing a dam, water treatment facility, and lift, it is clear that such work results from a long-standing technical tradition. Beyond the technical aspects, it reflects modernity through the interactions between various professions and expertise. Even though basic knowledge in the hydraulics field existed during the early Dynastic period, this work seems to exceed the technical accomplishments mentioned in the literature of that time, like the Foggaras or smaller dams. Moreover, the designs of these technologies, such as the Gisr el-Mudir check-dam, indicate that well-considered choices were made in anticipation of their construction. They suggest that the ancient architects had some empirical and theoretical understanding of the phenomena occurring within these structures.
The level of technological advancement displayed in Saqqara also raises questions about its place in history. When these structures were built remains the priority question to answer . Were all the observed technologies developed during the time of Djoser, or were they present even earlier? Without absolute dating of these works, it is essential to approach their attribution and construction period with caution. Because of the significant range of techniques used to build the Gisr el-Mudir, Reader estimates [ 70 ] that the enclosure may have been a long-term project developed and maintained over several subsequent reigns, a point also supported by the current authors. The water treatment facility follows a similar pattern, with the neatly cut stones being covered and filled with rougher later masonry. Finally, the Djoser Step Pyramid also presents a superposition of perfectly cut stones, sometimes arranged without joints with great precision and covered by other rougher and angular stones [ 3 ]. Some of these elements led some authors [ 6 , 100 ] to claim that Djoser’s pyramid had reused a pre-existing structure.
The Deep Trench was intentionally sealed off at some point in history, as evidenced by the pipe blockage between Compartment-0 and Compartment-1. The reasons are unknown and speculative, ranging from a desire to construct buildings (such as the Khenut, Nebet, or Kairer mastabas) above the trench to a technical malfunction or shutdown due to a water shortage. This sealing might also have been done for other cultural or religious purposes.
The current topography of the land around the Djoser complex, although uncertain given the natural or anthropogenic changes that have occurred over the last five millennia, does not support the existence of a trench to the east side. Therefore, our observations join those of Welc et al. [ 61 ] and some of the first explorers [ 63 ], reasonably attributing only three sections to the Dry Moat.
This article discloses several discoveries related to the construction of the Djoser complex, never reported before:
North Saqqara map showing the relation between the Abusir water course and the Step Pyramid construction process (Inset). The arrows figuring the flow directions are approximate and given for illustrative purposes based on the Franco-Egyptian SFS/IGN survey [ 52 ]. Satellite image: Airbus Pléiades, 2021-07-02, reprinted from Airbus D&S SAS library under a CC BY license, with permission from Michael Chemouny, original copyright 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.g015
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s002
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306690.s003
In a big move, Character.AI co-founder and CEO Noam Shazeer is returning to Google after leaving the company in October 2021 to found the a16z-backed chatbot startup. In his previous stint, Shazeer spearheaded the team of researchers that built LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications), a language model that was used for conversational AI tools .
Character.AI co-founder Daniel De Freitas is also joining Google with some other employees from the startup. Dominic Perella, Character.AI’s general counsel, is becoming an interim CEO at the startup. The company noted that most of the staff is staying at Character.AI.
Google is also signing a non-exclusive agreement with Character.AI to use its tech.
“I am super excited to return to Google and work as part of the Google DeepMind team. I am so proud of everything we built at Character.AI over the last 3 years. I am confident that the funds from the non-exclusive Google licensing agreement, together with the incredible Character.AI team, positions Character.AI for continued success in the future,” Shazeer said in a statement given to TechCrunch.
Google said that Shazeer is joining the DeepMind research team but didn’t specify his or De Freitas’s exact roles.
“We’re particularly thrilled to welcome back Noam, a preeminent researcher in machine learning, who is joining Google DeepMind’s research team, along with a small number of his colleagues,” Google said in a statement. “This agreement will provide increased funding for Character.AI to continue growing and to focus on building personalized AI products for users around the world,” a Google spokesperson said.
Character.AI has raised over $150 million in funding, largely from a16z.
“When Noam and Daniel started Character.AI , our goal of personalized superintelligence required a full stack approach. We had to pre-train models, post-train them to power the experiences that make Character.AI special, and build a product platform with the ability to reach users globally,” Character AI mentioned in its blog announcing the move.
“Over the past two years, however, the landscape has shifted; many more pre-trained models are now available. Given these changes, we see an advantage in making greater use of third-party LLMs alongside our own. This allows us to devote even more resources to post-training and creating new product experiences for our growing user base.”
There is a possibility that different regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the U.S. and the EU will scrutinize these reverse acqui-hires closely. Last month. the U.K’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a notice saying that it is looking into Microsoft hiring key people from Inflection AI to understand if the tech giant is trying to avoid regulatory oversight. The FTC opened a similar investigation in June to look into Microsoft’s $650 million deal.
You can reach out to this reporter at [email protected] by email and on signal at ivan.42 .
Get the industry’s biggest tech news, techcrunch daily news.
Every weekday and Sunday, you can get the best of TechCrunch’s coverage.
Startups are the core of TechCrunch, so get our best coverage delivered weekly.
The latest Fintech news and analysis, delivered every Tuesday.
TechCrunch Mobility is your destination for transportation news and insight.
Tragedy has again struck a famous Silicon Valley family. Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki just passed away, according to social media posts by her husband, Dennis Troper, and by Google…
This is the second cyberattack targeting the school device management service Mobile Guardian this year.
Featured Article
India’s wearable market declined in Q2, primarily because smartwatch are not attracting consumers.
Anysphere, a two-year-old startup that’s developed an AI-powered coding assistant called Cursor, has raised over $60 million in a Series A financing at a $400 million post-money valuation, two sources…
The internet is full of deepfakes — and most of them are nudes. According to a report from Home Security Heroes, deepfake porn makes up 98% of all deepfake videos…
Researchers found flaws that could allow anyone to spy on the owners of Ecovacs home robots by hijacking their cameras and microphones.
When digging into the data to determine how large the exodus everyone on Threads is talking about actually is, we oddly came up short.
Substack is opening up to more users with its recent announcement that anyone can now publish content on its platform without setting up a publication. With the change, Substack is…
WeRide, a Chinese autonomous vehicle company, is officially gearing up for a U.S. public debut, over a year after China started easing its effective ban of foreign IPOs. WeRide registered…
Welcome to Startups Weekly — your weekly recap of everything you can’t miss from the world of startups. Want it in your inbox every Friday? Sign up here. This week we…
Jon DiMaggio used sockpuppet accounts, then his own identity, to infiltrate LockBit and gain the trust of its alleged admin, Dmitry Khoroshev.
The U.K. government has indicated it may seek stronger powers to regulate tech platforms following days of violent disorder across England and Northern Ireland fueled by the spread of online…
The Startup Battlefield is the crown jewel of Disrupt, and we can’t wait to see which of the thousands of applicants will be selected to pitch to panels of top-tier VCs…
The startup’s core technology is a proprietary material that absorbs moisture from the air, allowing air conditioning to cool buildings more efficiently.
YouTube’s latest test involves a sleep timer that pauses the video after, well, a set period of time.
Ola Electric, India’s largest electric two-wheeler maker, surged by 20% on its public debut on Friday, making it the biggest listing among Indian firms in two years. Shares of the…
Rocket Lab surpassed $100 million in quarterly revenue for the first time, a 71% increase from the same quarter of last year. This is just one of several shiny accomplishments…
In 1996, two companies, Patersons HR and Payroll Solutions, formed a venture called CloudPay to provide payroll and payments services to enterprise clients. CloudPay grew quietly over the next several…
The vulnerabilities allowed one security researcher to peek inside the leak sites without having to log in.
The tech layoff wave is still going strong in 2024. Following significant workforce reductions in 2022 and 2023, this year has already seen 60,000 job cuts across 254 companies, according to independent layoffs tracker Layoffs.fyi. Companies like Tesla, Amazon, Google, TikTok, Snap and Microsoft have conducted sizable layoffs in the…
A new “beta rabbit” mode adds some conversational AI chops to the Rabbit r1, particularly in more complex or multi-step instructions.
Los Angeles is notorious for its back-to-back traffic. Three events that promise to bring in millions of spectators from around the world — the 2026 World Cup, the Super Bowl…
Amazon’s decision to overlook quick-commerce in India is now looking like a significant misstep.
OpenAI’s GPT-4o, the generative AI model that powers the recently launched alpha of Advanced Voice Mode in ChatGPT, is the company’s first trained on voice as well as text and…
On Thursday, Box filled in a missing piece on its AI platform when it bought automated metadata extracting startup, Alphamoon.
OpenAI has announced a new appointment to its board of directors: Zico Kolter. Kolter, a professor and director of the machine learning department at Carnegie Mellon, predominantly focuses his research…
Count Spotify and Epic Games among the Apple critics who are not happy with the iPhone maker’s newly revised compliance plan for the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). Shortly…
Thursday seeks to shake up conventional online dating in a crowded market. The app, which recently expanded to San Francisco, fosters intentional dating by restricting user access to Thursdays. At…
AI companies are gobbling up investor money and securing sky-high valuations early in their life cycle. This dynamic has many calling the AI industry a bubble. Nick Frosst, a co-founder…
Instagram is rolling out the ability for users to add up to 20 photos or videos to their feed carousels, as the platform embraces the trend of “photo dumps.” Back…
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods. A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony ...
Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master's or Doctoral degree, although it can also ...
A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
Use the section headings (outlined above) to assist with your rough plan. Write a thesis statement that clarifies the overall purpose of your report. Jot down anything you already know about the topic in the relevant sections. 3 Do the Research. Steps 1 and 2 will guide your research for this report.
However, research reports could involve ongoing research, where report authors (sometimes the researchers themselves) write portions of the report alongside ongoing research. One such research-report example would be an R&D department that knows its primary stakeholders are eager to learn about a lengthy work in progress and any potentially ...
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.
Writing a Research Report.pdf version of this page. This review covers the basic elements of a research report. This is a general guide for what you will see in journal articles or dissertations. This format assumes a mixed methods study, but you can leave out either quantitative or qualitative sections if you only used a single methodology. ...
You can begin writing the introductory section of the report as soon as you have decided on the general approach your study will follow. You don't have to wait until you have determined all the details of the method. 2. You can write the method section of the report before you have analyzed the data.
Write up a state-of-the-art research report. Understand how to use scientific language in research reports. Develop a structure for your research report that comprises all relevant sections. Assess the consistency of your research design. Avoid dumbfounding your reader with surprising information.
An outline of the research questions and hypotheses; the assumptions or propositions that your research will test. Literature Review. Not all research reports have a separate literature review section. In shorter research reports, the review is usually part of the Introduction. A literature review is a critical survey of recent relevant ...
Figures 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5 show some sample pages from an APA-style empirical research report originally written by undergraduate student Tomoe Suyama at California State University, Fresno. The main purpose of these figures is to illustrate the basic organization and formatting of an APA-style empirical research report, although many ...
A research report is an end product of research. As earlier said that report writing provides useful information in arriving at rational decisions that may reform the business and society. The findings, conclusions, suggestions and recommendations are useful to academicians, scholars and policymakers.
What this handout is about. This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you've performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we'll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you'll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach ...
When reporting the methods used in a sample -based study, the usual convention is to. discuss the following topics in the order shown: Chapter 13 Writing a Research Report 8. • Sample (number in ...
Writing a research paper requires you to seek out information about a subject, take a stand on it, and back it up with the opinions, ideas, and views of others. What results is a printed paper variously known as a term paper or library paper, usually between five and fifteen pages long—most instructors specify a minimum length—in which you ...
Writing a Research Report: Presentation. Tables, Diagrams, Photos, and Maps. - Use when relevant and refer to them in the text. - Redraw diagrams rather than copying them directly. - Place at appropriate points in the text. - Select the most appropriate device. - List in contents at beginning of the report.
Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...
Preparing a report of a research trial is a special type of medical writing. The experienced author of research reports follows the IMRAD model: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, although this scheme is often expanded to include subheadings such as participants, randomization and intervention, data collection, outcomes, and ...
A research report is a publication that reports on the findings of a research project.. Research reports are produced by many sectors including industry, education, government and non-government organizations and may be disseminated internally, or made public (i.e. published) however they are not usually available from booksellers or through standard commercial publishing channels.
Preparation of a comprehensive written research report is an essential part of a valid research experience, and the student should be aware of this requirement at the outset of the project. Interim reports may also be required, usually at the termination of the quarter or semester. Sufficient time should be allowed for satisfactory completion ...
Plan and write an effective APA-style research report. In this section, we look at how to write an APA-style empirical research report, an article that presents the results of one or more new studies. Recall that the standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. Here we consider each of these sections in detail ...
Write a Paper; Search this Group Search. Quantative Analysis & Statistics. This is a "starting point" guide for those taking a statistics and [quantitative] data analysis courses and/or doing a data analysis project. ... This unique research companion serves as a must-have reference for advanced students doing quantitative research and working ...
In this paper, we apply this command to a speculative examination of the consequences of text-based generative AI (GAI) for adolescent writers, framing this examination within a socially situated "Writers-in-Community" model of writing (Graham, 2018), which considers writing as both an act of individual cognition and as situated within ...
CrowdStrike's Root Cause Analysis report elaborates on the information previously shared in its preliminary Post Incident Review. ... Florian Roth, head of research at Nextron Systems, a ...
The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we show that one of the unexplained massive Saqqara structures, the Gisr el-Mudir enclosure, has the ...
In the low-density lunar atmosphere, atoms hop on ballistic trajectories until they are either returned permanently to the surface, or lost to space ().Loss of atoms from the atmosphere can happen by photoionization, whereby solar photons ionize neutral atmospheric atoms that are either swept away by the solar wind or implanted on the lunar surface.
The old dates to the writing of the Constitution — debates and compromises that resulted in representation in the House based on population and in the Senate based on equal standing for the ...
Google said that Shazeer is joining the DeepMind research team but didn't specify his or De Freitas's exact roles. "We're particularly thrilled to welcome back Noam, a preeminent ...