sample research using imrad format pdf

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?

• 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

134k 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]

• 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

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: Apr 18, 2024 9:25 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

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