research paper imrad format sample

IMRAD Format For Research Papers: The Complete Guide

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

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

What is IMRAD Format?

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

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

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

Introduction : Summary of prior research and objective of your study

Methods : How you carried out the study

Results : Key findings and analysis

Discussion : Interpretation of results and implications

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

Why is the IMRAD Format Important?

Using the IMRAD structure has several key advantages:

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

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

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

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

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

When Should You Use IMRAD Format?

The IMRAD structure is ideal for:

Primary research papers that report new data and findings

Review papers that comprehensively summarize prior research

Grant proposals requesting funding for research

IMRAD is not typically used for other paper types like:

Editorials and opinion pieces

Popular science articles for general audiences

Essays analyzing a topic rather than presenting new data

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

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

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

Elements to include:

Research problem, question, or objectives

Methods and design

Major findings or developments

Conclusions and implications

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

Research Design

Start by explaining the overall design and approach. Specify:

Research types like experimental, survey, observational, etc.

Study duration

Sample size

Control vs experimental groups

Clarify the variables, treatments, and factors involved.

Participants

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

Health status

Geographic location

For human studies, include recruitment strategies and consent procedures.

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

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

Data Analysis

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

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

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

Report Findings Concisely

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

Focus only on key data directly related to your objectives

Avoid lengthy explanations and extraneous details

Highlight the most groundbreaking findings

Use Visuals to Present Complex Data

Tables and figures efficiently communicate more complex data:

Tables organize detailed numerical or textual data

Figures vividly depict relationships like graphs, diagrams, photos

Include clear captions explaining what is shown

Refer to each visual in the text

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

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

Interpret the Findings

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

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

What conclusions can you draw from the data?

What theories or mechanisms could explain the outcomes?

Discuss the Implications

Address the impact and applications of the research:

How do the findings advance scientific understanding or technical capability?

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

What innovations or new research directions do they enable?

Identify Limitations and Future Directions

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

Were there any methodological limitations that could influence the results?

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

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

A thoughtful discussion emphasizes the meaningful contributions of your research.

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

Elements to cover:

Restate the research problem and objectives

Summarize the major findings and main points

Emphasize broader implications and applications

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

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

Ready for more?

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

IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion)

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Research Article

Resource Download

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

Further reading:

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

IMRaD Paper Example: A Guide to Understand Scientific Writing

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

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

What Is An IMRaD Paper?

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

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

Structure Of An IMRaD Paper

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

Follow This IMRaD Paper Example

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Clear Communication Of Scientific Research

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

Your Creations, Ready Within Minutes

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Content tags

The Visual Communication Guy

Learn Visually. Communicate Powerfully.

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

Rogerian Method

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

How to Organize a Paper: The IMRaD Format

What is the IMRaD Format?

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

When Do I Use the IMRaD Format?

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

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

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

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

How Does the IMRaD Format Work?

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

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

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

Back to the Organization Memo

Other Formats

Indirect Method

Proposal Format

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Luciana b. sollaci.

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

Mauricio G. Pereira

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Paper Basics: IMRaD

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

What is IMRaD?

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

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

Outline of Scholarly Writing

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

Introduction

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

Method & Results

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

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

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

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

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

IMRAD Format

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

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

Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources pp 13–25 Cite as

Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format

• P. K. Ramachandran Nair 3 &
• Vimala D. Nair 4  
• First Online: 01 January 2014

4107 Accesses

7 Citations

Most scientific papers are prepared according to a format called IMRAD. The term represents the first letters of the words Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, And, Discussion. It indicates a pattern or format rather than a complete list of headings or components of research papers; the missing parts of a paper are: Title, Authors, Keywords, Abstract, Conclusions, and References. Additionally, some papers include Acknowledgments and Appendices. The Introduction explains the scope and objective of the study in the light of current knowledge on the subject; the Materials and Methods describes how the study was conducted; the Results section reports what was found in the study; and the Discussion section explains meaning and significance of the results and provides suggestions for future directions of research. The manuscript must be prepared according to the Journal’s instructions to authors.

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

Buying options

• 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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL, USA

P. K. Ramachandran Nair

Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Vimala D. Nair

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. K. Ramachandran Nair .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. In: Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03101-9_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03101-9_2

Published : 03 January 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-03100-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-03101-9

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (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

Structure of a Research Paper

Structure of a Research Paper: IMRaD Format

I. The Title Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. Discussion: Place for interpreting the results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133k Accesses

6 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study limitations

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Loraine Oriokot

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

William Buwembo & Ian G Munabi

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

Stephen C Kijjambu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian G Munabi .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

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

Authors’ original submitted files for images

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

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2010

Accepted : 21 July 2011

Published : 21 July 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• publications
• undergraduate

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

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

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

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

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

• Homework Q&A
• Become a Tutor

All Subjects

Mathematics

Programming

Health & Medical

Engineering

Computer Science

Foreign Languages

Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Sample quantitative research imrad format.

Sign up to view the full document!

24/7 Homework Help

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

Similar Documents

working on a homework question?

Studypool is powered by Microtutoring TM

Copyright © 2024. Studypool Inc.

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

Ongoing Conversations

Access over 20 million homework documents through the notebank

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

Read 1000s of rich book guides covering popular titles

Sign up with Google

Sign up with Facebook

Already have an account? Login

Login with Google

Login with Facebook

Don't have an account? Sign Up