Biology Research Report (IMRaD Format)

Proof required

Submit your research question and a 15–20 source annotated bibliography. Each annotation must state: what the study found, the key methodological strength or limitation, and its relevance to your question. Total annotation word count should be 1500–2500 words across all sources.

What gets checked

• All 15–20 sources are peer-reviewed primary research papers — not textbooks, Wikipedia, or secondary summaries
• Each annotation addresses methodology, not just conclusions — evaluates how the study found what it found, not just what it found
• Research question is specific enough that some sources clearly support and some clearly challenge a given interpretation — a question that all sources agree on is too narrow to write a research report about

Common mistakes

• Selecting only sources that confirm the intended conclusion — a balanced research report requires engaging with conflicting evidence
• Annotating abstracts rather than full papers — methodology evaluation requires reading the Methods section, which is usually not in the abstract

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that annotations address methodology, not just conclusions — ask the submitter to describe the methodological limitation of their weakest source.
• Ask whether any sources disagree with each other — confirms the literature survey was comprehensive, not cherry-picked.
• Ask what their research question is and whether it has a definitive answer in the current literature — a good report topic has genuine uncertainty.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a 1500–2500 word draft evidence synthesis section, plus brief notes (200 words) on any sources you chose not to include and why. Have a biologist review the logical structure and note at least one place where the argument could be strengthened.

What gets checked

• Draft makes an argument, not a list — sentences say 'Study A found X, which is consistent with mechanism Y proposed by Study B, but Study C suggests Z complicates this interpretation' not just 'Study A found X. Study B found Y. Study C found Z.'
• Conflicting evidence is engaged, not ignored — at least one source is used to qualify or complicate the main argument
• Reviewer feedback is incorporated or a note explains why the submitter disagrees with a specific feedback point

Common mistakes

• Writing a source-by-source summary rather than a thematic argument — the most common structural failure in student research reports
• Citing sources only at sentence-level rather than building multi-source arguments — a strong evidence synthesis weaves multiple sources into a single line of reasoning

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to summarise their main argument in three sentences — someone who has written a genuine evidence synthesis can do this immediately.
• Ask where in the report the strongest conflicting evidence appears and how they dealt with it — this is the section most commonly weakened in student reports.
• Ask what feedback the reviewer gave and how they incorporated or responded to it — the feedback loop is as important as the draft itself.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your complete research report (3000–5000 words including introduction, evidence synthesis, conclusion, and references) and a written Q&A record showing specific challenges from the reviewer and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their biological background stated.

What gets checked

• Conclusion is proportionate to the evidence — does not overstate what the sources demonstrate; acknowledges remaining uncertainty
• Q&A record shows at least two specific challenges to the argument or conclusion (not just clarifying questions) and substantive responses
• References are consistently formatted and all sources cited in the text appear in the reference list

Common mistakes

• A conclusion that claims more than the evidence supports — the most credible research reports are explicitly bounded in their claims
• A Q&A with a reviewer who only asks factual questions rather than challenging the logic of the argument — the reviewer must challenge whether the conclusion follows from the evidence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask whether the conclusion could be stated more strongly — and whether the evidence actually supports a stronger claim — tests calibration between evidence and conclusion.
• Ask what would need to be true for the main argument to be wrong — someone who genuinely wrote the report can articulate the falsification condition.
• Verify the reviewer has domain-relevant biology knowledge — general academic reviewers without biology research experience may not generate the argument-quality challenges this milestone requires.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.