sample of research paper using imrad format

IMRAD Format For Research Papers: The Complete Guide

Thank you for reading DrAiMD’s Substack. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Writing a strong research paper is key to succeeding in academia, but it can be overwhelming to know where to start. That’s where the IMRAD format comes in. IMRAD provides a clear structure to help you organize and present your research logically and coherently. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explain the IMRAD format, why it’s so important for research writing, and how to use it effectively. Follow along to learn the ins and outs of crafting papers in the gold-standard IMRAD structure. In this article, I’ll walk you through the IMRAD format step-by-step. I’ll explain each section, how to write it, and what to avoid. By the end of this article, you’ll be able to write a research paper that is clear, concise, and well-organized.

What is IMRAD Format?

IMRAD stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion . It’s a way of organizing a scientific paper to make the information flow logically and help readers easily find key details. The IMRAD structure originated in medical journals but is now the standard format for many scientific fields.

Thanks for reading DrAiMD’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Here’s a quick overview of each section’s purpose:

Introduction : Summary of prior research and objective of your study

Methods : How you carried out the study

Results : Key findings and analysis

Discussion : Interpretation of results and implications

Most papers also include an abstract at the beginning and a conclusion at the end to summarize the entire report.

Why is the IMRAD Format Important?

Using the IMRAD structure has several key advantages:

It’s conventional and familiar. Since I MRAD is so widely used , it helps ensure editors, reviewers, and readers can easily find the details they need. This enhances clarity and comprehension.

It emphasizes scientific rigor. The methods and results sections encourage thorough reporting of how you conducted the research. This supports transparency, credibility, and reproducibility.

It encourages precision. The structure necessitates concise writing focused only on the core aims and findings. This avoids rambling or repetition.

It enables efficient reading. Readers can quickly skim to the sections most relevant to them, like only reading the methods. IMRAD facilitates this selective reading.

In short, the IMRAD format ensures your writing is clear, precise, rigorous, and accessible – crucial qualities in scientific communication.

When Should You Use IMRAD Format?

The IMRAD structure is ideal for:

Primary research papers that report new data and findings

Review papers that comprehensively summarize prior research

Grant proposals requesting funding for research

IMRAD is not typically used for other paper types like:

Editorials and opinion pieces

Popular science articles for general audiences

Essays analyzing a topic rather than presenting new data

So, if you are writing a scholarly scientific paper based on experiments, investigations, or observational studies, the IMRAD format is likely expected. Embrace this conventional structure to help communicate your exciting discoveries.

Now that we’ve covered the key basics let’s dive into how to write each section of an IMRAD paper.

The abstract is a succinct summary of your entire paper, typically around 200 words. Many readers will only read the abstract, so craft it carefully to function as a standalone piece highlighting your most important points.

Elements to include:

Research problem, question, or objectives

Methods and design

Major findings or developments

Conclusions and implications

While written first, refine the abstract last to accurately encapsulate your final paper. A clear precise abstract can help attract readers and set the tone for your work. Take a look at our complete guide to abstract writing here !

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction provides the necessary background context and sets up the rationale for your research. Start by briefly summarizing the core findings from previous studies related to your topic to orient readers to the field. Provide more detail on the specific gaps, inconsistencies, or unanswered questions in the research your study aims to address. Then, clearly state your research questions, objectives, experimental hypotheses, and overall purpose or anticipated contributions. The Introduction establishes why your research is needed and clarifies your specific aims. Strive for a concise yet comprehensive overview that lets readers learn more about your fascinating study. Writing a good introduction is like writing a good mini-literature review on a subject. Take a look at our complete guide to literature review writing here!

The methods section is the nuts and bolts, where you comprehensively describe how you carried out the research. Sufficient detail is crucial so others can assess your work and reproduce the study. Take a look at our complete guide to writing an informative and tight literature review here!

Research Design

Start by explaining the overall design and approach. Specify:

Research types like experimental, survey, observational, etc.

Study duration

Sample size

Control vs experimental groups

Clarify the variables, treatments, and factors involved.

Participants

Provide relevant characteristics of the study population or sample, such as:

Health status

Geographic location

For human studies, include recruitment strategies and consent procedures.

List any instruments, tests, assays, chemicals, or other materials utilized. Include details like manufacturers and catalog numbers.

Chronologically explain each step of the experimental methods. Be precise and thorough to enable replication. Use past tense and passive voice.

Data Analysis

Describe any statistical tests, data processing, or software used to analyze the data.

The methods section provides the roadmap of your research journey. Strive for clarity and completeness. Now we’re ready for the fun part – the results!

This section shares the key findings and data from your study without interpretation. The results should mirror the methods used.

Report Findings Concisely

Use text, figures, and tables to present the core results:

Focus only on key data directly related to your objectives

Avoid lengthy explanations and extraneous details

Highlight the most groundbreaking findings

Use Visuals to Present Complex Data

Tables and figures efficiently communicate more complex data:

Tables organize detailed numerical or textual data

Figures vividly depict relationships like graphs, diagrams, photos

Include clear captions explaining what is shown

Refer to each visual in the text

Reporting your results objectively lays the groundwork for the next section – making sense of it all through discussion.

Here, you interpret the data, explain the implications, acknowledge limitations, and make recommendations for future research. The discussion allows you to show the greater meaning of your study.

Interpret the Findings

Analyze the results in the context of your initial hypothesis and prior studies:

How do your findings compare to past research? Are they consistent or contradictory?

What conclusions can you draw from the data?

What theories or mechanisms could explain the outcomes?

Discuss the Implications

Address the impact and applications of the research:

How do the findings advance scientific understanding or technical capability?

Can the results improve processes, design, or policies in related fields?

What innovations or new research directions do they enable?

Identify Limitations and Future Directions

No study is perfect, so discuss potential weaknesses and areas for improvement:

Were there any methodological limitations that could influence the results?

Can the research be expanded by testing new variables or conditions?

How could future studies build on your work? What questions remain unanswered?

A thoughtful discussion emphasizes the meaningful contributions of your research.

The conclusion recaps the significance of your study and key takeaways. Like the abstract, many readers may only read your opening and closing, so ensure the conclusion packs a punch.

Elements to cover:

Restate the research problem and objectives

Summarize the major findings and main points

Emphasize broader implications and applications

The conclusion provides the perfect opportunity to drive home the importance of your work. End on a high note that resonates with readers.

The IMRAD format organizes research papers into logical sections that improve scientific communication. By following the Introduction-Methods-Results-and-Discussion structure, you can craft clear, credible, and impactful manuscripts. Use IMRAD to empower readers to comprehend and assess your exciting discoveries efficiently. With this gold-standard format under your belt, your next great paper is within reach.

Ready for more?

• Communicating in STEM Disciplines
• Features of Academic STEM Writing
• STEM Writing Tips
• Academic Integrity in STEM
• Strategies for Writing
• Science Writing Videos – YouTube Channel
• Educator Resources
• Lesson Plans, Activities and Assignments
• Strategies for Teaching Writing
• Grading Techniques

IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion)

Academic research papers in STEM disciplines typically follow a well-defined I-M-R-A-D structure: Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion (Wu, 2011). Although not included in the IMRAD name, these papers often include a Conclusion.

Introduction

The Introduction typically provides everything your reader needs to know in order to understand the scope and purpose of your research. This section should provide:

• Context for your research (for example, the nature and scope of your topic)
• A summary of how relevant scholars have approached your research topic to date, and a description of how your research makes a contribution to the scholarly conversation
• An argument or hypothesis that relates to the scholarly conversation
• A brief explanation of your methodological approach and a justification for this approach (in other words, a brief discussion of how you gather your data and why this is an appropriate choice for your contribution)
• The main conclusions of your paper (or the “so what”)
• A roadmap, or a brief description of how the rest of your paper proceeds

The Methods section describes exactly what you did to gather the data that you use in your paper. This should expand on the brief methodology discussion in the introduction and provide readers with enough detail to, if necessary, reproduce your experiment, design, or method for obtaining data; it should also help readers to anticipate your results. The more specific, the better!  These details might include:

• An overview of the methodology at the beginning of the section
• A chronological description of what you did in the order you did it
• Descriptions of the materials used, the time taken, and the precise step-by-step process you followed
• An explanation of software used for statistical calculations (if necessary)
• Justifications for any choices or decisions made when designing your methods

Because the methods section describes what was done to gather data, there are two things to consider when writing. First, this section is usually written in the past tense (for example, we poured 250ml of distilled water into the 1000ml glass beaker). Second, this section should not be written as a set of instructions or commands but as descriptions of actions taken. This usually involves writing in the active voice (for example, we poured 250ml of distilled water into the 1000ml glass beaker), but some readers prefer the passive voice (for example, 250ml of distilled water was poured into the 1000ml beaker). It’s important to consider the audience when making this choice, so be sure to ask your instructor which they prefer.

The Results section outlines the data gathered through the methods described above and explains what the data show. This usually involves a combination of tables and/or figures and prose. In other words, the results section gives your reader context for interpreting the data. The results section usually includes:

• A presentation of the data obtained through the means described in the methods section in the form of tables and/or figures
• Statements that summarize or explain what the data show
• Highlights of the most important results

Tables should be as succinct as possible, including only vital information (often summarized) and figures should be easy to interpret and be visually engaging. When adding your written explanation to accompany these visual aids, try to refer your readers to these in such a way that they provide an additional descriptive element, rather than simply telling people to look at them. This can be especially helpful for readers who find it hard to see patterns in data.

The Discussion section explains why the results described in the previous section are meaningful in relation to previous scholarly work and the specific research question your paper explores. This section usually includes:

• Engagement with sources that are relevant to your work (you should compare and contrast your results to those of similar researchers)
• An explanation of the results that you found, and why these results are important and/or interesting

Some papers have separate Results and Discussion sections, while others combine them into one section, Results and Discussion. There are benefits to both. By presenting these as separate sections, you’re able to discuss all of your results before moving onto the implications. By presenting these as one section, you’re able to discuss specific results and move onto their significance before introducing another set of results.

The Conclusion section of a paper should include a brief summary of the main ideas or key takeaways of the paper and their implications for future research. This section usually includes:

• A brief overview of the main claims and/or key ideas put forth in the paper
• A brief discussion of potential limitations of the study (if relevant)
• Some suggestions for future research (these should be clearly related to the content of your paper)

Sample Research Article

Resource Download

Wu, Jianguo. “Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond.” Landscape Ecology 26, no. 10 (November 2011): 1345–1349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3.

Further reading:

• Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format by P. K. Ramachandran Nair and Vimala D. Nair
• George Mason University Writing Centre’s guide on Writing a Scientific Research Report (IMRAD)
• University of Wisconsin Writing Centre’s guide on Formatting Science Reports

IMRaD Paper Example: A Guide to Understand Scientific Writing

Learn how to structure an IMRaD paper, explore an IMRaD paper example, and master the art of scientific writing.

Welcome to our guide on IMRaD papers, an essential format for scientific writing. In this article, we will explore what an IMRaD paper is, discuss its structure, and provide an IMRaD paper example to help you understand how to effectively organize and present your scientific research. Whether you are a student, researcher, or aspiring scientist, mastering the IMRaD format will enhance your ability to communicate your findings clearly and concisely.

What Is An IMRaD Paper?

IMRaD stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion . It is a widely used format for structuring scientific research papers. Following the IMRaD paper example below, you will see that the IMRaD format provides a logical flow of information, allowing readers to understand the context, methods, results, and interpretation of the study in a systematic manner.

The IMRaD structure follows the scientific method, where researchers propose a hypothesis, design and conduct experiments, analyze data, and draw conclusions. By adhering to the IMRaD format, researchers can present their work in a standardized way, enabling effective communication and facilitating the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Structure Of An IMRaD Paper

• Introduction : The introduction section provides an overview of the research topic, presents the research question or hypothesis, and outlines the significance and rationale of the study. It should provide background information, a literature review, and clearly state the objectives and aims of the research.
• Methods : The methods section describes the experimental design, materials, and procedures used in the study. It should provide sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the study. This section should include information on the sample or participants, data collection methods, measurements, and statistical analysis techniques employed.
• Results : The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and concise manner. It should focus on reporting the empirical data obtained from the experiments or analyses conducted. Results are typically presented through tables, figures, or graphs and should be accompanied by relevant statistical analyses. Avoid interpretation or discussion of the results in this section.
• Discussion : The discussion section interprets the results, relates them to the research question or hypothesis, and places them within the context of existing knowledge. It provides an analysis of the findings, discusses their implications, and addresses any limitations or weaknesses of the study. The discussion section may also highlight areas for future research or propose alternative explanations for the results.

Follow This IMRaD Paper Example

“ The Effect of Exercise on Cognitive Function in Older Adults “

Introduction

The introduction section will begin by providing a comprehensive overview of the importance of cognitive function in aging populations. It would discuss the prevalence of cognitive decline and its impact on quality of life. Additionally, it would highlight the potential role of exercise in maintaining cognitive health and improving cognitive function. The introduction would present relevant theories or previous studies supporting the hypothesis that regular exercise can positively affect cognitive function in elderly adults. Finally, it would clearly state the research question: “Does regular exercise improve cognitive function in elderly adults?”

The methods section will describe in detail the study design, participant recruitment process, and intervention details. It would specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, such as age range and health status. Additionally, it would outline the cognitive assessments used to measure cognitive function, providing information on their reliability and validity. The section would provide a detailed description of the exercise program, including the type, duration, frequency, and intensity of the exercise sessions. It would also explain any control group or comparison conditions employed. Ethical considerations, such as obtaining informed consent and maintaining participant confidentiality, will be addressed in this section.

The results section will present the findings of the study in a clear and organized manner. It would include statistical analyses of the data collected, such as t-tests or ANOVA, to determine the significance of any observed effects. The results would be presented using tables, figures, or graphs, allowing for easy interpretation and comparison. The section will provide a summary of the main findings related to the effect of exercise on cognitive function, including any statistically significant improvements observed.

The discussion section would interpret the results in light of the research question and relevant literature. It would discuss the implications of the findings, considering both the strengths and limitations of the study. Any unexpected or contradictory results would be addressed, and potential explanations or alternative interpretations would be explored. The section would also highlight the theoretical and practical implications of the study’s findings, such as the potential for exercise interventions to be implemented in geriatric care settings. Finally, the discussion would conclude with suggestions for future research directions, such as investigating the long-term effects of exercise on cognitive function or examining the impact of different exercise modalities on specific cognitive domains.

Clear Communication Of Scientific Research

An IMRaD paper follows a standardized structure that enables clear communication of scientific research. By understanding the purpose and content of each section— introduction, methods, results, and discussion —you can effectively organize and present your own research findings. Remember that the example provided is a simplified representation, and actual IMRaD papers may vary in length and complexity depending on the study and the specific journal requirements.

Your Creations, Ready Within Minutes

Mind the Graph  is an online platform that provides scientists and researchers with an easy-to-use tool to create visually appealing  scientific presentations , posters, and  graphical abstracts . It offers a wide range of templates, pre-designed icons, and illustrations that researchers can use to create stunning visuals that effectively communicate their research findings.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

Content tags

Research Paper Basics: IMRaD

• Finding Databases in GALILEO
• Finding Journals in GALILEO
• Finding Materials in GIL-Find
• ProQuest Research Companion
• How to Search JSTOR
• Scholarly/Peer-Reviewed vs. Popular
• Tutorial: Why Citations Matter
• Literature Review
• Annotated Bibliography
• Podcast Studio
• Reserve a Room
• Share Your Work
• Finding Images
• Using RICOH Boards
• Writing Guides
• The Research Process

What is IMRaD?

IMRaD is an acronym for Introduction , Methods , Results , and Discussion . It describes the format for the sections of a research report. The IMRaD (or IMRD) format is often used in the social sciences, as well as in the STEM fields.

Credit: IMRD: The Parts of a Research Paper by Wordvice Editing Service on YouTube

Outline of Scholarly Writing

With some variation among the different disciplines, most scholarly articles of original research follow the IMRD model, which consists of the following components:

Introduction

• Statement of Problem (i.e. "the Gap")
• Plan to Solve the Problem

Method & Results

• How Research was Done
• What Answers were Found
• Interpretation of Results (What Does It Mean?)
• Implications for the Field

This form is most obvious in scientific studies, where the methods are clearly defined and described, and data is often presented in tables or graphs for analysis.

In other fields, such as history, the method and results may be embedded in a narrative, perhaps describing and interpreting events from archival sources. In this case, the method is the selection of archival sources and how they were interpreted, while the results are the interpretation and resultant story.

In full-length books, you might see this general pattern followed over the entire book, within each chapter, or both.

Credit: Howard-Tilton Memorial Library at Tulane University. This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

IMRAD Format

• Writing Center | George Mason University
• IMRAD Outlining | Excelsior College
• Florida Atlantic University Libraries
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Group Project Tools >>
• Last Updated: Jul 12, 2023 1:42 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ccga.edu/researchbasics

Gould Memorial Library College of Coastal Georgia One College Drive Brunswick, GA 31520 (912) 279-5874 Library Hours Camden Center Library College of Coastal Georgia 8001 Lakes Blvd / Wildcat Blvd Kingsland, GA 31548 (912) 510-3332 Library Hours

The Visual Communication Guy

Learn Visually. Communicate Powerfully.

• About The VCG
• Contact Curtis
• Five Paragraph Essay
• IMRaD (Science)
• Indirect Method (Bad News)
• Inverted Pyramid (News)
• Martini Glass
• Narrative Format

Rogerian Method

• Toulmin Method
• Apostrophes
• Exclamation Marks (Points)
• Parentheses
• Periods (Full Stops)
• Question Marks
• Quotation Marks
• Plain Language
• APPEALS: ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS
• CLUSTER ANALYSIS
• FANTASY-THEME
• GENERIC CRITICISM
• IDEOLOGICAL CRITICISM
• NEO-ARISTOTELIAN
• O.P.T.I.C. (VISUAL ANALSYIS)
• S.O.A.P.S.T.O.N.E. (WRITTEN ANALYSIS)
• S.P.A.C.E.C.A.T. (RHETORICAL ANALYSIS)
• BRANCHES OF ORATORY
• FIGURES OF SPEECH
• FIVE CANONS
• LOGICAL FALLACIES
• Information Design Rules
• Arrangement
• Organization
• Negative Space
• Iconography
• Photography
• Which Chart Should I Use?
• “P” is for PREPARE
• "O" is for OPEN
• "W" is for WEAVE
• “E” is for ENGAGE
• PRESENTATION EVALUTION RUBRIC
• POWERPOINT DESIGN
• ADVENTURE APPEAL
• BRAND APPEAL
• ENDORSEMENT APPEAL
• HUMOR APPEAL
• LESS-THAN-PERFECT APPEAL
• MASCULINE & FEMININE APPEAL
• MUSIC APPEAL
• PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL APPEAL
• PLAIN APPEAL
• PLAY-ON-WORDS APPEAL
• RATIONAL APPEAL
• ROMANCE APPEAL
• SCARCITY APPEAL
• SNOB APPEAL
• SOCIAL APPEAL
• STATISTICS APPEAL
• YOUTH APPEAL
• The Six Types of Résumés You Should Know About
• Why Designing Your Résumé Matters
• The Anatomy of a Really Good Résumé: A Good Résumé Example
• What a Bad Résumé Says When It Speaks
• How to Write an Amazing Cover Letter: Five Easy Steps to Get You an Interview
• Make Your Boring Documents Look Professional in 5 Easy Steps
• Business Letters
• CONSUMER PROFILES
• ETHNOGRAPHY RESEARCH
• FOCUS GROUPS
• OBSERVATIONS
• SURVEYS & QUESTIONNAIRES
• S.W.O.T. ANALYSES
• USABILITY TESTS
• CITING SOURCES: MLA FORMAT
• MLA FORMAT: WORKS CITED PAGE
• MLA FORMAT: IN-TEXT CITATIONS
• MLA FORMAT: BOOKS & PAMPHLETS
• MLA FORMAT: WEBSITES AND ONLINE SOURCES
• MLA FORMAT: PERIODICALS
• MLA FORMAT: OTHER MEDIA SOURCES
• Course Syllabi
• Checklists and Peer Reviews (Downloads)
• Communication
• Poster Prints
• Poster Downloads
• Handout & Worksheet Downloads
• QuickGuide Downloads
• Downloads License Agreements

How to Organize a Paper: The IMRaD Format

What is the IMRaD Format?

The IMRaD (often pronounced “im-rad”) format is a scientific writing structure that includes four or five major sections: introduction (I); research methods (M); results (R); analysis (a); and discussion (D). The IMRaD format is the most commonly used format in scientific article and journal writing and is used widely across most scientific and research fields.

When Do I Use the IMRaD Format?

If you are writing a paper where you are conducting objective research in order answer a specific question, the IMRaD format will most likely serve your purposes best. The IMRaD format is especially useful if you are conducting primary research (such as experimentation, questionnaires, focus groups, observations, interviews, and so forth), but it can be applied even if you only conduct secondary research (which is research you gather from reading sources like books, magazines, journal articles, and so forth.)

The goal of using the IMRaD format is to present facts objectively, demonstrating a genuine interest and care in developing new understanding about a topic; when using this format, you don’t explicitly state an argument or opinion, but rather, you rely on collected data and previously researched information in order to make a claim.

While there are nuances and adjustments that would be made to the following document types, the IMRaD format is the foundational structure many research-driven documents:

• Recommendation reports
• Plans (such as an integrated marketing plan or project management plan)

How Does the IMRaD Format Work?

As mentioned above, the IMRaD format includes four or five major sections. The little “a” has had multiple interpretations over the years; some would suggest it means nothing other than “and,” as in “Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion,” but others have argued that the “a” should be viewed as “Analysis” in papers where the “Results” section may not be immediately clear and a section that analyzes the results is important for reader comprehension. Either way, the “a” often remains in lower-case to indicate that, while it’s often important, it isn’t always necessary. Below, we’ll review the five major sections, with “a” given equal weight to the other sections.

Note that these five sections should  always  go in the order listed below:

• Statement of the topic you are about to address
• Current state of the field of understanding (often, we call this a literature review and it may even merit having its own section)
• Problem or gap in knowledge (what don’t we know yet or need to know? what does the field still need to understand? what’s been left out of previous research? is this a new issue that needs some direction?)
• Forecast statement that explains, very briefly, what the rest of the paper will entail, including a possible quick explanation of the type of research that needs to be conducted
• Separate each type of research you conducted (interviews, focus groups, experiments, etc.) into sub-sections and only discuss one research method in each sub-section (for clarity and organization, it’s important to not talk about multiple methods at once)
• Be very detailed about your process. If you interviewed people, for example, we need to know how many people you interviewed, what you asked them, what you hoped to learn by interviewing them, why chose to interview over other methods, why you interviewed those people specifically (including providing they demographic information if it’s relevant), and so forth. For other types of data collection, we need to know what your methods were–how long you observed; how frequently you tested; how you coded qualitative data; and so forth.
• Don’t discuss what the research means. You’ll use the next two sections–Analysis and Discussion–to talk about what the research means. To stay organized, simply discuss your research methods. This is the single biggest mistake when writing research papers, so don’t fall into that trap.
• Results:  The results section is critical for your audience to understand what the research showed. Use this section to show tables, charts, graphs, quotes, etc. from your research. At this point, you are building your reader towards drawn conclusions, but you are not yet providing a full analysis. You’re simply showing what the data says. Follow the same order as the Methods section–if you put interviews first, then focus groups second, do the same in this section. Be sure, when you include graphics and images, that you label and title every table or graphic (“ Table 3: Interview Results “) and that you introduce them in the body of your text (“As you can see in  Figure 1 , seventy-nine percent of respondents…”)
• Analysis:  The analysis section details what you and others may learn from the data. While some researchers like to combine this section with the Discussion section, many writers and researchers find it useful to analyze the data separately. In the analysis section, spend time connecting the dots for the reader. What do the interviews say about the way employers think about their employees? What do the observations say about how employees respond to workplace criticism? Can any connections be made between the two research types? It’s important in the Analysis section that you don’t draw conclusions that the research findings don’t suggest.  Always  stick to what the research says.
• Discussion:  Finally, you conclude this paper by suggesting what new knowledge this provides to the field. You’ll often want to note the limitations of your study and what further research still needs to be done. If something alarming or important was discovered, this is where you highlight that information. If you use the IMRaD format to write other types of papers (like a recommendation report or a plan), this is where you put the recommendations or the detailed plan.

Back to the Organization Memo

Other Formats

Indirect Method

Proposal Format

Shop for your perfect poster print or digital download at our online store!

How To Write A Research Paper Using The IMRaD Format?

by Statistics Explained Research Paper Help

When writing an academic paper, the entire process may appear to be a daunting task due to the complexities the process poses. Any good research paper encompasses several components that are organized succinctly. Having an outline aids the author to not only present ideas in a structure that can facilitate the readers to understand the key findings of the paper but also describe all the essential elements that a research paper must contain. Here, we attempt to help you in your compositions by listing a step-by-step process of how to write a scientific paper following the IMRaD format. 

The first identifiable instance of IMRaD format being adopted can be traced back to the publication of Louis Pasteur’s  Etudes sur la Biere  (Studies on Fermentation). While specific headings were not used in his writings, however, this format began to be slowly recognized and accepted till it became a “standard” in scientific paper format from the 70s. With the rapid growth in the literature being produced in the science and social science disciplines, this format has also witnessed evolution and changes. Despite the definition of the four sections, the guidelines for how these sections need to be constructed are not rigid thus, leaving plenty of room for flexibility and creativity.    

Once these strategies are understood and assimilated, writing an assignment, thesis, report, or paper will no longer appear to be an insurmountable challenge that had previously taken hours and days of your time. By placing a system in place, absorbing, and reproducing prior research or presenting new data will be a smooth process. 

Integral to the pursuit of research in sciences and social sciences is the writing of academic or research papers that may require you to follow a particular formatting style one of which may be the IMRaD format. The name is an acronym for the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. This form of structure presents research findings to conform to a specific outline. 

More details about the IMRaD format for research papers

The IMRaD format is a common structure for research papers and reports, especially in the fields of science and technology. IMRaD stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.

The Introduction section provides a context for the research and explains the purpose and significance of the study. It should include a review of relevant literature and a statement of the research question or hypothesis being tested.

The Methods section describes the study design, participants, and materials used, as well as the procedures followed to collect and analyze the data.

The Results section presents the findings of the study, including any statistical analyses and tables or figures to illustrate the results.

The Discussion section interprets the results in the context of the research question or hypothesis and relates them to the broader literature on the topic. It should also discuss the implications of the findings and any limitations of the study.

The IMRaD format is used to help readers understand the research and to evaluate the validity and reliability of the study. It is also useful for researchers to organize their thoughts and present their work in a logical and structured way.

INTERESTING READ: APA REFERENCING: A QUICK GUIDE

Broadly, the IMRaD format consists of the following elements:

Introduction

Research question

Significance of the research question 

Background and literature review of the research topic 

Research methods employed to collect information

Sources of information such as primary, secondary, qualitative, or quantitative 

Research methodology or theoretical framework 

Presentation of the data collected 

Discuss the implications of the information obtained 

Situate results within a theoretical framework and support thesis statement 

Delineate limitation or gaps in the study 

Introduction 

The introduction section is a significant section of any academic journal writing. In addition to a description of the research problem or objective, its context or background are also expounded. 

Previous studies, findings, theoretical underpinnings are summarized in this part of the essay such that any “gaps” in the existing body of literature are highlighted to direct the need to “fill those gaps”. The aim of this exercise so to put forward the question of “what” from your research problem. Once a problem has been constituted, if deemed necessary, a hypothesis may be proposed based on a review of the literature and preliminary secondary data research.

The question of how the study was conducted is answered in this section of the study. In other words, the methods used to collect information about the population through various sampling tools and techniques such interview, questionnaire, case studies based etc. are communicated to the reader. The aim is to make known how scientifical, verifiable and value-neutral data has been collected for the study. Methodology or the procedure for how to approach the research problem and choose appropriate tools for data collection, analysis and presentation of results is also included in this section of the paper. 

The data collected is presented under the heading of “results”. With the use of past tense and in the passive voice, only the information relevant to the study is objectively illustrated using tables and figures. However, commentary and further analysis of these findings are not portrayed here. 

Once the data has been presented, the next task for a researcher is to connect the key findings with the research problem. Every question that had been raised keeping the research objective in perspective, are answered, and rationalized in this section. As responsible and ethical researchers, any limitations of the study also need to be depicted in a few lines under this section. This may also serve to chalk out the scope for further research in the future. 

Results vs. Discussion

Researchers commonly get confounded when trying to distinguish between these two sections. But the misplacement of the information can result in disorganized writing, repetition, and lack of coherence when this order is not maintained. The results section only report the data collected. An objective description of the values and figures to demonstrate trends is demonstrated under this segment. On the other hand, when discussing the results, an evaluation needs to be forwarded while attempting to answer the research questions that were raised in the earlier sections. That is, trends need to be explained, contrasted against prior research such that you can support or contrast against the study’s hypothesis. 

The abstract is indispensable to any research article where a succinct summary of the study is offered to the readers of not more than 250 words. Hence, it should be written only in the last stage. Due to the compact nature of the section, one must only highlight the key aspects that can convey what, why and how questions of the study. This overview should broadly consist of purpose, significance, major findings, and implications of the research to your field. Listing of 10-12 keywords is also often mandated by journals during submission. 

MUST READ: MLA REFERENCING: A QUICK GUIDE

Finally, give a title to your paper. This has also been considered as one of the most challenging parts of academic writing. You need to not only encompass all the key elements of your study but also make it summative and engaging simultaneously. By following the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods, results and discussion formula, journal writing can be then systematically tackled in an organized manner.

At  Statistics Explained , with in-house team of geniuses, offer professional services beyond measures, combining, learning, understanding, acquiring skills, and solving problems. The smart move to save time while learning to excel at the subject lies with Statistics Explained. The road to success is the hardest one and all we do is, give you a little push so that you can equip yourself better for the bigger battle. 

Say goodbye to worries and say ‘hi’ to Statistics Explained!

You May Also Like…

How to create an impactful economics master’s thesis (4 minutes read).

Jan 14, 2023

What is an economics master's thesis? An economics master's thesis is a valuable opportunity for a graduate student to...

Top Behavioural Questions of 2023 – Prepare for Behavioural round now!

Jan 9, 2023

Behavioural questions are questions that ask about an individual's past behaviour or performance in specific...

Sociology Online Quiz Help (Solution & Explanation Included)

Jan 8, 2023

In this post we have shared over the sociology quiz, apart from giving you are answers we have also listed here the...

Management of Financial Services Most Popular Questions Solutions

In this post we will be solving some of the most popular question in Management of Financial Services. Let us start....

How to use DAX in Power BI (2023)

Jan 7, 2023

In this post we learn about DAX  (Data Analysis Expressions) in Power BI. We will cover the basic concepts and...

School Invention to Modern Schooling in 3 Minutes (Read)

Jan 1, 2023

The concept of school as a place for children to receive education has been around for a long time, and it has evolved...

Looking for customised assignment help?

Are you searching for customised assignment help services online?

Then you are at right place. We serve exactly what you need and you have to pay for only that.

+1(619)391-1514

+1(863)240-2673, [email protected], pin it on pinterest.

Structure of a Research Paper

Structure of a Research Paper: IMRaD Format

I. The Title Page

• Title: Tells the reader what to expect in the paper.
• Author(s): Most papers are written by one or two primary authors. The remaining authors have reviewed the work and/or aided in study design or data analysis (International Committee of Medical Editors, 1997). Check the Instructions to Authors for the target journal for specifics about authorship.
• Keywords [according to the journal]
• Corresponding Author: Full name and affiliation for the primary contact author for persons who have questions about the research.
• Financial & Equipment Support [if needed]: Specific information about organizations, agencies, or companies that supported the research.
• Conflicts of Interest [if needed]: List and explain any conflicts of interest.

II. Abstract: “Structured abstract” has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper.

III. Introduction: The “why did you do the study”; setting the scene or laying the foundation or background for the paper.

IV. Methods: The “how did you do the study.” Describe the --

• Context and setting of the study
• Specify the study design
• Population (patients, etc. if applicable)
• Sampling strategy
• Intervention (if applicable)
• Identify the main study variables
• Data collection instruments and procedures
• Outline analysis methods

V. Results: The “what did you find” --

• Report on data collection and/or recruitment
• Participants (demographic, clinical condition, etc.)
• Present key findings with respect to the central research question
• Secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

VI. Discussion: Place for interpreting the results

• Main findings of the study
• Discuss the main results with reference to previous research
• Policy and practice implications of the results
• Strengths and limitations of the study

VII. Conclusions: [occasionally optional or not required]. Do not reiterate the data or discussion. Can state hunches, inferences or speculations. Offer perspectives for future work.

VIII. Acknowledgements: Names people who contributed to the work, but did not contribute sufficiently to earn authorship. You must have permission from any individuals mentioned in the acknowledgements sections. 

IX. References:  Complete citations for any articles or other materials referenced in the text of the article.

• IMRD Cheatsheet (Carnegie Mellon) pdf.
• Adewasi, D. (2021 June 14).  What Is IMRaD? IMRaD Format in Simple Terms! . Scientific-editing.info. 
• Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. In: Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03101-9_2
• Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey.   Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA ,  92 (3), 364–367.
• Cuschieri, S., Grech, V., & Savona-Ventura, C. (2019). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Structuring a scientific paper.   Early human development ,  128 , 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.09.011

Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond

• Published: 05 November 2011
• Volume 26 , pages 1345–1349, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Jianguo Wu 1  

73k Accesses

40 Citations

72 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is essential to scientific research. “A scientific experiment, no matter how spectacular the results, is not completed until the results are published” (Day and Gastel 2006 ). Advances in science depend on the rigorous process of scientific publishing. Justified or not, journal impact factors and article citations have become the buzzwords in today’s academic world, and have been used increasingly as metrics to evaluate the performance of research projects, journals, scientists, and institutions. As scientific journals and published articles continue to proliferate, we as editors, reviewers, and scientists all are faced with increasing challenges to communicate science more effectively and efficiently.

In this series of editorials, we focus on the question: How can we improve our writing of research papers for Landscape Ecology and other professional journals to increase their readability and facilitate the process of their evaluation? Obviously, this is not a new question; nor do we promise to have revolutionary answers. Experts have written numerous books and journal articles addressing this very topic. The main goal here is to discuss several key issues on the organization of research papers—particularly on the structure of IMRAD (introduction-methods-results-and-discussion)—the predominant format of scientific writing. I hope that our editors, reviewers, and authors will benefit from this discussion.

IMRAD as an outcome of the evolution of scientific publishing

Everyone in science may know something about IMRAD—the introduction-methods-results-and-discussion structure (Fig.  1 ). But its history is rather brief when compared to that of scientific writing as a whole. The first scientific journals appeared in the 17th century, when articles were published mainly in the form of descriptive letters and narratives structured chronologically (Meadows 1985 ; Day 1989 ). For more than two centuries, scientific papers were published without a generally accepted format. During this period of time, however, the idiosyncrasy in scientific publishing gradually withered as both the journals and the papers in them became increasingly formalized by developing some form of organization in structure (Meadows 1985 ). Day ( 1989 ) argued that it was Louis Pasteur who invented the first IMRAD-like writing structure in his classic book, Etudes sur la Biere (studies on fermentation), originally published in 1876. Pasteur’s book had identifiable sections of “introduction”, “methods”, and “discussion”—although such headings were not explicitly used (Day 1989 ). However, IMRAD did not become the “standard” until the 1970s, when the American national standard for the preparation of scientific papers for written or oral presentation (ANSI Z39.16-1972) was published in 1972 and again 1979 (Day 1989 ; Day and Gastel 2006 ).

Diagrammatic representation of the IMRAD structure of research papers (modified from a diagram at http://www.services.unimelb.edu.au/asu/writing/ ). The basic structure of IMRAD has only four sections: introduction (I), methods (M), results (R), and discussion (D). Most original research papers today have 6–10 sections, with those in dotted-lined boxes being optional. The shape of each section is meaningful as it suggests how that section should proceed in terms of specificity (focusing on your study) and generality (relating to studies by others). The size of each box is roughly proportional to the relative length of each section. The text with arrows indicates what main questions each section should address

IMRAD began to be adopted by scientific journals around the 1940s, and quickly became the dominant format for research papers in a majority of leading scientific journals by the late 1970s. For example, for leading journals in medical research IMRAD was adopted in the 1950s, became predominant in the 1960s, and has been the standard since the 1980s (Sollaci and Pereira 2004 ). In physics, IMRAD was already employed extensively in the 1950s (Bazerman 1984 ). Research papers in two of the most prominent ecological journals, Journal of Ecology (published by British Ecological Society since 1913) and Ecology (published by Ecological Society of America since 1920), began to adopt IMRAD in the 1950s. For instance, Lindeman’s ( 1942 ) seminal article on trophic dynamics in Ecology was organized by topics, but the classic paper on vegetation continuum by Curtis and McIntosh ( 1951 ) in the same journal clearly was IMRAD-structured. In Journal of Ecology, Watt’s ( 1947 ) masterpiece on pattern and process in plant communities was also organized with topical headings, but Pielou’s ( 1957 ) paper—one of the earliest about scale effects on characterizing spatial patterns—had the appearance of IMRAD. Today, IMRAD is the standard for all major journals in ecology, including this one—Landscape Ecology.

Why has IMRAD been adopted by almost all research journals so widely and quickly, with no sign of being abandoned anytime soon? According to Meadows ( 1985 , 1998 ), changing the internal organization of research papers is one way for the scientific community to respond to the exponential growth of scientific information, and thus IMRAD is a result of that evolutionary process. Most, if not all, editors and scientists agree that IMRAD provides a consistent framework that guides the author to address several questions essential to understanding a scientific study (Fig.  1 ): Introduction—Why did you do it in the first place? Methods—How did you do it exactly? Results—What did you find? Discussion—What does it mean after all and so what? According to experts who specialize in the history and practice of scientific writing, IMRAD offers several benefits (Meadows 1998 ; Sollaci and Pereira 2004 ; Day and Gastel 2006 ). The modular structure of IMRAD helps the author to organize ideas and remember critical elements; it makes easier for the editor and the reviewer to evaluate manuscripts; and it improves the efficiency of the scientist to locate specific information without going through the entire paper.

IMRAD as an adaptable structure for research papers

IMRAD is primarily for original research articles, and has little relevance to other types of papers commonly seen in scientific journals, such as reviews, perspectives, and editorials. Even for research papers, IMRAD is silent about several other components of a modern research paper: title, abstract, acknowledgments, and references. It does not even say anything about how the sections of I, M, R, and D should each be constructed. So, IMRAD is not really a straightjacket. It has plenty of room for creativity and innovation.

Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been published on scientific writing, and most if not all of them offer advice on what each element of IMRAD ought to include. One problem to new writers, however, is that these different guides seem to differ in the details. After handling hundreds of manuscripts for Landscape Ecology, I observed that a considerable portion of them had various structural problems. Two of them are major. One is the lack of clearly identified research problems and questions in the introduction (or elsewhere). The other is the lack of organization within each section (particularly results and discussion)—the reader needs to see a building, not a pile of bricks! I have seen manuscripts with an introduction section running several pages long without mentioning the research question of the study, and a discussion section of more than 3 pages without any headings.

How should one resolve the above-mentioned problems? There is no panacea, but I have two suggestions for improvements. First, I find the diagrammatic representation of IMRAD (Fig.  1 ) quite useful because it captures the essence of the structure. The shape and the size of each section are heuristic and easy to remember. My second suggestion is to consult a good writing guide for specifics of each section, from the title to the references. Every experienced author may have a favorite, and mine is Day and Gastel ( 2006 ). Another excellent guide is Gustavii ( 2008 ), which is a comprehensive yet succinct account of the essentials of scientific writing (particularly helpful to authors whose native language is not English). Also, for those who prefer more detailed instructions about key elements within each section, Hartley’s ( 1999 ) “modest proposal”—IMRAD nested with topical headings/subheading in each section—should be helpful. In addition, being precise and concise in language is quintessential in scientific writing. This is a tall order. To get help, a must-have reference is the timeless “little book”—The Elements of Style (Strunk and White 2000 ).

Don’t try to read every guide that you can find. Don’t read it and rest it. Keep it handy, and consult it frequently while writing.

IMRAD as an evolutionary process

As discussed above, the format of scientific papers has evolved during the past several centuries, and will continue to evolve. The evolution of the article format is more than just a way of coping with the ever-increasing kinds and amount of information. As Meadows ( 1985 ) stated:

“The construction of an acceptable research paper reflects the agreed view of the scientific community on what constitutes science. A study of the way papers are constructed at any point in time therefore tells us something about the scientific community at that time.”

As science and information technology continue to advance, IMRAD will undoubtedly evolve as well. In fact, changes have already taken place. For example, abstract, keywords, acknowledgments, and references have become common parts of the IMRAD structure. Even the sequential order of the sections is altered in some journals (e.g., Nature places the methods section, in smaller font size, at the end of a research paper).

Since the early 1990s, structured abstracts—which are organized into several sections with headings or sequential numbers—have become increasingly common in scientific journals. A common format of structured abstracts is: Abstract [background, aims (or objectives), methods, results, conclusions (or synthesis)]. Many leading journals in medical and physical sciences now have them. Some ecology journals have also jumped on this bandwagon, such as those of British Ecological Society. Studies have shown that structured abstracts have several advantages for both authors and readers. For example, Hartley ( 2003 ) found that structured abstracts tend to be significantly more informative, more readable, and clearer than unstructured, traditional abstracts. Hartley and Betts ( 2007 ) concluded that “… spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.” This should make immediate sense to landscape ecologists—isn’t this another example of pattern affecting process?

A good abstract should be complete, concise, and clear. That is, an abstract should have all the components necessary for a short but complete story. A condensed version of IMRAD, with greater emphasis on results and discussion, is commonly assumed in an abstract. While being complete, an abstract must also be succinct because most journals require that it be no longer than 250–300 words. In addition, a good abstract must have a clear message—what’s the story and so what? Assuming it is a solid study, the abstract should not be difficult to write after all sections of the paper are completed. In reality, however, it is too easy to find abstracts that are either empty in contents or devoid of any recognizable organization. I think that structured abstracts can help improve upon these problems. The structured format guides the author to tell a complete story in a nutshell, and facilitates a faster search for relevant information by either a human reader or a computerized search engine. A useful message for authors is this: always write your abstract following the logical order of structured abstracts even if your target journal does not require a structured abstract.

There are certainly other ways to improve the adaptive application of IMRAD. A number of experts in linguistics and scientific writing have done a great deal of research on this subject. For example, Hartley ( 1999 ) proposed to go “from structured abstracts to structured articles” with a more elaborated IMRAD organization. Sharp ( 2002 ) advised the application of the six W’s (what, why, when, how, where, and who) in each section of IMRAD as a way of providing more structuring.

More relevant to the readers of this journal, Gustafson ( 2011 ) made several thought-provoking suggestions for improving scientific writing in landscape ecology. The 7-section structure that he proposed may be considered a modification to the traditional IMRAD. The headings and subheadings in the 7 sections can fit into the IMRAD structure and provide more organization in a way similar to Hartley ( 1999 ). As discussed earlier, structuring scientific writing helps avoid missing important elements and facilitates fast retrieval of information. As Riitters ( 2011 ) warned, however, too much structuring may hinder the creative process of writing. In addition, because spatiotemporal patterns are central to most landscape ecological studies, graphical communication and metadata documentation are critically important to scientific publishing in our field. Henebry ( 2011 ) provided a brief but resourceful guide to improving the quality of graphs (particularly maps) and ensuring valuable metadata to persist. I highly recommend writers to bear his advice in mind: “Structure your story around the graphs and enable the captions to capture the key points of your paper.”

Concluding remarks

Peter Medawar, the British biologist and a Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine, famously said that the scientific paper is a fraud “because it misrepresents the processes of thought that accompanied or gave rise to the work that is described in the paper” (Medawar 1964 ). He argued that discussion in an IMRAD-structured paper should be placed at the beginning, which then is followed by results and methods. Meadows ( 1985 ) disagreed, and argued that the scientific paper is an archaeological artifact indicative of how scientists generally view their science at a particular time.

It is true that IMRAD does not always represent the order of actual research activities, but that alone does not make the scientific paper fraudulent. While IMRAD seems reflective of the currently dominant view of what is scientific, the format of the scientific paper may be influenced increasingly by technological advances in information processing and publishing as well as the pace of knowledge production. For now, IMRAD still rules, and modifications will continue.

Riitters ( 2011 ) had a great line: “creativity abhors prescription and well-documented junk is still junk.” While this statement is fundamentally correct, I believe that scientific writing should be disciplined and structured for all the reasons that I have discussed earlier. I also believe that it has been, and will continue to be, true that “the best papers combine the science …… with the art of writing” (Southgate 1995 ). Properly using IMRAD improves the art of writing as well as the communication of the science. No, “Good prose cannot correct bad work” (Sharp 2002 ), but good prose can make good work better—sometimes, so dramatically better!

Bazerman C (1984) Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic articles in physical review, 1893–1980. Soc Stud Sci 14:163–196

Article   Google Scholar  

Curtis JT, McIntosh RP (1951) An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476–496

Day RA (1989) The origins of the scientific paper: the IMRAD format. AMWA Journal 4:16–18

Google Scholar  

Day RA, Gastel B (2006) How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed). Greenwood Press, Westport. (Also, Day RA (1998) How to write and publish a scientific paper, 5th ed. Oryx Press, Phoenix)

Gustafson EJ (2011) Publishing landscape ecology research in the 21st century. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-011-9638-7

Gustavii B (2008) How to write and illustrate a scientific paper, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hartley J (1999) From structured abstracts to structured articles: a modest proposal. J Tech Writ Commun 29:255–270

Hartley D (2003) Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology. Sci Commun 24:366–379

Hartley J, Betts L (2007) The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58:2335–2340

Henebry GM (2011) Beyond words: effective graphics and metadata are keys to concise scientific communication. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-011-9672-5

Lindeman RL (1942) The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399–418

Meadows AJ (1985) The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. J Inf Sci 11:27–30

Meadows AJ (1998) Communicating research. Academic Press, San Diego

Medawar PB (1964) “Is the scientific paper fraudulent?” Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, 42–43

Pielou EC (1957) The effect of quadrat size on the estimation of the parameters of Neyman’s and Thomas’s distributions. J Ecol 45:31–47

Riitters K (2011) Creativity abhors prescription. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-011-9673-4

Sharp D (2002) Kipling’s guide to writing a scientific paper. Croatian Med J 43:262–267

Sollaci LB, Pereira MG (2004) The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc 92:364–367

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Southgate DAT (1995) The structure of scientific papers. Br J Nutr 74:605–606

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Strunk W Jr, White EB (2000) The Elements of style, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianguo Wu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wu, J. Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecol 26 , 1345–1349 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3

Download citation

Published : 05 November 2011

Issue Date : December 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 21 July 2011

The introduction, methods, results and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a Survey of its use in different authoring partnerships in a students' journal

• Loraine Oriokot 1 ,
• William Buwembo 2 ,
• Ian G Munabi 2 &
• Stephen C Kijjambu 3  

BMC Research Notes volume  4 , Article number:  250 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

132k Accesses

6 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Globally, the role of universities as providers of research education in addition to leading in main - stream research is gaining more importance with demand for evidence based practices. This paper describes the effect of various students and faculty authoring partnerships on the use of the IMRAD style of writing for a university student journal.

This was an audit of the Makerere University Students' Journal publications over an 18-year period. Details of the authors' affiliation, year of publication, composition of the authoring teams and use of IMRAD formatting were noted. Data analysis gave results summarised as frequencies and, effect sizes from correlations and the non parametric test. There were 209 articles found with the earliest from 1990 to latest in 2007 of which 48.3% were authored by faculty only teams, 41.1% were authored by student only teams, 6.2% were authored by students and faculty teams, and 4.3% had no contribution from the above mentioned teams. There were significant correlations between the different teams and the years of the publication ( r s = -0. 338 p < 0.01 one tailed). Use of the IMRAD formatting was significantly affected by the composition of the teams (Χ 2 (2df) = 25.621, p < 0.01) especially when comparing the student only teams to the faculty only teams. (U = 3165 r = - 0.289). There was a significant trend towards student only teams over the years sampled. ( z = -4.764, r = -0.34).

Conclusions

In the surveyed publications, there was evidence of reduced faculty student authoring teams as evidenced by the trends towards students only authoring teams and reduced use of IMRAD formatting in articles published in the students' journal. Since the university is expected to lead in teaching of research, there is need for increased support for undergraduate research, as a starting point for research education.

Globally there is an increasing awareness of the importance of research for developing guidelines to direct social and economic interventions [ 1 , 2 ]. Research involves the critical analysis of each and every solution to a problem using the scientific method to identify the best evidence based solution for action at the time. Research is thus the foundation of evidence based practice [ 3 , 4 ]. Society expects universities to lead both the teaching and carrying out of research. This expectation has led to various policy recommendations and initiatives to promote research and innovation. An example of such a policy recommendation can be found in United States of America, where Gonzalez (2001) identifies the 1998 Boyer commission report encouraging universities to place more emphasis on undergraduate research experiences [ 5 ]. According to Laskowitz et al (2010), Stanford and Duke Universities have been running undergraduate research programmes for the last 40 years that instil in students an appreciation for rigorous research in academic medicine [ 6 ]. In Australia, students picked life skills like time management so long as they dealt with authentic science and had good supervision [ 7 ]. In Africa the demand for high quality research at undergraduate level of education, is yet to be met [ 8 ].

Research and innovation are critical for national social and economic development [ 2 ]. In response to the drive for more economic development, universities are redefining their roles and interactions with society by going from being the traditional storehouses of knowledge to becoming interactive knowledge hubs [ 9 ]. One way of ensuring that the Universities actually act as knowledge hubs is through promoting institutional visibility by encouraging research publication by students and faculty using internationally recognised scientific writing formats like Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion, [IMRAD] [ 5 , 9 , 10 ]. In addition to visibility, the adoption of high quality international standards benefits the university by the creation of a pool of individuals who are conversant with scientific writing. Having such a pool of people supports Gonzales (2001) recognition that research takes place anywhere, and the "teaching of research is a role that is increasingly becoming the preserve of the university" [ 5 ]. This role of how research is taught is further extended with Gonzales (2001) arguing that undergraduate research is actually the beginning of a "five stage continuum of research education that ends with a post-doctoral experience" [ 5 ]. Research education promotes the uniform conduction, interpretation and response to research findings reported using familiar standard formats of scientific writing. Finally according to Aravamudhan and Frantsve (2009) research education and adoption of uniform formats of scientific writing promotes evidence based practice by improving information awareness, seeking and eventual application of new practices [ 3 ]. The rapid increase in the volume of very advanced knowledge and equally rapid changes in the working environment make it increasingly important to equip students with key research skills like scientific writing to keep abreast [ 3 , 4 ].

This paper looks at work done on the Makerere Medical Journal (MMJ), one of the students' journals at Makerere University. MMJ is run for and by the health professional student body at the former Faculty of Medicine (FoM) that with the School of Public Health became Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) in 2008, [ 11 – 13 ] one of the Colleges of Makerere University (one of the oldest universities in Sub-Saharan Africa). With the University's Vision to become a leader in research in Africa, there is a high demand for research and scientific writing currently focusing on graduate research [ 14 ]. The effect of student faculty partnerships on undergraduate scientific writing to our knowledge is not well documented. The paper describes the role of student faculty partnerships in determining the formatting of the MMJ articles over an 18 year (1990-2007) period in the journal's existence.

This was a retrospective audit of the Medical Journal MMJ, a publication of the health professional student body. The MMJ is a peer-reviewed publication that provides a platform for students to: share and exchange medical knowledge; develop writing and analytical abilities; promote awareness of students' contributions to health care; provide continuing medical education and foster valuable leadership and editorial skills. MMJ is published bi-annually and has been in existence from the early 1960's. The journal publishes: original articles, reviews, reports, letters to the editor, case reports, includes sections like: educational quizzes and cross word puzzles.

A hand search was made for complete journal volumes from various sources that included the Sir Albert Cook Library which is the main MakCHS library, personal collections and the journal editorial teams' files. For each article found, the following information was captured; the articles' authors and their affiliations, the use of the IMRAD format of writing papers, the composition of the authoring teams and the year of the publication. The data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Inc. (version 12.0 for Windows, Chicago, Illinois) with the calculation of odd ratios and trend analysis being made with the aid of online Open Epi programme version 2.3.1 http://www.openepi.com  [ 15 ]. The results were summarised as frequencies and presented in bar graphs and tables with calculation of odds ratios, effect sizes and trend analysis. Additional inferences were made with the aid of spearman's correlations and non parametric tests with the level of significance set as P value of less than 0.05.

Permission to use the data for this study was obtained from the editorial team for the journal. None of the authors' identification details were used during the analysis and the preparation of the paper.

Two hundred and nine (209) journal articles were found during the survey. The earliest publication was of the year 1990 and the most recent from 2007 from 13 volumes of the journal. Of the 209 articles 101/209 (48.3%) were authored by faculty only teams, 86/209 (41.1%) were authored by student only teams, 13/209 (6.2%) were authored by student faculty teams, and 9/209 (4.3%) had no affiliation indicated thus not classified into any of the above mentioned teams. Examination of the paper formatting revealed that only 70/209 (33.5%) of the papers were written using the IMRAD format. The number of articles found by year are summarised in Table 1 , with the highest number of 33 in 2007 and lowest number of 5 seen in 1990. There was no significant change in the odds for IMRAD use over the years. (Mantel Hertz chi square for trend = 1.71 p value 0.1906). There were significant correlations between the different teams and the years of the publication r s = - 0.338 (p < 0.01 one tailed) and for teams and use of IMRAD formatting r s = - 0.265 (p < 0.01 one tailed).

Use of the IMRAD formatting was significantly affected by the composition of the teams Χ 2 (2df) = 25.621, p < 0.001 using the Kruskal Wallis test. Post hoc Mann-Whitney team pair specific tests whose level of significance set at 0.025 showed that the use of IMRAD was not significant when comparing the mixed students-faculty with faculty only teams (U = 444, r = - 0.21), but, was significantly different when comparing the students only to faculty only teams (U = 3165, r = -0.289). Jonkheere's test revealed no trend in the use of IMRAD over the years sampled J = 10100, z = 0.211, r = 0.086. However there was a significant trend to more students only teams over the years sampled J = 6802, z = -4.764, r = -0.34.

The analysis of the data reveals that there is an increase in the number of students only teams submitting articles to the journal. This can be seen in the number of articles submitted which was highest at 33 in the 2007 journal. The increased interest in publication could be the result of a more aggressive editorial team or represent an increasing interest on the part of the student body in the value of research. Increase in undergraduate students interest in research is supported by the observation that globally there is increased interest in research at the undergraduate level as the beginning of research education [ 5 ]. The other factor that could support increased interest in research is the adoption of adult learning approaches to curriculum delivery by the FoM in 2003 [ 16 ].

Sadly the increased student interest in research is also accompanied by a significant trend towards reduced faculty engagement with students in research ( r = - 0.34). Reduced faculty engagement also manifests in two other ways as seen in no change in the use of IMRAD over time ( J = 10100, z = 0.211, r = 0.086) and the observation that the students only teams use IMRAD less than the faculty teams (U = 3165, r = -0.289). Even where the journal article had mixed student faculty teams there was no significant increase in the use of IMRAD when compared to faculty only teams (U = 444, r = - 0.21). Reduced engagement could also point to a different trend developing over time, there seems to be little support for undergraduate research in both the curricula and in extracurricular activities. This seems to have been going on for quite some time considering that most of the faculty were once students at this same university. Examining global trends as described by Gonzales (2001), research education has moved from being the premise of graduate students to a continuum that begins in undergraduate education [ 5 ]. Active support for undergraduate research is happening in more developed settings as is seen in the example of Duke and Stanford universities [ 6 ]. According to Lappato (2007) in undergraduate research experiences students' learn by being positively influenced by the process of investigation, and learning or from modelling higher order methods of thinking as they test and later communicate their research findings [ 17 ]. This makes the undergraduate research experiences a powerful tool for quickly increasing the number of high calibre researchers [ 18 ]. If one assumed that the use of the IMRAD format is a measure of scientific writing skill transfer then the deductions from the analysis of the data obtained from the student journal articles, suggests that for this population research is undergoing a slow but sure decline. This trend has been observed by other researchers concerning the African continent [ 8 ].

Given the powerful nature of the undergraduate research experiences as tools for grooming the next generation of scientists, it is important to look at other factors like the need for extra effort and time of faculty to transfer scholarly writing skills to students [ 19 ]. There is need for urgently exploration of mentoring undergraduates in research in line with global research education trends [ 5 ]. Some other interventions for consideration include using a training or mentoring programme each new MMJ editorial team [ 20 ], and use of the student assessment process as is done at the graduate level [ 8 ]. Using student assessment to promote scientific writing requires clear documentation of the different roles of the various participants and subsequent supervision, [ 21 ] in addition to the creation of an enabling environment using an institution wide research governance framework[ 22 ]. Given that individuals who participate in research as students will more likely continue to participate in research as faculty, it is important that all efforts are made to ensure that the students develop these vital scientific writing skills [ 19 , 23 ].

Study limitations

This retrospective study of the MMJ had some limitations like: the poor journal publication record keeping, annual turnover of the volunteer student editorial board and use of abbreviated names made it difficult to identify some of the author details. Despite this, it was possible to obtain an adequate sample of the journal's publication for detailed analysis.

This survey demonstrates that in the surveyed university population, faculty student partnerships are not producing the desired level of undergraduate research mentoring as evidenced by the reduced use of the IMRAD formatting in articles published in the MMJ. Given that the use of IMRAD is one of the core competencies for one to be an active member of the scientific community, inability to transfer this skill could help explain some of the identified gaps related to scientific writing in this university and Africa at large [ 8 ]. There is need to support undergraduate research in Africa using active mentoring programmes, providing training support for student journal editorial teams and use of innovative pro-scientific writing curricula. Such support could result in the quicker uptake and promotion of scientific writing and the reading of scientific literature in Africa over time.

Mason J, Eccles M, Freemantle N, Drummond M: Incorporating economic analysis in evidence-based guidelines for mental health: the profile approach. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 1999, 2: 13-19. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(199903)2:1<13::AID-MHP34>3.0.CO;2-M.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zoltan JA, Sameeksha D, Jolanda H: Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Bus Econ. 2008, 31: 219-234. 10.1007/s11187-008-9135-9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aravamudhan K, Frantsve-Hawley J: American Dental Association's Resources to Support Evidence-Based Dentistry. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2009, 9: 139-144. 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.06.011.

Article   PubMed   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Johnson N, List-Ivankovic J, Eboh WO, Ireland J, Adams D, Mowatt E, Martindale S: Research and evidence based practice: Using a blended approach to teaching and learning in undergraduate nurse education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2009

Google Scholar  

Gonzalez C: Undergraduate research, graduate mentoring, and the university's mission. Science. 2001, 293: 1624-1626. 10.1126/science.1062714.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Laskowitz DT, Drucker RP, Parsonnet J, Cross PC, Gesundheit N: Engaging Students in Dedicated Research and Scholarship During Medical School: The Long-Term Experiences at Duke and Stanford. Acad Med. 2010, 85: 419-428. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccc77a.

Howitt S, Wilson A, Wilson K, Roberts P: Please remember we are not all brilliant': undergraduates' experiences of an elite, research-intensive degree at a research-intensive university. Higher Education Research & Development. 2010, 29: 405-420. 10.1080/07294361003601883.

Kabiru CW, Izugbara CO, Wambugu SW, Ezeh AC: Capacity development for health research in Africa: experiences managing the African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship Program. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010, 8: 21-10.1186/1478-4505-8-21.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Youtie J, Shapira P: Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy. 2008, 37: 1188-1204. 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.012.

Sollaci LB, Pereira MG: The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004, 92: 364-367.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Foster WD: Makerere Medical School: 50th anniversary. Br Med J. 1974, 3: 675-678. 10.1136/bmj.3.5932.675.

Kizza IB, Tugumisirize J, Tweheyo R, Mbabali S, Kasangaki A, Nshimye E, Sekandi J, Groves S, Kennedy CE: Makerere University College of Health Sciences' role in addressing challenges in health service provision at Mulago National Referral Hospital. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 11 (Suppl 1): S7-

Pariyo G, Serwadda D, Sewankambo NK, Groves S, Bollinger RC, Peters DH: A grander challenge: the case of how Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) contributes to health outcomes in Africa. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 11 (Suppl 1): S2-

Nankinga Z, Kutyabami P, Kibuule D, Kalyango J, Groves S, Bollinger RC, Obua C: An assessment of Makerere University College of Health Sciences: optimizing health research capacity to meet Uganda's priorities. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 11 (Suppl 1): S12-

OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. [ http://www.openepi.com ]

Kiguli-Malwadde E, Kijjambu S, Kiguli S, Galukande M, Mwanika A, Luboga S, Sewankambo N: Problem Based Learning, curriculum development and change process at Faculty of Medicine, Makerere University, Uganda. African Health Sciences. 2006, 6: 127-130.

PubMed   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lopatto D: Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007, 6: 297-306.

Villarejo M, Barlow AE, Kogan D, Veazey BD, Sweeney JK: Encouraging minority undergraduates to choose science careers: career paths survey results. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008, 7: 394-409.

Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, Seymour E: Becoming a Scientist: The Role of Undergraduate Research in Students' Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Development. Sci Ed. 2007, 91: 36-74. 10.1002/sce.20173.

Garrow J, Butterfield M, Marshall J, Williamson A: The Reported Training and Experience of Editors in Chief of Specialist Clinical Medical Journals. The Editors and Their Journals. 1998, [ http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_15_98/jpv71014.htm ]

Whiteside U, Pantelone DW, Hunter-Reel D, Eland J, Kleiber B, Larimer M: Initial Suggestions for Supervising and Mentoring Undergraduate Research Assistants at Large Research Universities. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2007, 19: 325-330.

Robinson L, Drewery S, Ellershaw J, Smith J, Whittle S, Murdoch-Eaton D: Research governance: impeding both research and teaching? A survey of impact on undergraduate research opportunities. Medical Education. 2007, 41: 729-736. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02776.x.

Munabi IG, Katabira ET, Konde-Lule J: Early undergraduate research experience at Makerere University Faculty of Medicine: a tool for promoting medical research. Afr Health Sci. 2006, 6: 182-186.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the faculty in the Albert Cook Library, members of the editorial team who participated in searching for the various past volumes of the journal, the journal's reviewers who provided many insightful comments and to Ms Evelyn Bakengesa for the time she set aside to proof read the final draft of the paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Former Editor Makerere Medical Students Journal, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, New Mulago Hospital Complex, Kampala Uganda

Loraine Oriokot

Department of Human Anatomy, School of Biomedical Sciences, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, New Mulago Hospital Complex, Kampala Uganda

William Buwembo & Ian G Munabi

Dean's office, School of Medicine, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, New Mulago Hospital Complex, Kampala Uganda

Stephen C Kijjambu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian G Munabi .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. LO: Participated in the conceptualisation, data collection and write up of the final paper. WB: Participated in all phases of the papers write up from conceptualisation, analysis to the final write up IGM: Participated in all phases of the study; conceptualization, data collection, analysis and write up. SCK: participated in the conceptualisation of the paper and review of the various drafts of the paper prior to submission.

Loraine Oriokot, William Buwembo and Stephen C Kijjambu contributed equally to this work.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oriokot, L., Buwembo, W., Munabi, I.G. et al. The introduction, methods, results and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a Survey of its use in different authoring partnerships in a students' journal. BMC Res Notes 4 , 250 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-250

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2010

Accepted : 21 July 2011

Published : 21 July 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-250

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• publications
• undergraduate

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Provide details on what you need help with along with a budget and time limit. Questions are posted anonymously and can be made 100% private.

Studypool matches you to the best tutor to help you with your question. Our tutors are highly qualified and vetted.

Your matched tutor provides personalized help according to your question details. Payment is made only after you have completed your 1-on-1 session and are satisfied with your session.

• Homework Q&A
• Become a Tutor

All Subjects

Mathematics

Programming

Health & Medical

Engineering

Computer Science

Foreign Languages

Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Sample quantitative research imrad format.

Sign up to view the full document!

24/7 Homework Help

Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic  math  to advanced rocket science !

Similar Documents

working on a homework question?

Studypool is powered by Microtutoring TM

Copyright © 2024. Studypool Inc.

Studypool is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.

Ongoing Conversations

Access over 20 million homework documents through the notebank

Get on-demand Q&A homework help from verified tutors

Read 1000s of rich book guides covering popular titles

Sign up with Google

Sign up with Facebook

Already have an account? Login

Login with Google

Login with Facebook

Don't have an account? Sign Up