Scientific research facilitates acquisition of true knowledge, whose highest level is being able to examine scientific issues (Glickman et.al 2009). If knowledge constitutes a universal human property thus greatly impacting overall societal development and wellbeing, the key goal of science will clearly be the truth. Moreover, science’s credibility with the masses is reliant on upholding the highest standards of ethicality when conducting research. Sticking to such guidelines helps prevent deviation from acceptable ethical practices in research, besides facilitating the prevention of acute deviations which are considered misconduct on the part of the researcher (Baumrind, 1971). Researcher misconduct implies including untruths, distortions, or breach of copyright, which include credential misrepresentation, within research proposals, performance, reviews, and result reporting (Kruk, 2013).
The foremost step of a research project is to structure what and how to draft a report which would make the ideal scientific manuscript, as the report constitutes the chief means of communicating one’s findings with peers. All elements of the manuscript ought to be well-defined, with the study problem succinctly and comprehensibly presented, following scientifically established practices for developing rational, scientific thought (Kruk, 2013).

When doing so, the format outlined below will be followed, for ensuring the research integrates every standard, relevant element (Christensen et.al 2011):

Title: All research works require an interesting title which is relevant to the research problem being pursued.

Therefore, I will need to come up with a clear, well-written project title which offers a fairly comprehensive explanation of the matter under study. The title of the report will have to encompass species being experimented upon, type of experiment, and a concise indication of outcomes gleaned.

Abstract: In this section, I will offer a concise, though comprehensive, outline of the doctoral paper. The section will cover a concise statement of study purpose, methodologies used, outcomes, and conclusions.

Introduction: In this section, I will present the study’s background information as well as a statement describing the study’s hypothesis. Additionally, I will outline its conceptual background, besides indicating the significance of the project, stating a definite research problem, and putting forward a definite hypothesis for testing.

Literature Review: The main component of my study will involve a review of academic papers, surveys, books, and all other relevant resources which will contribute to the research topic, field, theory used, etc. In doing so, I will be able to adequately offer a description, outline, and critical assessment of those works relative to my study problem. The sources will be acquired from the World Wide Web, web-based libraries and library books.

Further, I will ensure that the design of my literature review section offers a synopsis of the sources scrutinized by me in the course of researching the subject of my study, in addition to demonstrating to readers the way the study fits within the context of a broader branch of learning. Lastly, I will attempt at creating interest among readers and convincing them of the significance of the study subject (Kruk, 2013).

Methods: This section of the paper will reveal the precise methodology of performance of the experiment. That is, I will explain distinct methods as well as the general experimental strategy employed. Lastly, I will take care to adopt procedures which are adequately understood from a scientific standpoint. I will take special care to ensure they don’t prove injurious to any human lives.

Results: In this part of the paper, the information gathered in the course of experimentation will be delineated. The section actually forms the core of the scientific essay. The major part of the information presented here will be in graphical or tabular form (Kruk, 2013).

Discussion: In this part of the paper, I will interpret the information gleaned and their relation to the research work. Here, I will indicate areas for improvement to take into consideration for future studies.

Acknowledgments: This section of the dissertation will involve a mention of the other individuals and institutions that have played a part in my research study. They include my research guide, the university, technical support staff, financiers of my research (which includes family members), and everybody else who has played a role in ensuring my project became successful (Lawson et.al 1998).

Literature cited: This section will list out the sources cited all through the course of the paper. Furthermore, information will be provided on an array of other researches cited. APA citation style and referencing will be utilized for the purpose of this dissertation (Harriss & Atkinson 2013).

Subsequent to penning a draft based on the above structure, I will, under the guidance of my mentor, set out to collect all requisite material for preparing for the study (e.g., charts and tables, structures, and requisite apparatus) and identify the perfect experiment site (Emanuel et.al 2000).

All through the course of my study, when writing out my dissertation manuscript, I will check for and abide by the ethical research standards described below:

Plagiarism

It is a widely understood fact that any individual who presents another’s words, ideas or information, attributing their origin to themselves implicitly or explicitly, are perpetrating intellectual property theft and might be deemed to be guilty of what is termed as ‘plagiarism’ and, hence, research misconduct. Moreover, clearly, such misconduct is also applicable to the area of reviews and historical/ background and methodological parts of a research paper, in addition to original study findings or conclusions (Kruk, 2013).

I am also aware of the fact that any part of others’ dissertation manuscripts or research papers copied verbatim beyond phrases of 6-7 words ought to be indented or put in quotes and referenced appropriately to the source it is derived from (Baumrind, 1971).

For avoiding all forms of scientific misconduct which may serve to put a blemish on the quality of the study and my own image, the thesis will only encompass information I have individually gathered on the field and typed step-wise by me. This will assure me of the document’s legitimacy (Glickman et.al 2009).

If any information has been gleaned from other academic texts, I...…up making both parties uncomfortable and jeopardizing the relationship. Lastly, it will be crucial to practice caution when making requests from one another in the course of the research project, to ensure no party is prone to pleasing the other (Kruk, 2013).

A number of instances have been reported of mentors unconsciously exploiting their authority and making their pupil assume the responsibility of completing their (i.e., the mentor’s) tasks. Besides giving rise to feelings of bitterness and fear among mentees, this could also add to mentees’ workload, thereby delaying their progress in their personal career development. For preventing this issue, my mentor and I will, prior to commencing the study, discuss the matter of boundaries to be established in the mentor-mentee relationship. But one fact to bear in mind at this point is that different individuals hold different views regarding such boundaries (Glickman et.al 2009). For example, may mentors be allowed to request the mentee to give talks they are required to give? Thus, the need arises to explicitly delineate these boundaries, although, in certain areas, how far boundaries are breached might not be clear. Thus, I will, at all times, prepare myself to deal with eventualities and avoid issues that could hinder my project completion. Moreover, it will be helpful for me to converse with a colleague or the mentor of a colleague and seek their views on the subject if, at any point, I feel that my mentor is overstepping boundaries established (Christensen et.al 2003). When doing so, I will acknowledge my mentor’s experiences and capabilities, thereby meticulously framing feedbacks from colleagues or their mentors (Emanuel et.al 2000).

In conclusion, ethical quandaries, ambiguousness with regard to decision-making, and a conflict of values have consistently been apparent within the review of literature on scientific studies (Glickman et.al 2009). Due to ambiguity of ethical standards, research scholars need to be aware of potential problems and devise a sound framework for handling human rights-related issues (Reich, 1995). This proves critical to reconciling oneself to the problem of researcher values in relation to individual rights as against societal interests. Rules, regulations, ethics bodies, and professional codes may offer a certain amount of guidance, though the ultimate determinant of performing research is performed depends on the individual researcher's ethical compass and value system (Baumrind, 1971).

For preparing the research scholars of the future, the subject of research ethics ought to be accorded special attention within the scientific domain. Any ensuing uncertainties and criticisms ought to be encouraged and not suppressed. My suggestion is that for liberating the research field from what may be described as a "technocratic impasse", research ethics ought to be interpreted, in broad terms, as a field of novel ideas capable of altering professional hierarchies, questioning the abnormality of concepts, and creating an opportunity for cross-disciplinary discussion (Kruk, 2013).

The above guideline on ethical performance of a research project from its outset to its culmination will contribute greatly to my study’s success, and that of the dissertation manuscript.

…