biological research proposal sample

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition

Language Editing Services

• Translation Services

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 113.2K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Thesis proposal example 2

Senior Honors Thesis Research Proposal

Albert B. Ulrich III Thesis Advisor: Dr. Wayne Leibel 11 September 1998

Introduction:

Neotropical fish of the family Cichlidae are a widespread and diverse group of freshwater fish which, through adaptive radiation, have exploited various niches in freshwater ecosystems. One such evolutionary adaptation employed by numerous taxa is miniaturization, an evolutionary process in which a large ancestral form becomes reduced in size to exploit alternative niches. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the effects of miniaturization on amphibians (Hanken 1983), but although miniaturization has been found to occur in 85 species of freshwater South American fish, little has been done to investigate the effects which miniaturization imposes on the anatomy of the fish (Hanken and Wake 1993).

Background:

Evolution is the process by which species adapt to environmental stresses over time. Nature imposes various selective pressures on ecosystems causing adaptive radiation, where species expand and fill new niches. One such adaptation for a new niche is miniaturization. Miniaturization can be defined as “the evolution of extremely small adult body size within a lineage” (Hanken and Wake 1993). Miniaturization is observed in a variety of taxa, and evolutionary size decreases are observed in mammals and higher vertebrates, but it is more common and more pronounced in reptiles, amphibians and fish (Hanken and Wake 1993). Miniaturization evolved as a specialization which allowed the organisms to avoid selective pressures and occupy a new niche. Miniaturization as a concept is dependent on the phylogenetic assumption that the organism evolved from a larger predecessor. Over time, the miniature organism had to adapt to the new conditions as a tiny species. All of the same basic needs had to be met, but with a smaller body.

In miniature species there is a critical relationship between structure of the body and body size, and frequently this downsizing results in structural and functional changes within the animal (Harrison 1996). Within the concept of miniaturization is the assumption that the species evolved from a larger progenitor. It is necessary then to explore the effects of the miniaturization process. “Miniaturization involves not only small body size per se, but also the consequent and often dramatic effects of extreme size reduction on anatomy, physiology, ecology, life history, and behavior” (Hanken and Wake 1993).

Hanken and Wake 1993 found that the adult skulls of the salamander Thorius were lacking several bones, others were highly underdeveloped, and many species within the genus were toothless. Several invertebrate species display the wholesale loss of major organs systems as a result of the drastic reduction in body size (Hanken and Wake 1993). Hanken and Wake also have shown that morphological novelty is a common result of miniaturization. Morphological novelty, in essence, is the development of new structures in the miniature organism. For example, as body size decreases, certain vital organs will only be able to be reduced by a certain amount and still function. As a result organs such as the inner ear remain large relative to the size of the miniature skull, and structural innovations have to occur in order to support the proportionately large inner ear.

In 1983, James Hanken, at the University of Colorado determined that the adult skull of the Plethodontid salamanders could be characterized by three observations: 1) there was a limited development or even an absence of several ossified elements such as dentition and other bones; 2) there was interspecific and intraspecific variability; 3) there were novel mophological configurations of the braincase and jaw (Hanken 1983).

In his experiments, Hanken found that cranial miniaturization of the Thorius skull was achieved at the expense of ossification. Much of the ossified skeleton was lost or reduced, especially in the anterior elements, which are seen typically in larger adult salamanders (Hanken 1983). In contrast to this ossified downsizing, many of the sensory organs were not diminished in size — therefore present in greater proportion to the rest of the reduced head. He also reported that due to the geometrical space availability, there is a competition for space in reduced sized skulls, and the “predominant brain, otic capsules, and eyes have imposed structural rearrangements on much of the skull that remains” (Hanken 1983).

Hanken proposed that paedomorphosis was the mode of evolution of the plethodontid salamanders (Hanken 1983). Paedomorphosis is the state where the miniaturized structures of the adult salamanders can be described as arrested juvenile states. To support this theory, Hanken showed data where cranial skeletal reduction was less extreme in the posterior regions of the skull. One of the hallmarks of paedamorphosis is the lack of conservation in structures derived late in development. Early developed structures are highly conserved, and the latter derivations become either lost, or greatly reduced. Again, Hanken has shown that elements appearing late in development exhibit greater variation among species than do elements appearing earlier in ontogeny (Hanken 1983). But the presence of novel morphological features cannot be accounted for merely by truncated development and the retention of juvenile traits. Miniature Plethodontid salamanders display features that are not present in other species, juvenile or adult. These novel morphological features are associated with the evolution of decreased size and are postulated to compensate for the reductions occurring in other areas (Hanken 1983).

In 1985, Trueb and Alberch published a paper presenting similar results in their experiments with frogs. They explored the “relationships between body sizes of anurans and their cranial configurations with respect to the degree of ossification of the skull and two ontogenetic variables‹shape and number of differentiation events” (Trueb and Alberch 1985). Trueb and Alberch examined three morphological variables: size, sequence of differentiation events, and shape changes in individual structures. Size and snout length were measured, and the data showed that the more heavily ossified frogs tended to be smaller, whereas the less-ossified species were of average size, contrary to what was hypothesized. But Trueb and Alberch also attributed the diminution in size to paedomorphosis, citing that the smaller frogs lacked one or more of the elements typically associated with anuran skulls‹these missing elements were typically late in the developmental sequence. It is significant to note, however, that although there was an apparent paedomorphic trend, it could not be “applied unequivocally to all anuans” (Trueb and Alberch 1985). Very little research has been done on the effects of miniaturization on fish. In 1993, Buckup published a paper discussing the phylogeny of newly found minature species of Characidiin fish, but the extent of the examination was merely an acknowledgment that the species were indeed miniatures so that they could be taxonomically reclassified ( Buckup 1993). It is this deficit of knowledge with regard to miniaturization in fish that prompts this research.

Statement of the Problem:

How does miniaturization affect other vertebrates, such as fish? There are over 85 species of freshwater South American fish which are regarded as miniature, spanning 5 orders, 11 families and 40 genera (Hanken and Wake 1993). One such species, Apistogramma cacatuoides, is a South American Cichlid native to Peru. It lives in shallow water bodies in the rainforests, where miniature size is necessary. Males in this species reach approximately 8cm, and females only 5cm. This makes A. cacatuoides an ideal specimen for examination. In this senior honors thesis, I intend to examine the effects of miniaturization on cranial morphology of A. cacatuoides.

Plan of Research:

In this thesis, I will compare the cranial anatomy of A. cacatuoides to that of “Cichlasoma” (Archocentrus) nigrofasciatum, a commonly bred fish reared by aquarists known as the Convict Cichlid, a “typical” medium-sized cichlid also of South American origin. The Convicts will be examined at various stages in development, from juvenile to adult, and will be compared to A.cacatuoides.

The first part of this project will involve whole mount preparation of A. cacatuoides, utilizing the staining and clearing procedures described by Taylor and Van Dyke, 1985. This procedure involves the use of Alizarin Red and Alcian Blue to stain bone and cartilage, and takes into account the adaptations and recommendations Proposed in an earlier paper (Hanken and Wassersug 1981). The Taylor and Van Dyke procedure is specifically for the staining and clearing of small fish and other vertebrates. I tested the procedure during last semester¹s Independent Study and made a few minor adjustments to the protocol.

First, the specimens will be placed serially into an absolute ethyl alcohol solution and stained with Alcian Blue. The fish will then be neutralized in a saturated borax solution, transferred to a 20% hydrogen peroxide solution in potassium hydroxide, and then bleached under a fluorescent light. The unwanted soft tissues will then be cleared using trypsin powder, and then stained in KOH again with alizarin red. The final preparation of the fish involves rinsing the fish, and placing them serially into 40%, 70%, and finally 100% glycerin.

Following the above preparation of the specimens, the crania of the A. cacatuoides specimens will be examined for morphological variation and compared to the cranial anatomy of the Convict cichlid as a progenitor reference point examined at various developmental stages to see if paedomorphosis in indeed the mechanism of miniaturization in A. cacatuoides.

Expected Costs:

The project is estimated to cost no more that five hundred dollars for chemicals and supplies for the entire year.

Literature Cited:

Hanken, J., 1983. Miniaturization and its Effects on Cranial Morphology in Plethodontid Salamanders, Genus Thorius (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). I. Osteological Variation”. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (London) 23: 55-75.

Hanken, James, 1983. Miniaturization and its Effects on Cranial Morhology in Plethodontid Salamanders, Genus Thorius (Amphibia, Plethodintidae): II.The Fate of the Brain and Sense Organs and Their Role in Skull Morphogenesis and Evolution . Journal of Morphology 177: 255-268.

Hanken, James and David Wake, 1993. Miniaturization of Body Size: Origanismal Consequences and Evolutionary Significance. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 24: 501-19.

Harrison, I. J., 1996. Interface Areas in Small Fish. Zoological Symposium No. 69. The Zoological Society of London: London.

Miller, P. J., 1996. Miniature Vertebrates: The Implications of Small Body Size. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London. No. 69: 15-45.

Taylor, William R. and George Van Dyke, 1985. Revised Procedures for Staining and Clearing Small Fishes and Other Vertebrates for Small Bone and Cartilage Study. Cybium. 9(2): 107-119.

Trueb, L. and P. Alberch, 1985. Miniaturization and the Anuran Skull: a Case Study of Heterochrony. Fortschritte der Zoologie. Bund 30.

Williams, T. Walley, 1941 Bone and Cartilage. Stain. Tech. 16:23-25.

• Postgraduate

Research degrees

• Examples of Research proposals
• Find a course
• Accessibility

Examples of research proposals

How to write your research proposal, with examples of good proposals.

Research proposals

Your research proposal is a key part of your application. It tells us about the question you want to answer through your research. It is a chance for you to show your knowledge of the subject area and tell us about the methods you want to use.

We use your research proposal to match you with a supervisor or team of supervisors.

In your proposal, please tell us if you have an interest in the work of a specific academic at York St John. You can get in touch with this academic to discuss your proposal. You can also speak to one of our Research Leads. There is a list of our Research Leads on the Apply page.

When you write your proposal you need to:

• Highlight how it is original or significant
• Explain how it will develop or challenge current knowledge of your subject
• Identify the importance of your research
• Show why you are the right person to do this research
• Research Proposal Example 1 (DOC, 49kB)
• Research Proposal Example 2 (DOC, 0.9MB)
• Research Proposal Example 3 (DOC, 55.5kB)
• Research Proposal Example 4 (DOC, 49.5kB)

Subject specific guidance

• Writing a Humanities PhD Proposal (PDF, 0.1MB)
• Writing a Creative Writing PhD Proposal (PDF, 0.1MB)
• About the University
• Our culture and values
• Academic schools
• Academic dates
• Press office

Our wider work

• Business support
• Work in the community
• Donate or support

Connect with us

York St John University

Lord Mayor’s Walk

[email protected]

01904 624 624

York St John London Campus

6th Floor Export Building

1 Clove Crescent

[email protected]

01904 876 944

• Policies and documents
• Module documents
• Programme specifications
• Quality gateway
• Admissions documents
• Access and Participation Plan
• Freedom of information
• Accessibility statement
• Modern slavery and human trafficking statement

© York St John University 2024

Colour Picker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Dui id ornare arcu odio.

Felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis ipsum. Et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus.

Nec ullamcorper sit amet risus nullam eget felis eget. Eget felis eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus purus.

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR

Senior thesis examples.

Graduating seniors in Biological Sciences have the option of submitting a senior thesis for consideration for Honors and Research Prizes .  Below are some examples of particularly outstanding theses from recent years (pdf):

Sledd Thesis