Research Paper IMRAD Structure: Features and Recommendations

June 19, 2023
Posted by: Yury Subachev, PhD
Categories: For young scientists, Paper writing, Scientific translation
Post Views: 488

Most of international journals recommend using the IMRAD article structure when preparing research papers. This term is made up of the first letters of the English words: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion. This is the most common style of scientific article layout, including the one accepted by Scopus and Web of Science journals.

IMRAD is a recommended design style which may have certain variations. Let us take a closer look at what these variations are, what other sections exist, what should and should be not presented in them. Below we shall give recommendations for each section.

Table of Contents

1. Description of IMRAD article structure and its variations.

The classical structure of IMRAD is Introduction – Materials and Methods – Results – Discussion. It offers a model or a common format rather than specifies a complete list of headings or components of research papers, since the other obligatory elements of the article are: Title, Authors, Keywords, Abstract, Conclusions and References. In addition, some articles include Acknowledgements and Appendices.

The “Introduction” usually outlines the scope and the purpose of the research in the light of current knowledge on the issue under investigation; the “Materials and Methods” section describes how the research was carried out; the “Results” section describes the findings of the study; the “Discussion” section explains the significance and relevance of the results and provides necessary recommendations for further research on the subject. In all cases, the manuscript should be prepared in accordance with the guidelines for the authors of a particular journal.

Section	Objective
Title	What is the article about?
Authors	Authors’ names and affiliation to a particular organisation
Keywords	Words other than those used in the title, that describe the article in the best comprehensible way
Abstract	Self-contained summary of the article
Introduction	Formulation of the problem. What unknown items are to be explored? Purpose of the research.
Materials and Methods	In what way was the research carried out?
Results	What results have been derived?
Discussion	Interpretation of results and directions of further research
Conclusions	Possible consequences
Acknowledgements	Who helped and how? Source of funding
References	Information on cited scientific papers
Appendices	Supplementary materials

It is important to remember that there is no standard or uniform style to be followed by absolutely all journals. Every journal has its own style; however, each has developed its own Instructions to Authors. Once you have selected a journal to which you are going to submit your manuscript, follow the Instructions to Authors which can usually be found in every issue of the journal or on its website.

Some authors may question the logic of some of these instructions, but it is useless to argue with the journal or complain about its instructions. Remember that authors are free to choose from among a whole range of journals where they can publish their articles.

IMRAD format variations

The common IMRAD sections in some journals may be presented and/or supplemented by other ones; for example, Theory instead of Materials and Methods. Other modifications involve merging the Results and Discussion sections into one and adding Conclusions as a last part of the Discussion.

A recent trend is to outline only the main sections of the article and publish all additional or “less important” aspects as Supplemental Materials on the website of the journal.

Review articles do not have a Results and Discussion section and usually use other headings instead of IMRAD headings. The term IMRAD refers to a pattern or format that means much more than the words covered by the acronym. It is favoured by most research journals owing to the fact that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted this term as a standard, first in 1972 and then in 1979 (ANSI 1979).

So, let us take a closer look at each section of a high-standard research paper.

2. Title.

The title of the article is what the readers look at in the first instance. When searching for a desired article, the readers do so in the following order: “Title” – “Abstract” – “Results (Tables and figures)” – “Full text of the article”. The prevailing tendency is that, on the average, the number of readers proceeding from one section to the next one in the above sequence decreases by a factor of 10. This means that:

– only one in every 10 readers who look at the title reads the Abstract;

– only one in every 10 readers who read the Abstract goes to the Results section, being especially interested in “Tables and figures”;

– only one in every 10 readers who read the Results reads the whole article.

Thus, we get a proportion: one person reading the whole article against 1,000 reading the title. Titles are read not only by academics “scanning” the journal content, but also by those searching for necessary articles through secondary sources where the title and the author of the article is always quoted, but the list of references may be missing. The title may be reprinted in references and subject indexes, stored in bibliographic databases and cited in other articles. Therefore, the title is an extremely important component of the article.

A well thought-out title attracts the readers who might otherwise have missed the article, and can help future researchers to find important information.

The well thought-out title of a research paper should meet the following requirements:

contain as few words as possible: many journals limit article titles to 12 words;
express the subject precisely;
describe the content of the article accurately and specifically;
not contain abbreviations, formulas or slang expressions;
no verbs to be used;
exclusion of marginal words such as “Some notes on …”, “Observations on …”, “Investigation on …”, “Study of …” and “Effect of …”;
the title should not be flashy, like in newspapers (e.g. avoid statements such as “Agroforestry can stop deforestation”);
give the subject of the research, not the results;
follow the style preferences of the target journal.

It is important to remember that the title is viewed by the reader in the first place, so it must be clear and consistent in structure in order to capture one’s attention. The important words should come first; appropriate words should be used to highlight the significant content of the article. The selected words should also be in a form suitable for automatic abstracting and indexing services. The use of slang words and abbreviations should be avoided; common names in the title, whenever possible, should be used instead of Latin names of plants (or other living organisms).

Previously, a common practice was to publish a series of articles on a subject – one with the main title and several self-contained articles with separate subtitles, often designated as Part 1, 2, etc. (e.g. “Biomass decomposition in tropical alley cropping: Part 1, Part 2, …”). This practice caused several difficulties. For instance, the continuity of reading is seriously hampered when different parts of a series are published in different issues of a journal or in different journals or, even worse, when one or more parts are not published at all. Such separate parts of a series do not meet the basic requirement voicing that every article “should present a result of independent, coherent research”, as stipulated in the Instructions to Authors in most journals. Thus, a series of articles is not currently favoured by most journals.

An alternative option for a series of articles is the Hanging Title which looks like a series title except that the colon is changed for a Roman numeral denoting a part of the series (e.g. “Biomass decomposition in tropical alley cropping: comparison of common multipurpose trees”); this practice is still accepted by most journals. The advantage of the hanging title is that the most important words of the title are presented first and are therefore easier scanned by the reader. Some authors, seeking to side-step the strict word limit set for the title by a journal, argue that the hanging title is not reckoned in counting the words in the title. The decision in this case is up to the editor.

Most journals allow and request for Running Heads. The running headline represents an abbreviated title that will be printed in the form of caption on all or alternate pages. The journal’s instructions specify the requirements for running heads and the maximum number of allowed characters, including spaces. The author should ensure that the running headline is appropriate to the article in terms of its content, especially as concerns review articles and book chapters where the running head is supposed to invite the reader’s attention.

3. Authors.

The article authors are individuals who have made significant contribution in the conceptualisation and realisation of the research paper, as well as other persons who performed a different role in preparing the article. Technology experts and other assistants are usually mentioned in the acknowledgements section of the article.

The authors are listed in the logical order of importance of their contribution to the work. The person listed first is considered to be the senior author (unless otherwise stated); the others may be listed according to the importance of their contribution. Listing authors in alphabetical order is an old practice that journals no longer follow.

Usually the first listed author is a doctoral student whose thesis or dissertation makes the basis of the article; the second listed author is his/her scientific advisor. However in some disciplines, the doctoral student’s supervisor whose research has been published is listed as the last author.

The person to be addressed with questions on the article (Corresponding Author) is marked with an asterisk or other designation.

The list of authors (to be mentioned in a sequence) can be a tricky and contentious issue leading to untoward disputes and infringement of high ethical standards to be followed by scientists. Sometimes a laboratory head or director of institute where the work was carried out insists on being listed as the author of all papers issued by such organisation. Although this is undesirable he/she should be listed as the final author – if this is mandatory.

In addition, it is not uncommon when some exchange programme participants (trainees, exchange specialists, etc.) who have visited foreign institutions publish articles on the work carried out abroad upon return to their sending institution, listing their foreign research supervisors as co-authors without the latter’s knowledge or consent. To avoid such situations, most journals, before publishing an article, require final confirmation by every co-author.

The authors’ names should be definitive in order to ensure proper identification, and should be accompanied by address, including e-mail address, specified in accordance with the journal’s formatting requirements. The institution to which the author was assigned during the period of work described in the article should be placed against the author’s name, even if the author left the institution after the completion of the work (which is specific of doctoral students and trainees); in such cases, the author’s current address with proper identification should be provided.

4. Keywords.

These are the words by which the article will be indexed in the automatic abstracting databases. The words that appear in the title should not be repeated as keywords, since titles and keywords are listed together by the automatic abstracting databases. Most journals allow no more than six keywords; some journals do not allow any keywords; still some journals allow a string of several words as keywords. In any case, keywords must be specific for an article; generic words such as plants, soils, models and people are too general to be of any value as keywords.

5. Abstract.

The abstract is a mini version of the article. The American National Standards Institute states: “A well-prepared abstract enables the readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately, to determine its relevance to their interests, and thus to decide whether they need to read the document in its entirety” (ANSI 1979). It is therefore crucial that the abstract is written clearly.

Requirements for the abstract

The abstract should be definitive rather than descriptive; that is, it should give the facts rather than tell you what the article is about. Since the abstract is usually read by an average of 100 times more people than those reading the whole article, it should convey factual information, not just “promise” it. For example, avoid phrases like “are described” or “will be presented” in the abstract; instead, describe and present the facts (except for abstracts prepared for conferences or annual meetings, written several months before the event).

Journals prescribe strict limitations on the length of an abstract, usually 150-250 words. The abstract should comprise one paragraph (or several paragraphs for review articles). The abstract should be self-contained, i.e. complete in itself. It begins with a rationale and statement of purpose and provides an account of used methods and key findings, including any newly discovered facts, as well as the main conclusions and their significance. If the keywords are not listed separately the abstract should include the keywords serving as a basis for indexing the article.

Since the abstract is a summary of the entire content of the article, the abstract uses the tenses specifying when particular sections of the article were written. For example, statements in the Introduction, the interpretation of results, the wording of conclusions is in the present tense, while the materials, methods and results are given in the past tense.

Points to be excluded from the abstract:

Abbreviations and acronyms unless they are generally accepted or explained.
References to tables and figures.
Quotations and references to literary sources.
Any information or conclusions not presented in the article.
General statements.
Complex, unwieldy, verbose sentences.

In addition, to make the abstract easier to read, avoid excessive quantitative data with statistical details and long strings containing names, e.g. of plants. Experienced authors proceed to formulating the title and the abstract only after writing the main body of the article.

6. Introduction.

A good Introduction is relatively short. It explains why the article will be of interest to the reader, why the author has undertaken the research, and describes the background so that the reader can understand and duly appreciate the article.

In particular, the Introduction defines the nature and scope of the investigated problems, links the research to the previous work (usually through a brief review of literature relevant to the problem in question), explains the goal of the research and interprets the specialised terms or acronyms that will be used later in the article text. Remember that the Introduction summarises logically – and clearly states – the hypothesis or the main subject of the article.

The Introduction should be relatively short; most journals recommend limiting the length to 500 words. Avoid repetition: do not repeat the text of the Abstract in the Introduction (and the text of the Introduction in the Discussion). Do not go into detailed literature review; two to four most relevant and recent quotations should be enough to support the statement. Do not repeat any well-known facts and do not state obvious things.

Different tenses can be used in the Introduction section: the rationale and motivation of the research are presented in the present tense (“Soils store relatively large amounts of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems”), while references are in the past tense (“Studies have shown that…”) or in the present perfect if the fact is commonly known (“Studies have shown that…”).

The objective is written in the past tense (“The objective of the study was…”). Different journals follow different norms and styles. Some of them prefer to have discussion of literature in the Introduction, while others want it in the Discussion section. Some journals require the Introduction section to include a brief account of the materials and methods used, while others may even require to set forth the important conclusions in the Introduction, although this trend is now disappearing.

7. Materials and Methods.

The purpose of this section is to show, in a simple and direct manner, what kind of research was effectuated and when; how the data were analysed and presented. This section provides complete information that might be needed by other researchers to form their own idea about the study or to repeat the experiment. The easiest way to organise this section is chronological; include all relevant information, but avoid unnecessary details that are probably already known to the readers.

The section should include the following (not necessarily in the below-offered order)

Description of the place of research, e.g. climate, geological profiles, country, etc. insofar as such information is relevant for the study.
Experiment design with indication of follow-up tests, experiments and sampling procedures.
Involved substances, schemes, plants with their exact description.
Used materials, with exact specification and indication of quantities, their source and preparation method. The generally accepted or chemical denomination is better than trade names which may not be universally recognised. Some journals and companies require that the company name is included in brackets after the mention of used material.
Assumptions made and their justification.
Statistical and mathematical procedures used for the analysis and generalisation of data.

The applied methods are usually described in chronological order, in detail and as precisely as possible. Standard methods are mentioned or may be described only with reference to a relevant literature source, if available. Any modifications of standard methods should be described. If the method is new it should be described in detail. Any description of general procedures is superfluous. Remember and respect the general level of the readers’ understanding and familiarity with your research procedures. Remember, however, that the editors may ask for more information on any issue.

Recommendations on the section “Materials and Methods”

The following aspects should be given special attention:

Avoid ambiguity in abbreviations or titles.
All quantitative characteristics should be given in standard international measurement units.
Describe all chemicals so that other scientists could unambiguously identify them and use them in their work.
Explain every step, including all replication instances.
Specify all of the used methods, at least mention their names if they are standard or give as much detail as necessary. If you have introduced changes in a standard method or developed a new one, this is worth writing about.
Avoid irrelevant and unnecessary information that is outside the framework of your results or may confuse the reader.

The past tense is most often used in the “Materials and Methods” section. There is no standard “rule” for using active or passive forms (“Author(s) took ten samples” vs. “Ten samples were taken”); follow the prescriptions of the journal and – if the journal does not impose strict requirements in this regard – follow your personal preferences.

All research publications use the International System of Units (Systeme International d’Unites) to present measurement results. However, there exist some exceptions from this general rule, especially when it comes to applied disciplines. For instance, scientific publications with a regional focus may use locally popular non-SI units if this helps to clarify data interpretation or treatment, but such units should be explained in relation to SI units when they are first mentioned in the text.

8. Results.

This section should present new knowledge; hence, this section is the core of the paper. Note that the “Introduction” and “Materials and Methods” sections are necessary and are intended to tell why and how the authors arrived at the results presented in this section; the significance of these results will be subsequently explained in the “Discussion” section. Thus, the value of a research paper depends on what is contained in this very section (“Results”). The results should be stated clearly and concisely, complying with the allowed number of words – no more, no less.

Some recommendations on how to present the results are given below:

Try to present the results clearly and concisely.
Give only representative data, not (ad infinitum) repetitive data.
Do not provide large amounts of data; reduce them to statistically analysable summary forms and present them in tables or charts together with necessary statistical information in order to facilitate their understanding and comparison.
Repeat only most important findings demonstrated in tables and charts; putting it otherwise – do not repeat in the text all or most of the data presented in the tables and figures.
Negative-result data can be included if they have not been found/verified and only if they are necessary for interpretation of the results; refer to each table and figure in the text using a numerical form (as a digit).
Include only tables and figures that are necessary, comprehensible and should be reproduced.
Avoid verbose expressions: for example, instead of the sentence: “It is clearly shown in Table 2 that the presence of tree canopy reduced light transmission to ground …” give the following wording “Light transmission to ground was reduced by the presence of tree canopy (Table 2)”.

Tables and drawings are an integral part of a well-executed research paper; they appear in the “Results” section (though some exceptions are allowed). The tables contain accurate figures, whereas the drawings show trends and specific features. Do not present the same data in tables and charts.

9. Discussion.

In this section, the authors should explain the significance and implications of the results. This section brings all the aspects together and verifies the importance and value of the paper; therefore, it is the most innovative part of the paper and most difficult for formulation. The authors’ ability to interpret the results in the light of already known facts and to use them as evidence for innovative explanation of the observed processes/factors should extend the limits of knowledge and generate the readers’ enthusiasm. In the absence of such fascinating discussion, the reader may think “So what?” and turn to other, more interesting articles.

Recommendations for the “Discussion” section:

1. Do not repeat what has already been expounded in the literature review.

2. Correlate the results with the backbone questions that were outlined in the Introduction.

3. Show whether the results and interpretation are consistent with the current knowledge of the subject, i.e. with the previously published material.

4. Explain the theoretical background of the observed results.

5. Specify the significance of the results.

6. Suggest the areas for future research that are planned or require consistent realisation.

7. Work only with the results presented in the study.

8. Stay away from generalisation and assumptions that are not justified by the presented results.

9. Formulate conclusions duly, with the evidence for each of them.

The “Discussion” section is explicated both in the present and past tense. The available knowledge (from literary sources) should be presented in the present tense, while the work being discussed in the article (your own results) should be presented in the past tense; for example, “Treatment A was better than Treatment B, which suggests that…”.

The mismatch between the stated aims and the discussion/conclusion is a very common problem of many manuscripts. Analytical understanding is what the authors should strive for in the “Discussion” section, but, regretfully, it is difficult to explain how to achieve this. The drawback of such understanding is evident, when the authors confine themselves to rendering – and often repeating – the results and making superficial statements such as: “This work agrees with the work of author X”, as if the aim of the study was to verify whether the results were consistent with some other author’s (unrenowned) work published 20 years ago or even earlier.

10. Conclusions.

The Conclusions should present the clearly articulated results of the research (rather than simply restating the results) and briefly suggest the directions for future research in the relevant field, based on the results derived in the article.

When the article is improperly prepared, it is not uncommon to see conclusions such as “More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn”. In this case, what is the sense of publishing an article where no intelligible conclusions are drawn?

Some journals do not envisage a separate “Conclusions” section. In this case, the last paragraph or a few sentences of the “Discussion” section can be used to formulate conclusions.

11. Acknowledgements.

This short section is intended to express gratitude to institutions and individuals who significantly helped with the research described in the article. Most often, it is the organisation that granted financial resources, a laboratory that provided the materials or individual(s) who consulted the authors or helped with data collection or analysis or in any other way. Any information on grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Russian Science Foundation, etc. is also given here.

The genesis of the article, i.e. whether it is based on a thesis or dissertation, should also be mentioned in this section. If no separate “Acknowledgements” section is envisaged, the gratitude can be expressed at the end of the paper, in the Introduction, or as a footnote.

Note the different spelling of the header: in the British version it is “Acknowledgements”, in the American version it is “Acknowledgments”. Read more about “Proofreading academic papers by a native English speaker“.

12. References.

Preparing a proper reference list is one of the most tedious aspects of preparing a manuscript for publication. The problem partially is that there is no standard or any unified format for citing literary sources, except that “only the works referred to in the text should be cited in the list of References”. In other words, the content of “References” and the text links should match exactly.

Although the statement that “there are as many citation styles as there are journals” is an exaggeration, still it might seem that the number of citation styles equals the number of publishers. Some time ago standardisation of citation styles was discussed and a certain progress was achieved in this sphere. The best rule to be followed – as concerns as well many other aspects of scholarly writing – is to follow the journal guidelines!

There also exist some programmes and online services that help one to create/format the “Reference” section, but the authors tend to follow their own preferences in this domain.

Common styles of quoting literature

Three common styles of citation and referencing can be distinguished: the citation system indicating the author’s name and year of publication, the numbered alphabetical list and the citation sequence system; the latter is most commonly used in medical sciences.

1. Citation system indicating the author’s name and year of publication (APA, Harvard and Chicago formatting styles). The first author’s name and the year of publication are given in the text itself (in brackets or without them); the reference list is in alphabetical order.

It is easy to add or remove quoted sources in this system, which is an advantage for the author. Meanwhile, it is quite tedious for a reader to have several quotes in the same sentence or paragraph, as is often the case in the “Introduction” and “Discussion” sections. Such formatting increases considerably the length of the article text, compare: “Johnson and Schwarzkopf (2018)” or just the number “[5]”.

2. Numbered Alphabetical Listing. The reference list is also presented in alphabetical order, but the cited literature is numbered, the quotation in the text is designated by a number in parentheses or in square brackets, not by name and year.

The disadvantage of this formatting style – or rather an objection to it – is that many readers would like to see the author’s name and year of publication immediately when reading the text, without having to go to the reference list at the end of the article each time.

3. Citation-Sequence System. Each quotation in the text is assigned a number, normally as a superscript, in the order as it was first mentioned in the text; the reference list is arranged sequentially by numbers, not in alphabetical order.

Obviously, it is not easy to add or remove cited sources in this system, and this may be a problem in respect of articles with multiple cited sources. Numbering in this citation order also specificates different works by the same author, which can also be a disadvantage.

There are many variations within the above design styles; some of them minor, such as whether to enclose the material in brackets (curved or square), whether to insert punctuation marks (full stops) after the authors’ initials, whether to give full or abbreviated journal titles, etc.

Most of foreign academic editors prefer easy-to-understand reference lists with a minimum of punctuation. This way, journal abbreviations become nearly uniform. Nowadays, “J” with or without a dot after the letter is an acceptable abbreviation for “Journal” (previously the term was indicated as “Journal” or “Jour.”); all terms with the suffix “ology” are reduced by discarding the last part “ogy” (“Bacteriol” instead of “Bacteriology”; “Physiol” instead of “Physiology”; etc.). Note, however, that single-word journal titles (Science, Biochemistry) are not abbreviated.

13. Appendices.

Any additional information that is relevant to the article, but is of secondary importance may be added as an Appendix to the research paper, if this is envisaged by the journal policy.

Appendices usually contain detailed additional information about research objects, characteristics of applied equipment or research methodologies, experimental data and interim results of their statistical processing, as well as other information that is necessary for in-depth explanation of the results to be properly understood, being at the same time too cumbersome and complex to be included in the main body of the article.

Some journals recommend that the authors post “Supplementary Information” on the journal website with a link to the article.

Conclusion

We have tried to describe each section of the IMRAD article structure in detail. Now you know what this abbreviation stands for and what additional sections it may include.

Following the recommendations in this article, you will find it easier to prepare research material for any international publication.

What is academic writing? Features of academic writing in English

How to format a manuscript for journal submission?

Using Active and Passive Voice in a Scientific Paper