Skip to content

Checklist for reading/correction student thesis

1) General writing

Is every paragraph:

  • P1) Written with a single clear sub-argument?
  • P2) Is this spelled out, in a separate sentence, ideally the first or second (perhaps last or second to last)?
  • P3) Are all sentences clearly connected to this sub-argument?
  • P4) Is this connection clearly specified in the beginning of each sentence?
  • P5) Are all words used either
    • i) known or introduced earlier in the report.
    • ii) defined within the sentence.
    • iii) written so that it is clear that the reader is not expected to know it (e.g. "a concept called XXX)".
  • P6) Is the paragraph's sub-argument carrying the story forward, is it clear how it contributes to the bigger argument?
  • P7) Is each sentence complete, with comma before subject, no comma between subject and predicate, and without two complete sentences after each other without e.g. "and" in-between. Do you have comma before each additional sub-clause (mb = meningsbyggnadsfel)
  • P8) Do you write a, b, and c? (with comma before "and")
  • P9) All usages of words like "they", "these", etc is minimized and always followed by a clarifying word. (sf = syftningsfel, eller oklar syftning)


Is every figure and table done with:

  • F1) Large enough font-sizes that they can be read easily (as large as normal text)?
  • F2) A figure caption that explains all symbols used?
  • F3) A figure caption with a clear title that summarizes the point of the figure?
  • F4) A figure legend that shows the symbols and colors?
  • F5) Labels and units of both the x- and y-axis?
  • F6) Referred to in the text as Figure X or Table Y (capital letter)?
  • F7) A sense of carrying the story forward, especially in the Introduction and Results chapters?

2) Introduction chapter, chapter 1

Do you have the following content included:

  • I1) Some text before 1.1. that introduces the basic idea and setting of the report in layman's terms?
  • I2) A clear medical motivation? (usually 1.1)
  • I3) The necessary biological mechanisms, especially those that you study? (often 1.2)
  • I4) A good transition to why systems biology should be used, and introduction to systems biology in general? (often 1.3)
  • I5) An introduction to the specific methods (conceptually) and models that come before what you did, that you build or improve upon? (often 1.4)
  • I6) A clear and easy-to-find summary of the limitations of previous work, that defines the hole in the current body-of-knowledge that you want to fill? (e.g. at the end of 1.4)
  • I7) A short and succinct Aims section (not a new chapter, but e.g. 1.5)?
  • I8) Figures that carry the story, approx. one per sub-chapter?
  • I9) Clear transitions between each paragraph and sub-chapter?


Things to consider when reading all parts in the introduction:

  • I10) Are there things that are included but that are not needed to understand the rest of the thesis, or to understand the importance of the aims? They can and should probably be removed!

3) Aims

  • Are you starting this sub-chapter with a short recap of the most important points in the preceeding chapters (2-10 sentences)?
  • Is this quick summary leading up to the identified hole in existing knowledge, i.e. the so-called "However"-sentence.

Overall, the most important questions when reflecting on a scientific report:

  • A1) Would the reader suggest an aims section that is quite similar to the one you wrote, if it wasn't included, just after reading the Introduction?
  • A2) Do the aims feel urgent?
  • A3) Do the aims feel like the next logical step?

4) Method:

Are you introducing:

  • M1) Your class of models/equations (usually ODEs)?
  • M2) All symbols explained before or immediately after each equation?
  • M3) Software used?
  • M4) Parameter optimization?
  • M5) Statistical tests used?
  • M6) Names of functions and methods clearly specified?
  • M7) All data used, including how it was collected experimentally, and how you extracted it from graphs?

5) Results

  • R1) Are the results presented in an understandable way, but not discussed in a nuanced way?
  • R2) Are you supporting that overall conclusion with the figures and tables and other quantitative and qualitative results obtained?
  • R3) Do you make those arguments in the results section? (since some of you are still writing this in lab report style, you sometimes don’t include the main conclusions and interpretations in the results chapter, but only in the discussion; the discussion is meant to nuance and comment on those conclusions)
  • R4) Is the Result section concise, with good and informative headings?
  • R5) Are you using titles for the sub-chapters that are statements, which are new insights you have gotten? (i.e. don’t just write what you have worked with as title, but what you have came up with)
  • R6) Have you double-checked that those are new conclusions, that couldn’t be drawn by just looking at the original data itself?
  • R7) Are the figures referenced in a way that strengthens the context?
  • R8) When you make use of a figure as an argument, have you clearly explained where you should look in the figure, i.e. what should be compared with what? (i.e. don’t just point to a figure, and let the reader figure out where to look. Say explicitly what should be compared with what, and what the conclusion that should be made is. Also quantify the comparison, by taking out the critical numbers in the graph, and saying them also in the text)
  • R9) Is there a logical flow in presenting the results, moving from one point to another seamlessly?
  • R10) Are figures and tables appropriately labelled and explained in the text, ensuring that the reader can understand them without constant reference?
  • R11) Have you made a story, where you start by reminding the reader of the Aims, and where you then explain what you have done, and why? These things should be in the results, when they are specific to the way you did things, in e.g. getting a certain figure. The methods chapter has the general recipes, e.g. for how you did the optimization, or simulation, etc. This might again differ from how you have done previous lab reports.

6) Discussion

  • D1) Is a summary of the results given? Usually this is given in the first paragraph, before Chapter 4.1, or as 4.1, then entitled "Summary of results" or something like that.
  • D2) Is the results commented on?
  • D3) Is the results put into contrast to existing literature? Each sub-project should relate their findings and approach to at least 4-5 scientific references.
  • D4) Are delimitations with their work introduced?
  • D5) Are future outlooks and potential continuations discussed?
  • D6) No new results are presented that should be in the Results section? No results figures should be included in the Discussion.
  • D7) Does the discussion tie back to the presented aims and answer the research question?
  • D8) Do you have a sub-chapter called "Ethical and Societal implication"? Does this also have a few references?

7) Conclusions (note that this chapter is optional)

  • C1) Does the conclusion effectively summarize the main findings and their significance?
  • C2) Is there a clear restatement of the aims?
  • C3) The conclusion does not introduce any new information?
  • C4) Does the conclusion provide a concise answer to the research question or hypothesis?
  • C5) Is the conclusion written in a way that leaves a lasting impression on the reader?

8) References

  • Ref 1) In the text, sources are cited in the sentences they are relevant.
  • Ref 2) Sources are not cited at the end of a paragraph (for the whole paragraph).
  • Ref 3) Is the same reference style used throughout the report?
  • Ref 4) Do you for journal papers have all information: first author, year, journal name, issue, page number?
  • Ref 5) Does each book or book chapter reference contain at least: name of book and chapter, editors (for chapters contained in edited books), year, publisher, address to publisher, authors?
  • Ref 6) Is all needed bibliometric data provided in the Reference section?
  • Ref 7) Are all references cited in the text included in the reference section?
  • Ref 8) Is the reference list organized alphabetically/numerically and formatted according to the specifications of the chosen citation style?
  • Ref 9) Are you referring to either journal papers or scientific books? (NOTE: max 2 other references per report, e.g. home page references)
  • Ref 10) Have you made sure that you for journal papers and regular books and book chapters do NOT write [Internet] [Cited 2024-xx-xx].