contribution in research paper example

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications. If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Writing about Design

Principles and tips for design-oriented research.

Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”)

Introduction.

A good academic text delivers a clear and interesting message. That is often described as “contribution”. Good contributions teach something to the text’s readers: they change the reader’s way of thinking or acting, and increase their understanding and knowledge about an interesting subject. Thus, “a contribution is made when a manuscript clearly adds, embellishes, or creates something beyond what is already known” (Ladik & Stewart, 2008, p. 157). Such findings therefore present something that the researchers did not know so far; that is what makes the research article interesting.

Also a BA or a MA thesis deliver contributions. But their requirements for significant contribution are lower, as it is not crucial that a finding of a thesis should be a considered as a research contribution that generates novel understanding in the scientific community.

So, what are the possible findings and contributions that academic texts can make? Understanding what a contribution can be becomes easier over time, as one reads more literature and sees more examples of academic publications. But to get started more quickly, this article presents some classifications that I have found from other researchers’ writings, and finally presents a longer list that I have tailored for the fields of design and HCI.

The presentation of contributions in this article is in two parts: first I will discuss academic articles, and then I will add notes about BA/MA theses in HCI and design.

Types of findings and contributions in academic articles

Contributions can be classified along several dimensions. Some of the existing classifications are oriented to theoretical contributions. For example, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) “contribution continuum”, written for a marketing research audience, divides the possible contributions to 8 classes, organized from minor to fundamental scientific impacts:

• Straight replications: studies that verify whether a finding that has been already published can be repeated.
• Replication and extension: similar to the one above, but with an adjustment.
• Extension of a new theory/method in a new area.
• Integrative review (e.g., meta-analysis).
• New theories to explain an old phenomenon, possibly also including a comparison between an existing and the new theory against each other to find out which one works better.
• Identifications of new phenomena worth of attention.
• Grand syntheses that integrate earlier theories together.
• New theories that predict new phenomena.

In addition to presenting the continuum, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) text is great also in emphasizing many other characteristics of good academic texts too, such as a need to think about the target reader audience, need to emphasise surprise, and demonstrate passion and relevance of the topic that has been studied.

In human–computer interaction (HCI), which is more oriented to human-created objects, other kinds of contributions can be recognized. Wobbrock (2012) and Wobbrock and Kientz (2016) do not define the contributions based on their magnitude, but in terms of types of outcomes. As we can see, the theoretical contributions that were listed above are only one possibility in applied fields such as HCI and design:

• empirical research findings (e.g., what factors and phenomena play an important role in different situations where people use technologies)
• artefacts (i.e., designs and technologies)
• surveys and reviews of existing research

In this classification, Wobbrock and Kientz’s papers themselves could be best classified as survey-like contributions, since their focus is on reviewing the kinds of research contributions in a research field as a whole. In this sence they synthesize together and explicate the practices in the field. In addition to being more directly useful also for HCI/design, Wobbrock’s suggestions are also great because both texts list papers from HCI research that exemplify these contribution types.

What is particular in the list above is the role of artifacts as research contributions. This is particular since it highlight’s HCI’s (and also design’s) nature as a “problem-solving” science (Oulasvirta and Hornbæk, 2016): in addition to producing the traditionally well-acknowledged empirical and conceptual (theoretical) contributions, HCI researchers also make constructive contributions by developing new technologies and designs.

Final distinction between contributions is their level of critical stance towards earlier research and practice. Most contributions are knowledge-increasing : they present new findings, expand the research to new areas, make existing theories and methods more detailed, accurate or more appropriate for some context, for example. These contributions are really common: with my colleagues we found, for example, that 94% of research papers in information systems research are knowledge-increasing (Salovaara et al., 2020). Many of the contribution classes presented in the lists above are like these too.

Other contributions are knowledge-contesting : they identify problems in the existing theories and methods, or in the practices by which they are used (Salovaara et al., 2020). They may also identify limits (“boundary conditions”) to the extent to which earlier contributions can be applied. In the spirit of science and research being a self-correcting process, the purpose of these knowledge-contesting contributions is to correct earlier mistakes in research and keep the research on the right track.

To summarise the considerations above, the following table presents a synthesis of possible contributions in HCI and design. A vast majority of the papers represent one (or sometimes several) of these contributions:

This list is not comprehensive, and some areas have been covered in more detail than others. What is however notable in this list’s items is that papers about these contributions can be written using the same narrative format. That is because most of these contributions require a study: some method by which some material is analysed so that findings can be presented. Such papers can be readily written following the IMRaD-style narrative . Only the last two contributions – recommendations/guidelines and research agendas/manifestos – may need a different kind of a narrative and can therefore be harder to write well.

Examples of non-contributions in academic research

Notably, there are also certain types of papers that are often submitted for publication but which are often rejected and will therefore be rarely found in academic literature. When one is writing an article, it is a good idea to make sure that one is not writing one of those types of papers. Four common non-contributions are following:

• Presentation of a well-designed system and its design process.  These papers present well-designed systems and include evaluations that demonstrate the high quality of the outcome. The problem with these kinds of papers is that for a researcher looking for novel information, such papers offer very little to learn: they “only” describe well-conducted design process that already uses well-known methods. Only if these design processes solve hard problems in some contexts, and that these problems and their solutions generalise to other contexts too, the papers start to have value in terms of an academic contribution. That is because then the academic reader may conclude that the authors have found a way to address a problem that previously has been considered difficult to tackle. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying a “design problem” that was solved in the process, and explaining why this problem is difficult and in what design situations similar problems can be encountered (i.e., where does the design problem and solution generalise to).
• Case study report.  Papers of this kind present observations or interview-based findings from field studies, and describe carefully methods that were used in these studies. A lot of effort may have been put into gathering all the data and to analyse it. Unfortunately, despite all the effort spent, also in this case, the conclusion by a reader may be that the story is interesting but lacks novelty: papers of this kind may be a well-conducted research projects but which only have applied rigorous methods without yielding novel findings. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying an interesting and novel finding, and deepening the literature research so that it convinces the reader about the novelty and the need for this finding in the research field (e.g., a “research gap”).
• Mappings of findings to a framework.  Some papers present analyses from a complex settings and map these findings to a well-known theoretical framework (e.g. activity theory). The problem with such a finding is that it counts mostly as a demonstration that the framework can be used to make sense of observational data. This may not be surprising, if the same has been shown in numerous earlier studies too. This can be turned into an academic contribution, for example, by finding out that the framework cannot be used to make sense of some parts of the data, or that the framework needs adaptation because of the novel findings.
• Landscaping and clustering studies without conclusions . Some automatic data analysis methods nowadays allow researchers to generate elaborate descriptive visualizations and groupings that can summarise complex phenomena in a neat manner. Examples of these methods include social network analysis, clustering methods of multidimensional data (e.g., factor analysis, k-means clustering and topic modeling), and sentiment analysis about natural language. If a paper only presents the outputs of such analyses, without identifying non-obvious patterns or conclusions, the paper easily lacks a clear contribution. An academic contribution would include an actionable message to the research field: a call for changing the research focus, or think about a common phenomenon in a new way. Typically this requires that the researchers interpret their clusters and identify something unexpected from them.

Contributions and findings in BA and MA theses in HCI and design

In BA and MA theses, the requirements are slightly different than in academic articles. The difference lies in the need for presenting a contribution vs another, more modest kind of a finding. A thesis does not need to demonstrate novelty to an entire research field; it only needs to demonstrate the ability to apply the relevant methods, theories and analytical thinking with respect to a meaningful problem of practical importance. Therefore the three last above-presented examples of non-contributions are, in fact, good candidates for excellent BA or MA theses even if they lack an academic contribution.

One may therefore conclude that in BA and MA theses, the goals can be more practically determined: They may orient to finding good designs or solutions for specific design problems. They may be reflections about the nature of a design process, such as explorations whether a certain design approach yields findings that satisfy the designer. They may also be oriented towards a designer or practitioner community than the researchers. Therefore they may deliver a call or message to those communities to start addressing issues or become aware of matters that are being neglected. Such issues do not need to relate to academic activities, but to societal issues, for example.

One or many contributions?

There can be one or many contributions in a paper. Some contribution types also go naturally together. For example, sometimes the most interesting contributions appear in the Discussion, after the answers to the research question(s) have already been presented. Thus a paper about an exploratory study may be sense-making in its Findings (e.g., by identifying an interesting underlying pattern or concept in the findings and by giving a name for it), but a manifesto-like contribution in its Discussion if it then shows how that concept may be crucial to remember in other situations too. Many readers may find that this manifesto-like contribution is actually more important than the text’s original finding.

However, many instructions on academic writing recommend that every text focuses on delivering only one “contribution”. For example, instructions published in Nature’s web page recommend to “Keep your message clear” (Gewin, 2018). There is a good reason for this: To offer a clear and interesting message, different contributions usually require different investigations. If one tries to combine several contributions together, they may require different methods, and these methods may conflict with each other, leading to biased and compromised results. Another problem is the need to reach a high clarity with the paper: if there are several intended contributions, explaining them clearly can be difficult. Jumping from talking about one contribution to another may be necessary, but this may confuse the reader. It is important to remember that it is the author’s responsibility to demonstrate that the findings are significant and interesting (e.g., Ladik and Stewart, 2008). Confusions should be avoided at all cost.

To conclude, to offer a clear contribution or a finding, it is a good idea to identify early on what kind of a story one wants to tell with their text. Following the recommendations of the IMRaD structure , for instance, all the attention of the paper’s argumentation can then be directed to delivering that message as clearly and convincingly as possible. This helps the readers – evaluators, reviewers, and others – appreciate the work that the author has done.

Acknowledgments

Thanks for Oscar Person for tipping me about Ladik & Stewart’s paper on research continuum.

Bardzell, J. & Bardzell, S. (2011). Pleasure is your birthright: Digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011) (pp. 257–266). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978979

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101.   https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Gewin, V. (2018). The write stuff: How to produce a first-class paper that will get published, stand out from the crowd and pull in plenty of readers. Nature, Vol. 555, pp. 129-130. Available at:  https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-02404-4/d41586-018-02404-4.pdf.  Also available, with a different title, at  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4  (retrieved 11 November 2020).

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies , 25 (5), 427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

Gould, J. D., Conti, J., & Hovanyecz, T. (1983). Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Communications of the ACM , 26 (4), 295–308.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.358100

Gustafson, S., Baudisch, P., Gutwin, C., & Irani, P. (2008). Wedge: Clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008) (pp. 787–796). New York, NY: ACM Press.. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357179

Hardaker, C. (2013). “Uh….not to be nitpicky,,,, but…the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.” – An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict , 1 (1), 58–86.   https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.04har

Ladik, D. M. & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 36 , 157–165.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0087-z

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2000) (pp. 79–88). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358975

Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., & Kuorelahti, J. (2005). Interaction in 4-second bursts: The fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005) (pp. 919–928). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055101

Oulasvirta, A. & Hornbæk, K. (2016). HCI research as problem-solving. In J. Kaye, A. Druin, C. Lampe, D. Morris, & J. P. Hourcade (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 2016) (pp. 4956–4967). New York, NY: ACM Press.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283

Pirolli, P. & Card, S. (1995). Information foraging in information access environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1995) (pp. 51–58). New York, NY: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.  https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911

Salovaara, A., Upreti, B. R., Nykänen, J. I., & Merikivi, J. (2020). Building on shaky foundations? Lack of falsification and knowledge contestation in IS theories, methods, and practices. European Journal of Information Systems , 29 (1), 65–83.   https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1685737

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Todi, K., Weir, D., & Oulasvirta, A. (2016). Sketchplore: Sketch and explore with a layout optimiser. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (CHI 2016) (pp. 543–555). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901817

Torenvliet, G. (2003). We can’t afford it! The devaluation of a usability term. Interactions , 10 (4), 12–17.   https://doi.org/10.1145/838830.838857

Wobbrock, J. O. (2012). Seven Research Contributions in HCI . The Information School, DUB Group, University of Washington.   http://faculty.washington.edu/wobbrock/pubs/Wobbrock-2012.pdf  (retrieved 12 November 2020).

Wobbrock, J. O. & Kientz, J. A. (2016). Research contributions in human–computer interaction. Interactions  (May–June), 38–44.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069

One thought on “ Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”) ”

Pingback: From table of contents to a finished text | Writing about Design

Comments are closed.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

What author order can (and cannot) tell us: Understanding contributorship

Written by Lindsay Morton

Welcome back to the second in our three-part series on academic credit. In this post, we focus on identifying researchers’ specific contributions to a research project, and explore how those contributions are reflected on a published paper. Authorship is central to the reward system of science and directly impacts each researchers’ career prospects. Yet standards for allocating authorship are variable, and often opaque. What types of contributions merit inclusion on an author list? How are we to understand the contributions of each researcher who is included on the list?

Identifying specific author contributions

In the biological and medical sciences, the degree of public credit a researcher receives for a publication is based on their position within the author list. While the significance of author order varies across disciplines and cultures, traditionally, there are two highly valued and much-coveted positions: first author, credited with conceptualizing and executing the central parts of the study, and last author, occupying the most senior, supervisory position. That can be problematic, because it does not provide a consistent and fair way to acknowledge the essential contributions of midlist authors. An average author list cannot communicate, for example, who developed critical methods, collected the data, ran the analysis, or wrote the first draft. In some cases, an author list may also include honorary authors, either as an expression of esteem, in an attempt to leverage a famous name, or because the honorary author has asked to be included in all publications within their sphere.

The inadequacy of the author list as a vehicle for expressing author contribution is also evident in team science. As research becomes increasingly cross-disciplinary and complex, in many cases, it’s no longer possible for one person to lead and execute all aspects of a study. In team science, instead of organizing themselves hierarchically, researchers work together, with two or more equal partners taking on the responsibilities of a senior researcher within their specific areas of expertise, for example data collection and stewardship, statistics and design, coding, or methodological development. Our systems for allocating and representing academic credit have not kept pace with the ways researchers work today.

The importance and yet the ambiguity of the author list creates, at the very least, inaccurate and unfair perceptions about the contributions and capabilities of the researchers involved. It can also conceal bias and work to keep researchers from under-represented groups in midlist, junior roles. Because the allocation of credit is so central to how a research scientist is perceived, and to the future of their career, a fair and accurate representation of each author’s contribution is vital.

Solution: Tracking all author contributions with CRediT

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is a universal, community-developed open classification system that uses 14 different roles to describe the aspects of scientific authorship, from conceptualization to review and editing. Each author listed on a manuscript is assigned one or more taxonomic roles. Role assignments appear on the final published research article and are encoded into article meta-data where they can be harvested by databases and indexers.

The granularity of the CRediT taxonomy diminishes the importance of author order. For example, tenure applicants need not be evaluated on how many times they were listed as first author, but on their specific contributions to each work. The CRediT taxonomy also reinforces the author qualification guidelines by clearly highlighting instances of honorary authorship to authors at submission, giving them the opportunity to pause and consider the composition of their author list.

The CRediT taxonomy distinguishes itself from other, publisher- or discipline-specific author taxonomies in that it is both broadly applicable within the sciences and widely accepted, enabling it to establish norms and shared understanding across publishers, funders, and universities.

PLOS was part of the working group that originally developed and tested the CRediT taxonomy. When the system was finalized , PLOS transitioned from our previous, publisher-specific taxonomy to the new tool.

A meta-analysis of the CRediT taxonomy

CRediT has opened new avenues for meta-research, enabling scientists to better understand not only how each other contributed to the work, but to begin to identify and interpret patterns in contributorship that expose larger truths about the way science operates, and can point the way toward more efficient, robust and inclusive scientific practices. In the video below, we chat with Dr Cassidy Sugimoto and Dr Vincent Larivière about their recent study “Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)” and discuss ideas for future studies.

Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)  Vincent Larivière, David Pontille, Cassidy R. Sugimoto 

More opportunities for authorship

As the CRediT taxonomy helps to illustrate, writing articles is just one small part of conducting research. In addition to properly allocating credit for traditional research articles and peer review, Open Science also offers new opportunities to surface, share, and receive credit for more of the research process, including both open data and open methods, such as Registered Reports, Lab and Study Protocols, Methods Research Articles, and linked code. Sharing these research outputs as stand-alone resources allows them to accumulate citations in their own right, independent of the main research article, and increases discoverability by creating more points of entry. At the same time, making research artifacts public enhances trust in related research articles. Over time, a pattern of openness can help to build a reputation for high-quality research, collaborative sharing, and leadership.

In the next post in this series, we’ll discuss the importance of peer review, and how we can better acknowledge and reward the contributions peer reviewers make to published research. 

Written by Lindsay Morton In the sciences, credit counts. As a research scientist, your personal record directly determines your future opportunities in…

Written by Lindsay Morton In this third and final entry in our three-part series on academic credit, we turn our attention to…

Note: PLOS issued the following press release on Tuesday, April 2nd. Brussels, Belgium, and San Francisco, United States – The Public Library…

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs

About The BMJ

• Resources for authors
• Forms, policies, and ethics
• Authorship & contributorship

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ( ICMJE Recommendations 2018 ) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND • Final approval of the version to be published; AND • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

We include only one corresponding author per article. Any further contribution details (eg, equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgement sections at the end of the article.

The BMJ requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. We recognise only natural persons over 18 years of age as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.

The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and Medline lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, Medline will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

At The BMJ we want authors to assure us that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. In addition we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria but has not been included as an author.

When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)—see here and here .

AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

Contributorship

The BMJ lists contributors in two ways. Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper and, secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. This is a good place to include contributions by patients or members of the public who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles. We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. See Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Contributorship and guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and are sometimes hard to define for other articles. Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). For articles in The BMJ that do not report original research - such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate - please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s).

Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person's contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants. See Authorship is dying; long live contributorship.

Alteration to authorship or contributorship

Any change in authors and/or contributors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, change of order to the authors, or contributions being attributed differently. Any alterations must be explained to the editor. The editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Group authorship

If there is a very large number of authors we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. If they did, we may then require that the authors form a group whose name will appear in the article byline.

We appreciate that authors may be concerned that their work will not be properly recognised if they form a group, but this is unfounded. Medline guidance can handle group authorship and still give each individual due credit:

"When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation."

Key points:

• A Medline citation may contain an array of personal author names, group (or corporate) author names, and collaborator names. • Personal author names are included in Medline when the author names appear in the article byline, or are explicitly identified anywhere else in the text of the article as the authors or as the members of the writing group or writing committee for the article. • Group author names (also known as corporate, organization or collective names) are included in Medline when such names appear in the article byline. • When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation. • Collaborator names are entered for a Medline citation only when a group (corporate) author name is present for the citation. • More than one group name may appear for a citation, and a group name may appear along with personal author names. • For articles that represent a formal guideline or practice guideline, the name of the guideline-issuing body is entered as a group name for the Medline citation, even if that name does not appear in the article byline.

What this means for The BMJ 's authors

a) if authors form a group for the article's main byline they will also be listed individually:

• As collaborators in the article's Medline/PubMed record; • As authors in a group authorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com; and • As contributors in the contributorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com.

b) however, for The BMJ 's research articles with many authors, where those authors do not opt to form a group, we will not be able to publish a BMJ pico in the print issue of The BMJ . Such research articles will be for online only (thebmj.com) publication only.

Here's a research article in The BMJ with group authorship as it appeared on Medline, with all collaborators clearly listed as individuals:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20123835

And here's how the individual authors for that article were listed on thebmj.com:

1. What appeared at the top of the article and was dowloadable to citation manager:

Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries. Wei-Hong Zhang, Catherine Deneux-Tharaux, Peter Brocklehurst, Edmund Juszczak, Matthew Joslin, Sophie Alexander, on behalf of the EUPHRATES Group. BMJ 2010;340:c293, doi: 10.1136/bmj.c293 (Published 1 February 2010)

2. What appeared at the end of the article in an authorship statement:

The following are members of EUPHRATES (EUropean Project on obstetric Haemorrhage, Reduction, Attitudes, Trial and Early warning System): Sophie Alexander (project leader, Belgium), Diogo Ayres-de-Campos (Portugal), Istvan Berbik (Hungary), Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle (France), Gérard Bréart (France), Peter Brocklehurst (UK), Vicenç Cararach (Spain), Anna Maria Marconi (Italy), Catherine Deneux-Tharaux (France), Risto Erkkola (Finland), Mathias Klein (Austria), Jens Langhoff-Roos (Denmark), Alison Macfarlane (UK), Walter Prendiville (Republic of Ireland), Jos van Roosmalen (Netherlands), Babill Stray-Pedersen (Norway), Carolyn Troeger (Switzerland), Clare Winter (UK), and Wei-Hong Zhang (Belgium). Also see web extra for a list of people who helped in each country.

3. What appeared at the end of the article in the contributorship statement:

Contributors: W-HZ designed data collection tools, monitored data collection for the whole trial, wrote the statistical analysis plan, cleaned and analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. She is guarantor. CD-T implemented the trial in France, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. PB analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper. EJ wrote the statistical analysis plan, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. MJ designed data collection tools,, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. SA initiated the collaborative project, designed data collection tools, implemented the trial for the all countries, monitored data collection for the whole trial, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. All members of EUPHRATES designed the trial. Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Istvan Berbik, Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle, Vicenç Cararach, Risto Erkkola, Mathias Klein, Walter Prendiville, Jos van Roosmalen, Babill Stray-Pedersen, and Carolyn Troeger implemented the trial in, respectively, Portugal, Hungary, France, Spain, Finland, Austria, Republic of Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, and revised the draft paper. Gérard Bréart analysed the data and revised the draft paper. Alison Macfarlane and Clare Winter revised the draft paper.

• Publishing model
• Editorial staff
• Advisory panels
• Explore The BMJ
• BMJ Student
• How green is The BMJ?
• Sources of revenue
• Article types and preparation
• Article submission
• Competing interest policy
• Copyright, open access, and permission to reuse
• Patient consent and confidentiality
• Research Ethics
• BMJ papers audit
• Guidance for new authors
• BMJ Christmas issue
• Resources for advertisers and sponsors
• Resources for BMA members
• Resources for media
• Resources for subscribers
• Resources for readers
• Resources for reviewers
• About The BMJ app
• Poll archive
• International jobs

This week's poll

Read related article

See previous polls

Theoretical, Empirical, and Artefactual Contributions in Information Systems Research: Implications Implied*

• First Online: 22 March 2021

Cite this chapter

• Pär J. Ågerfalk 5 &
• Fredrik Karlsson 6  

Part of the book series: Technology, Work and Globalization ((TWG))

963 Accesses

2 Citations

In this chapter, we explore different types of research contributions and research implications. We explain why such a distinction can be useful when discussing research outcomes both when crafting and when evaluating manuscripts for publication. By taking an incremental view of knowledge development, we identify three types of research contributions: theoretical, empirical, and artefactual. Because an implication always exists in relation to a contribution, we explore what implications these contributions lead to in research practice and domain practice. This leads us to propose an analytical framework that we hope can help increase the quality of researchers’ discussions about research contributions and implications, enabling researchers to pinpoint these aspects with higher accuracy. In addition, understanding the implications of research can provide guidance to reviewers and editors in their efforts to scrutinize and develop manuscripts evaluated for journals and conferences.

*An earlier version of this chapter appeared as Ågerfalk, P. J., & Karlsson, F. (2020). Artefactual and empirical contributions in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 29 (2), 109–113.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ågerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (6), 593–599.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ågerfalk, P. J., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Pragmatizing the normative artefact: Design science research in Scandinavia and beyond. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 43 (4), 68–77.

Avison, D., & Malaurent, J. J. (2014). Is theory king? Questioning the theory fetish in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 29 (4), 327–336.

Baskerville, R. (2004). An editor’s values. European Journal of Information Systems, 13 (1), 1–2.

Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7 (2), 90–107.

Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 3–16.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. E. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12–32.

Cronen, V. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11 (1), 14–35.

Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14 (1), 65–86.

Geletkanycz, M., & Tepper, B. J. (2012). Publishing in AMJ-Part 6: Discussing the implications. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2), 256–260.

Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D. I., & Collopy, F. (2007). A theory of tailorable technology design. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8 (6), 21.

Goldkuhl, G., & Röstlinger, A. (2003). Towards an integral understanding of organizations and information systems: Convergence of three theories. In H. W. M. Gazendam, R. J. Jorna, & R. S. Cijsouw (Eds.), Dynamics and change in organizations (pp. 133–161). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30 (3), 611c642.

Google Scholar  

Gregor, S., & Baskerville, R. (2012). The fusion of design science and social science research . Paper presented at the Information Systems Foundation Workshop, Canberra, Australia.

Hassan, N. R., Mathiassen, L., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). The process of information systems theorizing as a discursive practice. Journal of Information Technology, 34 (3), 198–220.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 75–105.

Karlsson, F., & Hedström, K. (2013). Evaluating end user development as a requirements engineering technique for communicating across social worlds during systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 25 (2), 1–26.

Kolkowska, E., Karlsson, F., & Hedström, K. (2017). Towards analysing the rationale of information security noncompliance: Devising a Value-Based Compliance analysis method. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26 (1), 39–57.

Lee, A. S. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 29–33.

Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information system research. Information Systems Research, 14 (3), 221–243.

Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (1), 113–131.

Lewin, K. (1945). The research centre for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8 , 126–135.

Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology, 95 (March), 219–237.

Muntermann, J. (2009). Towards ubiquitous information supply for individual investors: A decision support system design. Decision Support Systems, 47 (2), 82–92.

Niederman, F., & March, S. (2019). The “theoretical lens” concept: We all know what it means, but do we all know the same thing? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44 (1), 1.

Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (1998). Evaluating the usefulness of design rationale in CASE. European Journal of Information Systems, 7 (3), 185–191.

Riemer, K., & Vehring, N. (2010). It’s not a property! Exploring the sociomateriality of software usability . Paper presented at the 31st International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS 2010), St. Louis, USA.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

Schultze, U., & Leahy, M. M. (2009). The avatar-self relationship: Enacting presence in second life . Paper presented at the 30th International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS 2009), Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35 (1), 37–56.

Simon, H. A. (1961). The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Siponen, M., & Vance, A. (2014). Guidelines for improving the contextual relevance of field surveys: The case of information security policy violations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (3), 289–305.

Smolander, K., Lyytinen, K., Tahvanainen, V. P., & Marttiin, P. (1991). MetaEdit – A flexible graphical environment for methodology modelling. In R. Andersen, J. A. Bubenko, & A. Sølvberg (Eds.), Advanced information systems engineering. CAiSE 1991. Lecture notes in Computer Science, vol 498 (pp. 168–193). Berlin: Springer.

Straub, D. W. (2009). Editor’s comments: Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Quarterly, 33 (3), iii–ix.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). ASQ forum: What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3), 371–384.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2013). Case study methodology: Causal explanation, contextualization, and theorizing. Journal of International Management, 19 (2), 195–202.

van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 486–489.

van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31 (4), 802–821.

Venkatesh, V. (2006). Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decision Sciences, 37 (4), 497–518.

Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 36–59.

Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4 (2), 74–81.

Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (3), 320–330.

Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3), 371–384.

Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28 (2), 164–175.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Pär J. Ågerfalk

Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

Fredrik Karlsson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pär J. Ågerfalk .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Management Studies, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA

Nik Rushdi Hassan

Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

Leslie P. Willcocks

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ågerfalk, P.J., Karlsson, F. (2021). Theoretical, Empirical, and Artefactual Contributions in Information Systems Research: Implications Implied*. In: Hassan, N.R., Willcocks, L.P. (eds) Advancing Information Systems Theories. Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64884-8_2

Published : 22 March 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-64883-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-64884-8

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

In this section:

• Advertising and sponsorship
• Authorship and contributorship
• Competing interests
• Copyright and authors’ rights
• Correction and retraction policies
• Data protection policy
• Data sharing
• Editor Roles & Responsibilities
• Gender identity and race & ethnicity data in ScholarOne
• Patient and public partnership
• Patient consent and confidentiality
• Peer Review Terms and Conditions
• Publication embargo
• Reproducing third party illustrative materials
• Research Ethics
• Rapid responses
• Scientific misconduct
• Trial registration

This policy ensures that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to an article are given credit and that contributors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published. Contributors are either author contributors (meaning that they meet all four authorship criteria – see below) or non-author contributors.

BMJ credits and lists contributors in two ways:

• Authorship – we publish a list of authors’ names at the beginning of the paper in the byline
• Contributorship – we publish a contributorship statement at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. This should include all author contributors and may include non-author contributors.

We also publish an acknowledgements statement at the end of the paper, detailing those who helped in carrying out the research but that have not been recognised as contributors, and for personal expressions of gratitude.

Submitting author

Corresponding author, joint first authorship, collaborators (group authorship), deceased authors, alteration to authorship, acknowledgements.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ( ICMJE Recommendations 2019 ) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

BMJ requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as author contributors. We recognise only natural persons (an individual human being, as opposed to a private or public organisation) as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria should not be used to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion number 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting and final approval of the manuscript.

Contributors who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship should be described clearly in the contributorship statement .

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

Submitting authors should provide assurance that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. We also ask for assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria that has been excluded as an author.

When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The submitting author takes primary responsibility for submitting the article to the journal using our manuscript submission system ScholarOne and for communicating with the journal during the article submission, peer review and revision process. They ensure that all of the journal’s administrative requirements are properly completed. These include, but are not limited to, providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements. These tasks may be delegated to one or more co-authors, but the submitting author remains responsible for them.

When you submit your article through our submission system you will be asked to provide a name, email address and institutional affiliation for all author contributors. In the final published article author names, institutions and addresses will be taken from these completed fields and not from the submitted Word document.

Affiliations listed should be those where the work was carried out at the time the research/article was written. If institution details appear incorrectly these can be directly amended under ‘Actions’ by selecting the ‘Edit’ drop down next to each author.

All author contributors receive a confirmation email when an article has been submitted and when a final decision is made.

The submitting author should assign the corresponding author when providing author details (see below for more information about the corresponding author role). The submitting author and corresponding author can be the same person.

The corresponding author, as listed on ScholarOne, takes primary responsibility for completing all necessary actions after acceptance of the manuscript and communicating with the journal and with readers after publication. All email communication from BMJ will be sent to the corresponding author including:

• The timeline for your article proof with a link to Publishing at Work where you can track your article’s status
• If your article will be published open access or in colour in the print edition of the journal, you will receive an email from Rightslink with payment options and instructions. If you are not making the payment yourself, you may forward the email to the person or organisation that will be paying on your behalf
• A link to review and approve the proof when available
• Confirmation that your article has been published online
• Notifications when a response has been posted to your article

Find out more about what to expect when your article has been accepted .

Although we include only one corresponding author on ScholarOne for email communication, multiple authors can be listed with correspondence information in the author byline of the final published article. This information can be included at the article proof stage, after acceptance.

Note, the policy for The BMJ differs and can be found here

Joint first authors can be indicated by the inclusion of the statement ‘X and X contributed equally to this paper’ in the contributorship statement.

Collaborators are a large group of multi-author contributors (e.g. a specific consortium, committee, study group or the like). Collaborators should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship as detailed above. They will also be expected as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms and provide a summary in the relevant section.

The collaborator group name(s) should be included in the main author list on ScholarOne. The collaborator group name(s) followed by the individual names should also be listed in the ‘Collaborator’ field on ScholarOne. BMJ will list the author group name(s) in the author byline, with the full list of individual names included in a collaborator statement at the end of the article. Details of the group’s contributions should also be listed in the ‘Contributorship statement’ field on ScholarOne.

If the journal is indexed in PubMed (MEDLINE and/or PubMed Central), the group name will be listed in the author byline and the names of individual group members entered as collaborators on the PubMed record to ensure individual due credit.

The BMJ Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries

PubMed record >>

BMJ Open Establishing a core outcome set for treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for an international Delphi survey

AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

Deceased persons deemed appropriate as authors should be highlighted to the Editorial Assistant when submitting your article and should also be included in your contributorship statement.

If an author’s affiliation has changed during the course of the work, the author may either list the affiliation at the time that the research (or most significant portion of the research) was conducted, or their current affiliation, or both. The change of affiliation can be explained in an acknowledgements section.

Any change in authors after initial submission and before publication must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, a change of order to the authors’ names or a change to the attribution of contributions. Any alterations must be explained to the Editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Contributorship statement

A contributorship statement is required for every article submitted and should outline who has contributed what to the planning, conduct and reporting of the work described in the article. A contributorship statement should include author contributors, non author contributors and group author contributors (collaborators). Contributors who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship should be described clearly in the contributorship statement; for example, “served as scientific advisors”, “critically reviewed the study proposal”, “collected data” or “provided and cared for study patients”.

Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person’s contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants to reach a consensus.

This is also the appropriate place to include contributions by patients or members of the public who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles. We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

All individuals named in the contributorship statement must give permission to be included, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions of the paper. It is the responsibility of the submitting author to ensure that permission is obtained and to be able to provide evidence of this if required.

Each contributorship statement must make clear who is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

• To ensure transparent declaration of AI, authors should:

2. Transparent declaration includes a description of: 

• What AI technology was used (the name of the technology)
• Why this AI technology was used (the reason for its use)
• How the AI technology was used (what the task of the technology was)
• Consider including a summary of the input, output, and the way in which the AI output was reviewed on the part of the authors as supplementary files or additional information for the editor to review. The editor may ask for more information and/or for information to be added to the content for internal use and/or for publication.

An acknowledgements statement may be included at the end of the paper, detailing those who helped in carrying out the research but who have not been recognised as contributors, as well as for personal expressions of gratitude.

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, authors are strongly advised to obtain permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals before submitting to any BMJ journal.

A uthor name change requests

As an inclusive publisher, BMJ wishes to ensure a smooth process and experience to facilitate author name changes after publication. For more information on how to request an author name change in an existing publication see our corrections policies.

Last updated: March 2023

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

• Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
• Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
• Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
• Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
• Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
• Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
• Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
• Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
• Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

• How often do you use social media per day?
• Less than 30 minutes
• 30 minutes to 1 hour
• 1 to 2 hours
• 2 to 4 hours
• More than 4 hours
• Which social media platforms do you use?
• Others (Please specify)
• How often do you experience the following on social media?
• Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
• Cyberbullying
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
• Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
• Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
• Very positive
• Somewhat positive
• Somewhat negative
• Very negative
• In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Social comparison
• In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Education on healthy social media use
• Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
• Social media detox programs
• Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
• Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
• Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

• For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
• For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
• To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

• To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
• To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
• To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
• To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

• Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
• Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
• Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
• Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
• Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

• Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
• Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
• Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
• Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
• Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

• Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
• Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
• Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
• Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
• Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
• Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

The research paper introduction section, along with the Title and Abstract, can be considered the face of any research paper. The following article is intended to guide you in organizing and writing the research paper introduction for a quality academic article or dissertation.

The research paper introduction aims to present the topic to the reader. A study will only be accepted for publishing if you can ascertain that the available literature cannot answer your research question. So it is important to ensure that you have read important studies on that particular topic, especially those within the last five to ten years, and that they are properly referenced in this section. 1 What should be included in the research paper introduction is decided by what you want to tell readers about the reason behind the research and how you plan to fill the knowledge gap. The best research paper introduction provides a systemic review of existing work and demonstrates additional work that needs to be done. It needs to be brief, captivating, and well-referenced; a well-drafted research paper introduction will help the researcher win half the battle.

The introduction for a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your research topic
• Capture reader interest
• Summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Define your specific research problem and problem statement
• Highlight the novelty and contributions of the study
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The research paper introduction can vary in size and structure depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or is a review paper. Some research paper introduction examples are only half a page while others are a few pages long. In many cases, the introduction will be shorter than all of the other sections of your paper; its length depends on the size of your paper as a whole.

• Break through writer’s block. Write your research paper introduction with Paperpal Copilot

Table of Contents

What is the introduction for a research paper, why is the introduction important in a research paper, craft a compelling introduction section with paperpal. try now, 1. introduce the research topic:, 2. determine a research niche:, 3. place your research within the research niche:, craft accurate research paper introductions with paperpal. start writing now, frequently asked questions on research paper introduction, key points to remember.

The introduction in a research paper is placed at the beginning to guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic that your research addresses. They present the following information to the reader

• Scope: The topic covered in the research paper
• Context: Background of your topic
• Importance: Why your research matters in that particular area of research and the industry problem that can be targeted

The research paper introduction conveys a lot of information and can be considered an essential roadmap for the rest of your paper. A good introduction for a research paper is important for the following reasons:

• It stimulates your reader’s interest: A good introduction section can make your readers want to read your paper by capturing their interest. It informs the reader what they are going to learn and helps determine if the topic is of interest to them.
• It helps the reader understand the research background: Without a clear introduction, your readers may feel confused and even struggle when reading your paper. A good research paper introduction will prepare them for the in-depth research to come. It provides you the opportunity to engage with the readers and demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the specific topic.
• It explains why your research paper is worth reading: Your introduction can convey a lot of information to your readers. It introduces the topic, why the topic is important, and how you plan to proceed with your research.
• It helps guide the reader through the rest of the paper: The research paper introduction gives the reader a sense of the nature of the information that will support your arguments and the general organization of the paragraphs that will follow. It offers an overview of what to expect when reading the main body of your paper.

What are the parts of introduction in the research?

A good research paper introduction section should comprise three main elements: 2

• What is known: This sets the stage for your research. It informs the readers of what is known on the subject.
• What is lacking: This is aimed at justifying the reason for carrying out your research. This could involve investigating a new concept or method or building upon previous research.
• What you aim to do: This part briefly states the objectives of your research and its major contributions. Your detailed hypothesis will also form a part of this section.

How to write a research paper introduction?

The first step in writing the research paper introduction is to inform the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening statement. The second step involves establishing the kinds of research that have been done and ending with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to address. Finally, the research paper introduction clarifies how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses. If your research involved testing hypotheses, these should be stated along with your research question. The hypothesis should be presented in the past tense since it will have been tested by the time you are writing the research paper introduction.

The following key points, with examples, can guide you when writing the research paper introduction section:

• Highlight the importance of the research field or topic
• Describe the background of the topic
• Present an overview of current research on the topic

Example: The inclusion of experiential and competency-based learning has benefitted electronics engineering education. Industry partnerships provide an excellent alternative for students wanting to engage in solving real-world challenges. Industry-academia participation has grown in recent years due to the need for skilled engineers with practical training and specialized expertise. However, from the educational perspective, many activities are needed to incorporate sustainable development goals into the university curricula and consolidate learning innovation in universities.

• Reveal a gap in existing research or oppose an existing assumption
• Formulate the research question

Example: There have been plausible efforts to integrate educational activities in higher education electronics engineering programs. However, very few studies have considered using educational research methods for performance evaluation of competency-based higher engineering education, with a focus on technical and or transversal skills. To remedy the current need for evaluating competencies in STEM fields and providing sustainable development goals in engineering education, in this study, a comparison was drawn between study groups without and with industry partners.

• State the purpose of your study
• Highlight the key characteristics of your study
• Describe important results
• Highlight the novelty of the study.
• Offer a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

Example: The study evaluates the main competency needed in the applied electronics course, which is a fundamental core subject for many electronics engineering undergraduate programs. We compared two groups, without and with an industrial partner, that offered real-world projects to solve during the semester. This comparison can help determine significant differences in both groups in terms of developing subject competency and achieving sustainable development goals.

Write a Research Paper Introduction in Minutes with Paperpal

Paperpal Copilot is a generative AI-powered academic writing assistant. It’s trained on millions of published scholarly articles and over 20 years of STM experience. Paperpal Copilot helps authors write better and faster with:

• Real-time writing suggestions
• In-depth checks for language and grammar correction
• Paraphrasing to add variety, ensure academic tone, and trim text to meet journal limits

With Paperpal Copilot, create a research paper introduction effortlessly. In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through how Paperpal transforms your initial ideas into a polished and publication-ready introduction.

How to use Paperpal to write the Introduction section

Step 1: Sign up on Paperpal and click on the Copilot feature, under this choose Outlines > Research Article > Introduction

Step 2: Add your unstructured notes or initial draft, whether in English or another language, to Paperpal, which is to be used as the base for your content.

Step 3: Fill in the specifics, such as your field of study, brief description or details you want to include, which will help the AI generate the outline for your Introduction.

Step 4: Use this outline and sentence suggestions to develop your content, adding citations where needed and modifying it to align with your specific research focus.

Step 5: Turn to Paperpal’s granular language checks to refine your content, tailor it to reflect your personal writing style, and ensure it effectively conveys your message.

You can use the same process to develop each section of your article, and finally your research paper in half the time and without any of the stress.

The purpose of the research paper introduction is to introduce the reader to the problem definition, justify the need for the study, and describe the main theme of the study. The aim is to gain the reader’s attention by providing them with necessary background information and establishing the main purpose and direction of the research.

The length of the research paper introduction can vary across journals and disciplines. While there are no strict word limits for writing the research paper introduction, an ideal length would be one page, with a maximum of 400 words over 1-4 paragraphs. Generally, it is one of the shorter sections of the paper as the reader is assumed to have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic. 2 For example, for a study evaluating the role of building design in ensuring fire safety, there is no need to discuss definitions and nature of fire in the introduction; you could start by commenting upon the existing practices for fire safety and how your study will add to the existing knowledge and practice.

When deciding what to include in the research paper introduction, the rest of the paper should also be considered. The aim is to introduce the reader smoothly to the topic and facilitate an easy read without much dependency on external sources. 3 Below is a list of elements you can include to prepare a research paper introduction outline and follow it when you are writing the research paper introduction. Topic introduction: This can include key definitions and a brief history of the topic. Research context and background: Offer the readers some general information and then narrow it down to specific aspects. Details of the research you conducted: A brief literature review can be included to support your arguments or line of thought. Rationale for the study: This establishes the relevance of your study and establishes its importance. Importance of your research: The main contributions are highlighted to help establish the novelty of your study Research hypothesis: Introduce your research question and propose an expected outcome. Organization of the paper: Include a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences that highlights your plan for the entire paper

Cite only works that are most relevant to your topic; as a general rule, you can include one to three. Note that readers want to see evidence of original thinking. So it is better to avoid using too many references as it does not leave much room for your personal standpoint to shine through. Citations in your research paper introduction support the key points, and the number of citations depend on the subject matter and the point discussed. If the research paper introduction is too long or overflowing with citations, it is better to cite a few review articles rather than the individual articles summarized in the review. A good point to remember when citing research papers in the introduction section is to include at least one-third of the references in the introduction.

The literature review plays a significant role in the research paper introduction section. A good literature review accomplishes the following: Introduces the topic – Establishes the study’s significance – Provides an overview of the relevant literature – Provides context for the study using literature – Identifies knowledge gaps However, remember to avoid making the following mistakes when writing a research paper introduction: Do not use studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research Avoid direct quoting Do not allow literature review to be the focus of this section. Instead, the literature review should only aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript.

Remember the following key points for writing a good research paper introduction: 4

• Avoid stuffing too much general information: Avoid including what an average reader would know and include only that information related to the problem being addressed in the research paper introduction. For example, when describing a comparative study of non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization, information related to the traditional methods and differences between traditional and non-traditional methods would not be relevant. In this case, the introduction for the research paper should begin with the state-of-the-art non-traditional methods and methods to evaluate the efficiency of newly developed algorithms.
• Avoid packing too many references: Cite only the required works in your research paper introduction. The other works can be included in the discussion section to strengthen your findings.
• Avoid extensive criticism of previous studies: Avoid being overly critical of earlier studies while setting the rationale for your study. A better place for this would be the Discussion section, where you can highlight the advantages of your method.
• Avoid describing conclusions of the study: When writing a research paper introduction remember not to include the findings of your study. The aim is to let the readers know what question is being answered. The actual answer should only be given in the Results and Discussion section.

To summarize, the research paper introduction section should be brief yet informative. It should convince the reader the need to conduct the study and motivate him to read further. If you’re feeling stuck or unsure, choose trusted AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal to effortlessly craft your research paper introduction and other sections of your research article.

1. Jawaid, S. A., & Jawaid, M. (2019). How to write introduction and discussion. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S18.

2. Dewan, P., & Gupta, P. (2016). Writing the title, abstract and introduction: Looks matter!. Indian pediatrics, 53, 235-241.

3. Cetin, S., & Hackam, D. J. (2005). An approach to the writing of a scientific Manuscript1. Journal of Surgical Research, 128(2), 165-167.

4. Bavdekar, S. B. (2015). Writing introduction: Laying the foundations of a research paper. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(7), 44-6.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Scientific Writing Style Guides Explained
• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects
• 8 Most Effective Ways to Increase Motivation for Thesis Writing 

Practice vs. Practise: Learn the Difference

Academic paraphrasing: why paperpal’s rewrite should be your first choice , you may also like, phd qualifying exam: tips for success , ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, what is an academic paper types and elements , should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., 9 steps to publish a research paper, what are the different types of research papers, how to make translating academic papers less challenging.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, authorship versus contribution in a research paper.

• 20 December, 2022

As a researcher or an academic, where would you like your name to appear in a research paper? In the list of authors of the paper (right up front) or in its acknowledgements section (almost towards the end)? In many ways, the two positions are a world apart, and the matter is one of the most contentious ones in academic publishing . This article will help you understand the difference between authorship and contribution and tackle such issues. Before that, though, let’s consider the importance attached to authorship and the order of authors in academia.

Importance of authorship and order of authors

Being a named author of a research paper is important in the academic world, because when it comes to promotion, tenure, funding or even a raise, the bottom line is a researcher’s published output: the number of papers to your name . Also, it is not merely the name but its position in the list of authors of a paper.

·          Most of the credit goes to the first author.

·          The second author gets their share (which is less than that of the first author).

·          The third author gets even less credit, and so on down the line.

Note : In some domains, the last-named author is considered important, mainly because of their position, for example, head of the department or director of the laboratory.

Defining an author for a research paper

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stipulates four criteria , all four of which should be satisfied to be a named author of a paper. The criteria are:

·          Making substantial contributions to the research reported in the paper ( and )

·          Writing the paper or revising it critically ( and)

·          Approving the version to be published ( and)

·          Agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work

However, not all journals even in the field of medicine abide by these criteria. One researcher may be an expert in field work; another, in laboratory work; and yet another, in statistics and data analysis. It is unrealistic to expect each of them to be accountable for all aspects of the study. This brings us to the difference between being an author of a paper and being a contributor to a study (and acknowledged as such).

Defining a contributor for a research paper

Contributors can be thought of as those without whose help a given piece of research could not have been completed but who were not part of the research team . The contributors were specialists who made available their expertise but in a detached manner. For example …

Consider physicians treating their patients. The physician may call for laboratory tests, seek advice from a dietitian and even consult a specialist. However, the final responsibility for the treatment rests with the physician and not with the laboratory technician, the dietitian or the consultant.

Author vs. Contributor in a research paper

The difference between authors and contributors is that members of a research team get to be the authors, because they:

•       Conceptualise the objectives of research or formulate a hypothesis

•       Choose the appropriate approach(es) and method(s) of meeting those objectives or testing that hypothesis

•       Make any mid-term changes or corrections to the proposed course of research

•       Interpret and explain the findings (although the data may have been analysed by a statistician)

•       Write up the paper or participate in writing or commenting on the draft and in choosing the most suitable journal for the paper.

To sum up, what distinguishes authors from contributors is intellectual involvement in the work as a whole – beyond their area of specialisation – as against piecemeal service as detached experts.

Share with your colleagues

Albert Bandura Contributions to Human Behavior

This essay about Albert Bandura’s influential contributions to psychology, focusing on his groundbreaking research on observational learning and self-efficacy. Bandura’s work has reshaped our understanding of human behavior, highlighting the role of social influences and personal beliefs in shaping individual actions and achievements. His insights have not only advanced the field of psychology but also inspired practical interventions across various domains, promoting positive behavior change and fostering resilience. Bandura’s legacy continues to resonate, serving as a guiding light for scholars and practitioners striving to unlock the mysteries of human behavior and potential.

How it works

Within the realm of psychology, few figures have left as profound a legacy as Albert Bandura. His pioneering research has fundamentally altered our comprehension of human behavior, paving the way for transformative insights into the complexities of social learning and self-efficacy.

At the heart of Bandura’s work lies the concept of observational learning, illuminating the power of vicarious experiences in shaping individual behavior. Through his iconic experiments involving the Bobo doll, Bandura revealed the potency of social modeling in influencing the actions and attitudes of individuals, challenging conventional notions of behaviorism and fostering a deeper understanding of human agency.

Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy further expands upon this foundation, emphasizing the critical role of belief in one’s own capabilities in driving motivation and performance. His research has underscored how individuals with a strong sense of self-efficacy are more likely to persevere in the face of adversity, pursue ambitious goals, and ultimately achieve success in their endeavors.

Beyond theoretical frameworks, Bandura’s work has spurred practical applications across diverse domains, from education to healthcare and beyond. His insights have informed the development of interventions aimed at empowering individuals to cultivate resilience, adopt healthier behaviors, and realize their full potential.

Moreover, Bandura’s contributions extend beyond the boundaries of psychology, influencing fields as varied as organizational management and public policy. His research has provided a lens through which to understand and address pressing social issues, offering pathways for promoting positive change and fostering a more equitable and empowered society.

In essence, Albert Bandura’s impact on the study of human behavior is immeasurable, his legacy enduring as a beacon of innovation and insight. Through his pioneering research and enduring contributions, Bandura has not only expanded the frontiers of psychological knowledge but has also inspired generations to harness the power of social learning and self-belief in pursuit of a brighter future.

Cite this page

Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/

"Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/ [Accessed: 24 Apr. 2024]

"Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/

"Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/. [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Albert Bandura Contributions To Human Behavior . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/albert-bandura-contributions-to-human-behavior/ [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

VASA-1: Lifelike Audio-Driven Talking Faces Generated in Real Time

• Follow on Twitter
• Like on Facebook
• Follow on LinkedIn
• Subscribe on Youtube
• Follow on Instagram
• Subscribe to our RSS feed

Share this page:

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Reddit