BEAM was developed as a framework in the humanities and social sciences; how might we adapt this framework for use within the natural sciences? Some aspects of the rubric translate clearly: we love talking about methods! The difference between "Exhibit" and "Argument" become less pressing distinctions for scientific scholarship, in which we typically spend less time exploring arguments and more often tracing various evidentiary paths.
So instead, we might think about BE(A)M, in which we still need Background information, which we use to inform our understanding of the Empirical Evidence. We may or may not have (Alternative Evidence) to contrast with our evidence, and we often will reference the Methodology of other scholars.
(Analysis or Alternative Evidence)
Once you have completed a first draft of your own writing, you can take a look at your initial sources that you have cited and analyze them using the BEAM rubric. Do you have sources that you are using in all of these categories? Do you notice any gaps in your sources?
Let's take a look together at an article and use BEAM to analyze how the authors use references effectively in their work.