what is imrad format of thesis is all about

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

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!

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: Aug 7, 2024 3:54 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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Libr Assoc
• v.92(3); 2004 Jul

The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey

Luciana b. sollaci.

1 William Enneking Library Sarah Network of Hospitals Brasilia, Federal District 70335-901 Brazil

Mauricio G. Pereira

2 University of Brasilia Department of Health Sciences Brasilia, Federal District 70919-900 Brazil

3 Catholic University of BrasiliaFaculty of MedicineBrasilia, Federal District 71966-700Brazil

Background: The scientific article in the health sciences evolved from the letter form and purely descriptive style in the seventeenth century to a very standardized structure in the twentieth century known as introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD). The pace in which this structure began to be used and when it became the most used standard of today's scientific discourse in the health sciences is not well established.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to point out the period in time during which the IMRAD structure was definitively and widely adopted in medical scientific writing.

Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of articles written under the IMRAD structure was measured from 1935 to 1985 in a randomly selected sample of articles published in four leading journals in internal medicine: the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Results: The IMRAD structure, in those journals, began to be used in the 1940s. In the 1970s, it reached 80% and, in the 1980s, was the only pattern adopted in original papers.

Conclusions: Although recommended since the beginning of the twentieth century, the IMRAD structure was adopted as a majority only in the 1970s. The influence of other disciplines and the recommendations of editors are among the facts that contributed to authors adhering to it.

Since its origin in 1665, the scientific paper has been through many changes. Although during the first two centuries its form and style were not standardized, the letter form and the experimental report coexisted. The letter was usually single authored, written in a polite style, and addressed several subjects at the same time [ 1 ]. The experimental report was purely descriptive, and events were often presented in chronological order. It evolved to a more structured form in which methods and results were incipiently described and interpreted, while the letter form disappeared [ 2 ]. Method description increasingly developed during the second half of the nineteenth century [ 3 ], and an overall organization known as “theory—experiment—discussion” appeared [ 4 , 5 ]. In the early twentieth century, contemporary norms began to be standardized with a decreasing use of the literary style. Gradually, in the course of the twentieth century, the formal established introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure was adopted [ 6 ].

However, neither the rate at which the use of this format increased nor the point at which it became the standard for today's medical scientific writing is well established. The main objective of this investigation is to discover when this format was definitively adopted. Also, to have a global idea of the articles published during the studied period, articles written without the IMRAD structure will be briefly described.

In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of articles using the IMRAD structure was measured at 5-year intervals, during the 50-year period from 1935 to 1985. Data collection began at 1960, moving forward and backward from that year until the frequency of IMRAD articles reached 100% and none respectively. A sample of 1 in every 10 issues of 4 leading medical journals in internal medicine was systematically selected to evaluate the articles published in these years. A total of 1,297 original articles—all those from each selected issue—were examined: 341 from the British Medical Journal, 328 from Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 401 from The Lancet, and 227 from the New England Journal of Medicine. These journals were chosen based on their similarities in target audience, frequency, and lifespan. The journals had to be currently published at the beginning of the 20th century and show no interruptions during the studied period.

The criteria used by the journal for an original article were accepted. Therefore, if an article was labeled original by the journal, it was regarded as such, even though nowadays it might not be considered so. An article was considered to be written using the IMRAD structure only when the headings “methods, results, and discussion,” or synonyms for these headings, were all included and clearly printed. The introduction section had to be present but not necessarily accompanied by a heading. Articles that did not follow this structure were considered non-IMRAD. They could be generally grouped as: (1) continuous text, (2) articles that used headings other than the IMRAD, (3) case reports, and (4) articles that partially adopted the IMRAD structure.

One of the authors (Sollaci) collected the data. In a randomly selected subsample of forty-eight articles, the data collection was independently repeated after six months. A high agreement was found ( Kappa = 0.95; CI 95%:0.88; 1.0).

The frequency of articles written using the IMRAD structure increased over time. In 1935, no IMRAD article could be found. In 1950, the proportion of articles presented in this modern form surpassed 10% in all journals. Thereafter, a pronounced increase can be observed until the 1970s, when it reached over 80%. During the first 20 years, from 1935 to 1955, the pace of IMRAD increments was slow, from none to 20%. However, during the following 20 years, 1955 to 1975, the frequency of these articles more than quadrupled ( Figure 1 ).

Proportion of introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) adoption in articles published in the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine, 1935–1985 (n = 1,297)

All four journals presented a similar trend: the New England Journal of Medicine fully adopted the structure in 1975, followed by the British Medical Journal in 1980, and JAMA and The Lancet in 1985.

Regarding the non-IMRAD articles, the evolution and variations of text organization for all journals can be delineated. In the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, articles that used non-IMRAD headings prevailed from 1935 to 1945. A shift to articles that partially adopted the IMRAD structure occurred from 1950 to 1960. From 1965 and beyond, the full structure tends to predominate. Until 1960, texts with different headings and partial IMRAD headings shared the lead in JAMA. From 1965 onward, the complete format is the most used. The New England Journal of Medicine had a slightly different pattern. Until 1955, continuous text, non-IMRAD headings, and case reports predominated. After 1960, the IMRAD structure takes the lead.

As an example, Figure 2 shows the text organization in the British Medical Journal from 1935 to 1985. The ascending curve represents the IMRAD articles. It is the same as shown in Figure 1 , and the descending curves represent all other forms of text organization. A similar tendency was observed for The Lancet, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Text organization of published articles in the British Medical Journal from 1935 to 1985 (n = 341)

One interesting finding is that during the initial period of our study, the order of the IMRAD headings did not follow today's convention; results could be presented before methods or discussion before results, and, although a few articles followed the IMRAD structure in the 1940s, they were not the same as articles written with the IMRAD structure in the 1980s. Information, which today is highly standardized in one section, would be absent, repeated, or dispersed among sections in earlier articles.

Gradually and progressively, the IMRAD structure was adopted by the studied journals. Until 1945, articles were organized in a manner more similar to a book chapter, mainly with headings associated with the subject, and did not follow the IMRAD structure. From 1950 to 1960, the IMRAD structure was partially adopted, and, after 1965, it began to predominate, attaining absolute leadership in the 1980s.

The authors did not find definite reasons explaining the leadership of the IMRAD structure in the literature. It is possible that sciences other than medicine might have influenced the growing use of this structure. The field of physics, for example, had already adopted it extensively in the 1950s [ 7 ].

This structure was already considered the ideal outline for scientific writing in the first quarter of the 20th century [ 8 , 9 ]; however, it was not used by authors [ 10 ]. After World War II, international conferences on scientific publishing recommended this format [ 11 ], culminating with the guidelines set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, formerly known as the Vancouver Group, first published in the late 1970s [ 12 ]. According to Huth [ 13 ], the wide use of the IMRAD structure may be largely credited to editors, who insisted on papers being clearly formatted to benefit readers and to facilitate the process of peer review.

According to Meadows [ 14 ], development and changes in the internal organization of the scientific article is simply an answer to the constant growth of information. The IMRAD structure facilitates modular reading, because readers usually do not read in a linear way but browse in each section of the article, looking for specific information, which is normally found in preestablished areas of the paper [ 15 ].

Four major leading journals of internal medicine were examined. It might be assumed that patterns set by these journals would be followed by others; nevertheless, caution should be taken in extrapolating these findings to other journals.

• Kronick D. A history of scientific and technical periodicals: the origins and development of the scientific and technical press 1665–1790. 2nd ed . Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atkinson D. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975 . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Day RA. How to write & publish a scientific paper. 5th ed . Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atkinson D. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: the case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal . Applied Linguistics . 1992 Dec;  13 ( 4 ):337–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials . Ann Internal Med . 1987 Apr;  106 ( 4 ):626–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman C.. Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893–1980. Social Studies of Science. 1984; 14 :163–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Melish-Wilson MH. The writing of medical papers . Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1922. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trelease SF, Yule ES. Preparation of scientific and technical papers . Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1925. [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Biology Editors Style Manual Committee. Scientific style and format: the CBE manual for authors, editors and publishers. 6th ed . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vickery B.. The Royal Society Scientific Conference of 1948. J Documentation. 1992; 54 (3):281–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals . Ann Internal Med . 1997 Jan 1;  126 ( 1 ):36–47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows AJ. Communicating research . San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadows AJ.. The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. J Inf Science. 1985; 11 (1):27–30. [ Google Scholar ]

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

The IMRaD format

IMRaD is an acronym for Introduction – Method – Results – and – Discussion .

The IMRaD format is a way of structuring a scientific article. It is often used in healthcare and the natural sciences. Unlike theses in the social sciences, the IMRaD format does not include a separate theory chapter.

Theses structured using the IMRaD format are usually short and concise. The language will be as plain and as unambiguous as possible. There is no place in this type of writing for personal views and fanciful language.

Introduction

Use the introduction to show that you are knowledgeable about your field of study and existing research. Your introduction should contain:

• A summary of existing research on the subject
• Your research question, hypothesis or thesis statement
• Theory (if relevant)
• An introduction to the field, the current situation, or prevailing practice

The introduction should explain what we know, and what we are uncertain about . It should explain and summarise, but it should also ask questions, clarify, compare, and so on.  Everything you write here must relate to your research question.

Use your method chapter to show that you arrived at your results by applying valid and reliable methods. Explain what you did: your research, treatment, or professional intervention, and how you did it.

• Account for what you did and did not do
• Document what you did and did not do

Your method chapter shows how you arrived at your results

A relatively large part of your paper/thesis should be devoted to your results (findings, data, empirical evidence). In this section you should:

• Present the findings  Organise, classify, analyse and (if relevant) categorise
• Explain and interpret (e.g. differences between various studies)
• Assess and evaluate

Your results = the essence of your paper.

The Introduction and Methods chapters should build up to your Results chapter by showing the significance of your results (in the Introduction chapter) and how you arrived at your results (in the Methods chapter).

In this chapter, you discuss the results of your study/project.

• Is it possible to generalise?
• Make comparisons with other studies
• Are there alternative explanations?
• What are the strong and weak aspects of your study?
• What are the practical implications?
• Is more research needed?
• Make recommendations (to be applied in practice).

For your conclusion

What answer(s) have you found to your research question? If you have a hypothesis, has it been strengthened, weakened or falisified? Do not introduce issues here that have not been mentioned earlier. If the results of your study do not allow you to draw any conclusions, you can end by summing up .

Articles based on the IMRaD format can be found in Helsebiblioteket . For more reading about the IMRAD format, try searching in Oria .

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  

80k Accesses

39 Citations

69 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

• Admissions Essays
• Books and Manuscripts
• Business Proofreading and Editing
• Dissertations
• Editing Tools
• Personal Statements
• Professional Writing
• Proofreading and Editing
• Thesis Proposals
• Uncategorized
• Working From Home
• Writing Fiction
• Writing Guides

What Is IMRaD Format?

Get 400 words proofread and edited for free

Lately, we’ve been talking a lot about formatting, how to structure your references in a paper so that they adhere to the style guidelines of a certain field or publication. From APA to IEEE , MLA to Vancouver , many different formatting styles exist to help readers follow along with your research and delve into your sources.

But what about the structure and formatting of the paper itself? That’s another key feature of writing that helps readers follow along with you on your research journey.

Many of us learned basic writing structure in high school; the five-paragraph essay is hammered home in many an English class. In that format, you have an introduction, three supporting points (typically at one paragraph each), and a conclusion. Although this is a really handy framework that can be expanded and applied to many writing projects throughout life, it’s not quite sufficient for much academic writing.

Fortunately, there’s another framework that will do the trick: IMRaD.

Get a free sample proofread and edit for your academic document. Two professional proofreaders will proofread and edit your academic document.

IMRaD is a handy-dandy way to remember the names and orders of the major sections of most academic manuscripts. Those sections are:

• Introduction • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion and Conclusions

You’ll also want to include the title and abstract when submitting your finished manuscript, but those come at the end. When developing your paper in the first place, these are the main sections you’ll want to be thinking about.

Each section will vary in length depending on your work and what you need to include, but each should make an appearance in your paper. You may also want to add sections such as a literature review; again, the specifics depend on your research and your field.

Introduction

Here, you explain what you plan to discuss, why your research is necessary or how it contributes to the literature, the main hypothesis or hypotheses you will tackle, and how the rest of the paper will be structured.

This is also a good place to include a literature review sub-section to show what other work has been done in your area and how you plan to build on it.

Think of your introduction as a road map: this is where you outline the need for getting to your destination, as well as a plan for how you’ll get there, noting a few major stops along the way.

Materials and Methods

This section outlines how you did your research. Was it quantitative or qualitative? What research approach did you use? What theoretical lens or framework? How did you select your sample? How did you set up your experiments?

This is actually one of the first sections you should tackle when writing up your research, as it’s one of the most straightforward. In it, you simply report what you did to structure and perform your work. If you kept good notes during your research phase, this should be pretty easy.

Once again, you’re simply reporting what you uncovered during the course of your research. Don’t get into interpreting the results here—that’s what the Discussion section is for.

Instead, all you need to do here is report what you found. Give the bare facts of your research, like the descriptive statistics on your sample or the results of a multinomial regression analysis. What did you find when you executed the research plan you describe in materials and Methods? Lay out all that information here.

Discussion and Conclusions

This is the fun part for most researchers. You get to talk about what your results actually mean.

These two areas are slightly different and might take shape as two different sections, or you might choose to combine them. It all depends on the journal to which you’re submitting and your personal preference, as well as how your research is structured.

The discussion involves commenting on the results you obtained and related in the previous section. You’ve already reported the data and the straightforward facts of what you found during your research. But how does this relate to the phenomenon you were investigating? Does it support or contradict other studies on the same topic? Call back to your literature review and tie your results to previous work to show how you’ve contributed to the body of knowledge for your field.

You might also suggest additional research that could build on what you’ve found, or new areas to explore that will expand the applications or usefulness of your current work.

In the conclusion section, you get to expand beyond what your results mean and how they relate to earlier work and draw bigger conclusions. How can your results be applied in practice? Can you generalize them to a broader population? Is there a larger context in which your results are meaningful or useful? How can the world at large benefit from learning about what you’ve discovered, or applying it in some way?

Tips for Structuring an Academic Paper

When structuring your paper, remember to prioritize logical flow. You want your reader to be able to go from idea to idea smoothly, with good transitions between topics and arguments.

Guide the reader from the background that led you to start the research to the ways you set up your experiments or research plan. Describe all aspects of your plan and execution, then report the results. Finally, discuss what the results mean in context and then extrapolate to broader conclusions or practical applications.

Above all, be clear, be consistent, and keep your audience in mind. The best academic articles have plenty of sub-headings for easy navigation and use approachable, clear language instead of hard-to-decipher jargon or convoluted phrasings. A good editor can help you polish up your writing and get it ready for publication.

With IMRaD at your disposal, you’re ready to structure your paper for success.

Happy researching and writing!

Get a free sample proofread and edit for your document. Two professional proofreaders will proofread and edit your document.

Get a Free Sample

We will get your free sample back in three to six hours!

We proofread documents 24/7 Support 888-833-8385

Customer Service

Get in touch.

ProofreadingPal LLC 105 Iowa Ave., Ste. 214 Iowa City, IA 52240

Call Us 888-833-8385

Live Customer Support Hours Sun.-Thurs. 8 a.m. to midnight CT and Fri.-Sat. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT

Submit Documents 24/7

© 2010 - 2020 ProofreadingPal LLC - All Rights Reserved.

The Vocative Comma Is Important, People!  ·  September 25, 2022

8 Tips to Make Your Writing Sound More Formal  ·  August 29, 2022

Worlde Tips and Tricks  ·  March 10, 2022

Worlde Tips and Tricks  ·  February 25, 2022

Top 4 Misspelled Words  ·  November 5, 2021

How to Capitalize Medicine  ·  October 1, 2021

How to Capitalize Medicine  ·  August 18, 2021

4 Fixes for Comment Boxes in MS Word  ·  January 17, 2021

How to Avoid Wordiness  ·  July 15, 2020

Write an Effective Blog Post  ·  June 9, 2020

Proofreading Services Rates  ·  April 19, 2020

How to Make Your Writing More Inclusive  ·  March 5, 2020

How to Make Your Writing More Inclusive  ·  February 27, 2020

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 27, 2019

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 26, 2019

Common Apostrophe Errors  ·  December 19, 2019

Guide to Olde English  ·  December 18, 2019

Capitalization in APA, Chicago, MLA, and AP  ·  August 27, 2019

Avoiding Common Capitalization Errors  ·  July 31, 2019

Summary of IMRAD format. IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion

Contexts in source publication

• Muhammad Noman
• Asma Balqees

• Eur Bus Rev
• David Eriksson
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up