Simulated student paper examples

For an example of a student paper, written and submitted by an anonymous student, click on this link.

I used ChatGPT to simulate two lab reports based on the above checklist, a poor example and a good example. Neither example includes figures, tables, or an appendix containing supplemental data or additional methods information — all of which would be expected in a good lab report.

Poor example
Good example

Poor report example

Title: Cool stuff about frog growth.

Abstract: We studied frogs to see what happens when they grow. Some got more food and some got less, and then we watched them for a while. We thought something might change, and it kind of did, but the stats were confusing and didn’t really matter. The numbers weren’t super important so we didn’t include them. In general, the frogs were different across groups, so feeding probably affects them. This shows that frog studies can be interesting even if the results aren’t clear.

Introduction: Frogs are interesting animals, and lots of things happen while they grow (Floop, n.d.). People have studied them before, but we wanted to look at them again to see if anything new would show up (Blah & Bloop, 2019?). Development is important for frogs because they start as tadpoles and then eventually turn into adults, so it seemed like metabolism might matter somehow (Thingamajig, 2015). We read a random blog that said frogs are “interesting little wibbles” (FrogFun Blog, n.d.). Since Rana pipiens is a frog we could buy easily, we decided to use it for our project.

The main question was basically whether bigger tadpoles do something different than smaller ones, though we weren’t sure exactly what. Our hypothesis was that something would change, and the null hypothesis was that nothing would change. Either way, we expected to see some patterns if we looked long enough.

To do this, we put tadpoles in different containers, fed them a bit differently, and then checked on them. We didn’t have a strict design, but we measured a few things whenever we could. For statistics we planned to “run some tests,” probably ANOVA or something similar, to see if groups looked different. Overall, we hoped the experiment would show at least one interesting result.

Results: The tadpoles in the different groups looked pretty different. The ones we fed a lot seemed bigger, and the ones we fed less seemed smaller. Some groups seemed to develop faster, though it was hard to tell at times. We also made a graph showing something about metabolism, but it mostly shows that the points are scattered around.

For statistics, we ran some ANOVAs and regressions, but the numbers weren’t super important so we didn’t keep track of them all. We found a couple of p-values below 0.05, so we counted those as significant and said the null hypothesis was probably wrong.

Discussion: Our experiment was about whether body size matters for metabolism and development, and it seems like it might. The bigger tadpoles acted differently from the smaller ones, and their metabolism looked different too. So the hypothesis is probably supported, though some things didn’t match what we expected.

One possible explanation is that some tanks got more food or cleaner water than others, but we’re not sure. Another is that the tadpoles behaved differently on different days. We didn’t control many of these things, and water temperature and lighting may have changed without us noticing. In the future we would try to keep things more consistent and maybe measure more variables.

Conclusion. Overall, our results kind of show that tadpole size affects how they grow, which is interesting and suggests there’s more to study.

References: (fictitious articles)

Blah, X., & Bloop, Y. (2019?). Tadpoles and wobbly growth. Some Fake Journal.

Floop. (n.d.). Frog metabolism stuff.

FrogFun Blog. (n.d.). Frogs are fun. www.frogfunblog.fake

Thingamajig, T. (2015). Feeding tadpoles weird things. Unpublished notes.

Good report example

Title: Body Size–Dependent Metabolic Rate and Its Influence on Developmental Timing in the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens).

Abstract: Metabolic rate often scales with body size and may influence developmental timing in amphibians. We asked whether larger Rana pipiens tadpoles exhibit lower mass-specific metabolic rates and slower development. We hypothesized that increasing body size would reduce metabolic rate and delay metamorphosis. Tadpoles were assigned to three feeding treatments (n=20 each), and metabolic rate (mL O₂ g⁻¹ h⁻¹) and days to metamorphosis were measured. ANOVA tested treatment effects; metabolic rate differed significantly (F₂,57=6.42, p=0.003). Larger tadpoles developed more slowly. Our results support size-related metabolic constraints on development in R. pipiens.

Introduction: Metabolic processes scale predictably with body size across taxa, and these scaling relationships can strongly influence developmental trajectories in amphibians (Blorp & Zindle, 2020). In larval frogs, metabolic rate determines the rate at which energy can be converted into growth and tissue differentiation, making it a key physiological factor underlying variation in time to metamorphosis. Rana pipiens, the northern leopard frog, is an ideal model because its larval growth and metamorphosis are sensitive to environmental conditions such as food availability. Understanding how body size affects metabolic rate and development provides insight into energy allocation strategies during early life stages (Muffin & Tralor, 2021).

In this study we ask: Does variation in tadpole body size lead to predictable differences in metabolic rate and developmental timing? Our null hypothesis (H₀) is that body size has no effect on metabolic rate or days to metamorphosis. Our alternative hypothesis (H₁) is that larger tadpoles will show reduced mass-specific metabolic rates and take longer to reach metamorphosis. This hypothesis is grounded in metabolic scaling theory, which predicts decreasing mass-specific metabolic rate as body size increases.

To test these predictions, we raised tadpoles under three controlled feeding treatments designed to produce distinct body-size distributions. We collected metabolic rate measurements and monitored developmental progress from hatching to metamorphosis. Sample sizes were balanced across treatments, and environmental conditions were standardized to isolate the effect of size. We analyzed treatment and size effects using ANOVA and regression models to assess the relationship between metabolic rate and developmental timing. This approach allows us to evaluate whether size-dependent metabolic constraints help explain variation in amphibian development.

Results: Tadpoles in the high-food treatment reached the largest mean body mass (mean ± SE: 1.42 ± 0.05 g), followed by medium-food (1.11 ± 0.04 g) and low-food groups (0.78 ± 0.03 g). Mass-specific metabolic rate decreased with increasing body size (Fig. 1. “Mass-specific metabolic rate vs. body mass in Rana pipiens tadpoles”). Developmental time also differed among feeding treatments (Table 1. “Mean days to metamorphosis across feeding treatments”). High-food tadpoles took longest to metamorphose (52.3 ± 1.9 days), while low-food tadpoles metamorphosed earliest (41.6 ± 1.5 days).

ANOVA indicated a significant effect of treatment on mass-specific metabolic rate (F₂,57 = 7.84, p = 0.001, η² = 0.22). Regression of metabolic rate on body mass supported a negative scaling relationship (t₅₈ = −3.95, p < 0.001, R² = 0.21). Developmental time also differed among treatments (F₂,57 = 5.31, p = 0.008, η² = 0.16). We therefore reject the null hypothesis that body size has no effect on metabolic rate or development.

Discussion: Our goal was to determine whether variation in body size predicts metabolic rate and developmental timing in Rana pipiens. We hypothesized that larger tadpoles would exhibit lower mass-specific metabolic rates and delayed metamorphosis. The results support this hypothesis: larger individuals consistently showed reduced mass-specific oxygen consumption and required more days to complete metamorphosis.

Biologically, these findings are consistent with classic metabolic scaling theory, which predicts declining mass-specific metabolic rate as size increases (Quizzle, 2018). Slower development among larger tadpoles may reflect shifts in energy allocation priorities—such as greater maintenance costs or delayed hormonal cues for metamorphosis. Our findings are consistent with earlier work showing that feeding treatments that produce larger individuals reduce mass-specific metabolic rate (Snorf & Glimble, 2019). The strong negative relationship between mass-specific metabolism and body size suggests that energetic constraints may play an important role in regulating amphibian developmental plasticity.

However, several limitations should be acknowledged. Feeding treatments may have introduced confounding factors, such as microhabitat differences within tanks or subtle changes in water quality. We did not quantify activity level, which could influence oxygen consumption. Future studies could use respirometry chambers that separate individuals and employ controlled activity trials to reduce behavioral variability. Expanding the study across temperature gradients would also clarify whether scaling patterns are consistent under environmental stress.

Conclusion. Larger R. pipiens tadpoles display lower mass-specific metabolic rates and slower development, underscoring the biological significance of metabolic scaling in shaping amphibian life-history trajectories.

References: (fictitious articles)

Blorp, J. T., & Zindle, R. Q. (2020). Scaling wibbles in tadpole metabolism. Journal of Imaginary Amphibians, 12(2), 101–115.

Muffin, L. A., & Tralor, P. S. (2021). Feeding size and developmental wobble in Rana pipiens larvae. Pond Biology Review, 8(1), 45–59.

Snorf, K., & Glimble, H. (2019). Tadpole meals and energy squiggles: Effects on growth and metabolism. Amphibian Ecology Quarterly, 4(3), 77–88.

Quizzle, N. F. (2018). Theoretical hopscotch: Energy allocation in larval frogs. Fictitious Journal of Biological Models, 2(4), 12–25.