How to frame good research questions and write winning hypotheses?

A clear research question and a well-crafted hypothesis are the backbone of any scientific project. Good research questions are specific enough to be answerable but broad or novel enough to matter; good hypotheses are concise, measurable, and falsifiable. Together, they guide your choice of variables, methods, and objectives. They also help reviewers and readers quickly see the logic of your work.

This short guide explains how to formulate precise research questions, turn them into testable hypotheses, and align objectives that measure what you claim to test.

What is the research question of your work?

Every research project, dissertation, thesis, or article begins with a question. From the beginning to the end of the article writing process, this question needs to be very clear. Even if the research question is clear in your mind, write it down and try to improve it to make it clear to the reader of your work. This research question drives your work, and if you remember it along the way, conducting the research and writing the paper will be much easier.

“If you don’t have a question, you are not doing good science. If readers can’t tell what it is, you are not writing good science.” – Joshua Schimel, Writing Science

What is the difference between a research question and a hypothesis?

The research question is the foundation of any study. It identifies the knowledge gap and guides every decision that follows. It must come first and be stated clearly. If you skip the question and jump straight into your goals or methods, the reader is left to guess what you were trying to investigate.

· A research question asks what you want to understand.

· A hypothesis proposes a tentative answer to that question.

· An objective then describes the specific actions you will take to test the hypothesis and address the question.

For example:

Research question: Does the color of the flower impact the pollinator preference?

Hypothesis: Hummingbirds prefer red flowers.

Objective: To quantify pollinator visitation rates among flowers of different colors.

What makes a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis follows several principles. It answers the “what” of the research question rather than describing how the study will be carried out. Ideally, the hypothesis addresses a specific aspect of the research question while contributing to a larger understanding of the topic. Here are some aspects of a good hypothesis:

· Testable and falsifiable.

· Measurable.

· Concise.

· Focus on the question, rather than the objectives.

· Delimited, but answering a broader question.

For instance, let's check for those attributes in this example:

“[...] we hypothesize that (a) biostimulants and N treatments will positively improve the corn grain yield, and influence above-ground biomass, (b) biostimulants will positively improve the NUE in corn production. Therefore, this study aimed to assess (1) the effectiveness of various biostimulants/biologicals and N treatments in impacting corn grain yield, aboveground biomass dry weight, and various morphological parameters, and (2) their influence on various NUE parameters such as Partial Factor Productivity (PFP), Agronomic Efficiency (AE), Physiological Efficiency (PE), and Recovery Efficiency (RE).”

Gajula, et al. "Evaluating the impact of biostimulants at variable nitrogen rates in corn production." European Journal of Agronomy 167 (2025): 127554.

Let’s break it down:

Biostimulants and N treatments will positively improve the corn grain yield and influence above-ground biomass. Biostimulants will positively improve the NUE in corn production.

Is this hypothesis testable and falsifiable? Yes, we can imagine experimental designs to test if biostimulants and N treatments will impact corn yield. If the hypothesis can be rewritten in a YES or NO question, it is a falsifiable hypothesis. For example,

Do biostimulants and N treatments positively improve the corn yield, above-ground biomass, and nitrogen use efficiency?

Is this hypothesis measurable? Yes, we can easily identify how the authors propose to measure corn growth to assess the effects of biostimulants and N treatments. It is clearly stated in the hypothesis, and the components of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) were broken down in the objectives.

Is this hypothesis concise? Yes, the hypotheses were broken down into two, giving one piece of information per sentence, which facilitates the reading.

Is this hypothesis focused on the research question? Yes, objectives were written in separate sentences, which clearly emphasize the research question. The research question is implicit in the hypothesis, but it could be stated as:

Do biostimulants and N treatments positively improve the corn yield, above-ground biomass, and nitrogen use efficiency?

Is the hypothesis well delimited, but answering a broader question? The hypothesis is very well delimited: biostimulants, N treatments, corn yields, and nitrogen use efficiency. However, to define whether there is a broader knowledge gap being fulfilled or not, the construction of the storytelling in the introduction should be carefully considered to show the novelty in this research question.

Connecting the research question to the methods

A quick model to combine a research question with the methods is:

To learn X, we did Y.

Try to identify the research question, hypothesis, and objectives in this paragraph:

“A better understanding of arsenic sorption onto biogenic Fe(III) biominerals that form at redox gradients in natural waters is needed to develop improved models of arsenic transport and sequestration in the environment. Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to (1) determine the extent of arsenic sorption to iron biominerals originally formed in aquatic environments, and (2) identify surface complexes formed by arsenic sorbed to environmental iron biominerals.”

Sowers, et al. "Sorption of arsenic to biogenic iron (oxyhydr) oxides produced in circumneutral environments." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 198 (2017): 194-207.

There is no stated hypothesis, and the research question is implicit in the first sentence:

A better understanding of arsenic sorption onto biogenic Fe(III) biominerals that form at redox gradients in natural waters is needed to develop improved models of arsenic transport and sequestration in the environment.

And it could be rewritten in:

Does arsenic sorption differ in Fe (III) biominerals that form at redox gradients in natural waters?

The research question would be even clearer using the quick model: "To learn X, we did Y."

To learn how arsenic sorption occurs onto biogenic Fe(III) biominerals that form at redox gradients in natural waters, we determined the extent of arsenic sorption to iron biominerals originally formed in aquatic environments and identified surface complexes formed by arsenic sorbed to environmental iron biominerals.

Another example, try again to identify the research question, hypothesis, and objectives in this paragraph:

Overall, the current study explores nanoplastics-mineral/organo-mineral complexes interactions under varying geochemical parameters, emphasizing heteroaggregation and nanoplastics sedimentation in aqueous systems. Further, column transport experiments examined the influence of mineral/organo-mineral complexes-coated sand on nanoplastics mobility in saturated porous media.

Choudhary and Darbha. "Impact of Minerals (Ferrihydrite and Goethite) and Their Organo-Mineral Complexes on Fate and Transport of Nanoplastics in the Riverine and Terrestrial Environments." Environmental Science & Technology (2025).

Again, there is no stated hypothesis, and the research question is implicit.  Using the model to learn X, we did Y:

To explore nanoplastics-mineral/organo-mineral complexes interactions under varying geochemical parameters in aqueous systems, we carried out column transport experiments and examined the influence of mineral/organo-mineral complexes-coated sand on nanoplastics mobility in saturated porous media.

From here, we could state the following research questions:

Is nanoplastics’ mobility affected by mineral/organo-mineral complexes in varying geochemical parameters in aqueous systems?

In conclusion, clear research questions and hypotheses are the engine of rigorous science. Start by writing down the question you really want to answer, then craft a concise, falsifiable hypothesis that speaks directly to that question. And remember that negative or inconclusive results still advance knowledge: a hypothesis that is rejected often tells you more than one that is accepted.

Before you submit or present your work, run a quick checklist: Is the question explicit? Is the hypothesis measurable and falsifiable? Do the objectives and methods directly test it? If yes, your study will be clearer and easier for readers and reviewers to follow.

Further reading

Schimel, J. (2012). Writing science: how to write papers that get cited and proposals that get funded. OUP USA.