parts of a research paper imrad

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.

Discussion about this post

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

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 Paper Basics: IMRaD

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

What is IMRaD?

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

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

Outline of Scholarly Writing

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

Introduction

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

Method & Results

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

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

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

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

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

IMRAD Format

• Writing Center | George Mason University
• IMRAD Outlining | Excelsior College
• Florida Atlantic University Libraries
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Group Project Tools >>
• Last Updated: Aug 7, 2024 3:54 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ccga.edu/researchbasics

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

The IMRAD Structure

• First Online: 13 December 2017

Cite this chapter

• Gitanjali Batmanabane 3  

1360 Accesses

5 Citations

IMRAD refers to the format in which most biomedical journals publish an original research paper. This framework for a scientific paper spells out how a manuscript should be presented. The letter I stands for Introduction, the M for Methods, the R for Results, the A for And and the D for Discussion. The origin of this format is somewhat hazy; however, Louis Pasteur is said to be the first person who published his work in this format. (1) The format was later made more popular by the famous British statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill, (2) who worked with the Medical Research Council of the UK and was also a statistical consultant for the British Medical Journal .

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reporting of Basic Statistical Methods in Biomedical Journals: Improved SAMPL Guidelines

Akaike Memorial Lecture 2020: Some of the challenges of statistical applications

How to Evaluate Biomedical Research Publications Rigorously

Day RA. The origins of the scientific paper: the IMRAD format. AMWA J. 1989;4:16–8.

Google Scholar  

Bradford Hill A. The reasons for writing. Br Med J. 1965;2:870–1.

Article   Google Scholar  

Medawar PB. Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Saturday Review; 1 Aug 1964. p. 42–3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

Gitanjali Batmanabane

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplantation, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India

Peush Sahni

Department of Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Rakesh Aggarwal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The National Medical Journal of India

About this chapter

Batmanabane, G. (2018). The IMRAD Structure. In: Sahni, P., Aggarwal, R. (eds) Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_1

Published : 13 December 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-7061-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-7062-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (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

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
• PMC10802960

How, and why, science and health researchers read scientific (IMRAD) papers

Frances shiely.

1 Trials Research and Methodologies Unit, HRB Clinical Research Facility, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

2 School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Kerrie Gallagher

Seán r. millar, associated data.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available https://osf.io/up4ny/ .

The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section.

Study design and setting

An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn.

Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order.

Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports.

Introduction

Reporting in the form of a peer-reviewed research paper, also known as a journal publication or research manuscript, is essential to the healthcare and science professions. The skill of writing a peer reviewed paper is highly specialized and challenging. It is also a challenge to teach this skill, yet it is essential to do so, as students are often required to engage with complex academic texts as well as write scientific reports [ 1 – 3 ]. Other cited reasons are: (i) increasing scientific literacy; (ii) staying informed of progress in a particular field of study; (iii) understanding the causation, clinical features, and natural history of a disease; (iv) evaluating the effectiveness of diagnostic tests and clinical therapies; and (v) determining whether there is support for or opposition to a particular argument [ 4 – 6 ]. Additionally, it is imperative that the reader is able to identify robustly designed research in order to make informed recommendations regarding policy or patient care [ 7 ].

Currently, most healthcare research papers are presented in the IMRAD format: I ntroduction (why the authors decided to do the research), M ethods (how they did it and how they chose to analyse their results), R esults (what they found), A nd D iscussion (what they believe the results to mean) with a preceding abstract. However, there is no evidence-based research determining the suitability of this approach. Nevertheless, it provides a means for scientific communities to organise and structure their work effectively [ 8 ]. Within the scientific community, the approach is based on the notion that having a clear structure and procedures can help scientists produce better quality work. In addition, it is thought to reduce the risk of mistakes and oversights and ensure compliance with best practices in research (10). We know that the amount of time students spend reading academic material is estimated to be between seven and fourteen hours per week, which represents an important component of the academic schedule [ 3 , 9 , 10 ]. Therefore, research on the suitability of the IMRAD approach is important.

Professor Trisha Greenhalgh, author of the seminal text “How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare” suggests that if you are deciding whether a paper is worthy of study, you should do so based on the design of the methods section [ 11 ]. This is largely opinion based and is not predicated on clear evidence. Anecdotal evidence suggests people choose to read and examine research papers in different ways, but the literature is scant on the topic. One UK study attempts to address the strategies used by researchers and students when reading primary research [ 12 ]. The authors report that individuals at different career stages value different sections of scientific papers, with novice readers finding the methods and results sections to be particularly challenging to decipher [ 12 ]. Similarly, a study conducted in the US examined and compared how faculty members and students in an undergraduate science course engaged with a primary research article [ 13 ]. Faculty and students were able to demonstrate understanding of the research design at some point during the reading process, however, the faculty displayed this ability almost four times as often as students [ 13 ]. Both of these studies are limited in their capacity and generalisability as they are restricted to students and researchers in the biological sciences.

From a teaching and learning perspective, we are interested in knowing more about how science and health researchers read IMRAD research papers and the importance they place on each section. Our primary aim is to establish the order in which these researchers read an IMRAD formatted paper and why. By establishing this, educators can better craft their teaching to ensure that students understand the importance of each section, have the knowledge and skills necessary to write an effective scientific paper or report, and the ability to critically appraise the work of others.

Materials and methods

The survey ( S1 File ) was created on Google Forms by two members of the research team (KG and FS) and independently reviewed by two reviewers (ST and EM). The survey had three parts. Part 1 was concerned with written informed consent. When participants clicked the link, they were brought the informed consent page which provided details of the study, what was required from them, knowledge of the voluntary nature of the participation and right to withdraw at any stage, and the contact details of the principal investigator. To proceed, participants had to select either I consent to participate, which brought the participants to Part 2 of the survey, or I do not consent to participate, which meant the participants exited the survey. Part 2 of the survey collected data concerning the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Part 3 focused on questions pertaining to the order in which researchers read a primary research paper, how easy it is to read each of the sections (based on a 7-point scale) and how important each section of a primary research paper is for its understanding. The survey also assessed when a reader stops reading and why. The style of questions was mixed and included Likert scale ratings and closed and open-ended questions. Ethical approval was granted by the Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC), University College Cork (Log 2021–165). Participants provided written informed consent.

Recruitment

This was an online survey and recruitment was online. Inclusion criteria were: academics, health professionals, and patients and members of the public, involved in science or health research and/or teaching. Exclusion criterion was: under 18 years of age. Our recruitment strategy was to target academics, researchers and patient and public involvement members of our existing networks, all who work within or are affiliated with Universities in the UK, Ireland and Canada. The lead author, FS, is primarily associated with clinical trial networks. An email of invitation outlining the aim of the study and survey link was sent electronically via the Health Research Trial Methodology Research Network (HRB TMRN), Ireland (~3000 subscribers), Medial Research Council-National Institutes of Health and Care Research-Trial Methodology Research Partnership (MRC-NIHR-TMRP), UK, locally at University, University College Cork (all academic and research staff—~2500 people), via X, formerly known as Twitter (@FrancesShiely; @hrbtmrn) which was forwarded and liked and via LinkedIn (FS account). FS also distributed the link to her academic research partners in Ireland, UK, Hungary, Czech Republic, France, and Canada and asked them to forward to their respective Universities and contacts.

Statistical analysis

We obtained 152 responses to the survey, 139 of which completed answers to the order in which they read the research paper. These were included in the analyses. Descriptive characteristics were examined for the full sample. Likert scale answers to reading order, perceived difficulty and perceived importance questions for each research paper section are shown as percentages. Reading order, perceived difficulty and importance ranking were also examined according to career stage. Observations were independent, with no individuals belonging to more than one career stage group. Relationships between perceived difficulty ranking, perceived importance ranking and research paper reading order were also examined using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Data analysis was conducted using Stata SE Version 13 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) for Windows. For all analyses, a p value (two-tailed) of less than .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Qualitative variables were summarised according to the most frequent occurrence to provide a picture on the reasons participants chose to read a paper in their chosen format.

Table 1 shows descriptive characteristics of the study respondents. The majority of subjects were female (61.2%), 90.7% were under 60 years of age and 94.7% reside in Europe. Study respondents included MSc and PhD students (n = 17), early-career researchers (n = 39), mid-career researchers (n = 36) and established/leading researchers and research managers (n = 39). A majority (88.5%) worked in academic research at a university or college, with 61.9% indicating both research and teaching responsibilities. Almost 90% of respondents stated that they were experienced in reading a research paper.

Reading order, perceived difficulty and perceived importance for IRMAD sections

Fig 1 shows research paper reading order according to each section. A majority of respondents (98.6%) indicated that they read the abstract section first when reading a scientific paper, with 36.0% (Introduction), 29.5% (Methods), 36.0% (Results–text), 31.7% (Results–figures & tables), 43.9% (Discussion) and 36.7% (Conclusion) of subjects stating that they read these sections second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and last, respectively. Noticeably, a majority of respondents indicated that they did not read a paper in the IMRAD order; for instance, while over one-third of respondents stated that they read the Introduction section second, 64.0% did not, with just over one-fifth (20.9%) indicating that they read this section last.

We asked respondents why they read in their preferred order. For the 98.6% (149/152) who selected the abstract first, the reasons can be summarised as the fact the abstract gives an overview or summary of the paper and it allows one to see if the paper is worth continuing reading (“the abstract gives the summary and informs as to whether I will read the whole paper”, “abstract gives a feel for quality of the paper”, “fast and easy”, “the abstract has the main points and is usually freely available”). We were interested in what respondents read after the abstract. For those who read the introduction second, i.e., the IMRAD format (only two read the introduction first), the dominant reason was because it’s logical to read in the order it’s presented (“it’s the logical order”, “I usually read papers in the order it is written”). For those who chose the methods second, 21.2% (31/146) the reasons can be themed as to ensure robustness or quality of the study (“methods to understand whether it was well conducted”, “checking the methods to ensure it is relevant to me”, “understand how the methods led to such results”, “is this something I can trust”). Only 15 people read the results section second, regardless of whether it was the results-text or results-figures & tables. The key reasons for reading the results second can be summarised as establishing the findings (“get right to the results”, “results to understand the main findings”, “the results are arguably the most important part of the document”, “do the results show what they are saying?”). Those choosing to read the discussion second, 8.1% (12/149), did so to establish the key findings (“the discussion and conclusion is the essence of what the study found”, “discussion and conclusion are most interesting”, “discussion to see if anything interesting came out of the results”). For those who read the conclusion second, 17% (25/146), the reasons are summarised as establishing the overall view of the paper and if the research is of value “see if a paper of value”, “know if it’s useful to me”, “final result/outcome”, “overall view”, “clarifies what the author perceives to have been achieved”, “I read the conclusions to build on the summary conclusions of the abstract”.

To explore perceived difficulty when reading a research paper, participants were asked to rank a series of questions according to reading difficulty on a 7-point scale, 1 being the easiest and 7 being the most difficult ( Fig 2 ). Similar to reading order, a majority (75.0%) of respondents stated that they found the Abstract section to be easiest to read (rank 1). The Introduction and Conclusion sections were perceived as next easiest, respectively. Taking the blue and orange together (ranks 1 and 2) the same trend applies. On the opposite end of the scale (rank 7-most difficult, the dark navy colour), the Results-figures & tables section, was perceived to be most difficult (26.3%), followed by the Methods (25.6%) and Results-text (17.3%).

Perceived importance for each section was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ( Fig 3 ). The Abstract and Methods sections were perceived as very important by 62.4% and 58.8% of respondents, respectively. Although few respondents perceived any section as unimportant or very unimportant, only 29.5%, 31.8% and 32.6% of subjects believed that the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion sections were very important.

Reading order and career stage

Fig 4 shows the different sections of the research paper in reading order according to career stage. Differences in reading order were noted, with the greatest differences in reading order observed in the Results-text, Results-figures & tables and Discussion sections. Notably, 46.2% of established/leading researchers or research managers read the Results-text section fourth (in IMRAD order), compared to 29.4% of MSc by research/PhD students and 28.2% of mid-career researchers who did so. Similarly, a higher percentage of established/leading researchers or research managers indicated reading the Results-figures & tables and Discussion sections according to IMRAD reading order when compared to other career stages.

Perceived difficulty and importance for each section according to career stage

Perceived difficulty ranking and perceived importance ranking according to career stage, for each IMRAD section and the abstract, are shown in Figs ​ Figs5 5 and ​ and6. 6 . Consistent with results observed among all subjects, regardless of career stage, the Results-text and Results-figures & tables sections and Discussion sections were perceived as most difficult to read. Differences were found to be greatest for the Conclusion section, with MSc by research or PhD students being more likely to rank this section as difficult to read. With regard to the Introduction section, mid-career researchers were more likely to rank this section as important. Interestingly, MSc by research/PhD students were more likely to rank the Methods section as being important when compared to other career stages.

Correlations between perceived difficulty, importance and reading order

Spearman correlation coefficients between the ranking of perceived difficulty, perceived importance and reading order, according to each section, are shown in Table 2 . Significant correlations between perceived difficulty ranking and reading order were observed for the Methods (rho = 0.450, p < .001), Results-figures & tables (rho = 0.333, p < .001), Discussion (rho = 0.204, p = .018) and Conclusion (rho = 0.334, p < .001) sections, indicating that the easier a respondent perceived that section to read, the more likely they were to read it at an earlier stage. Significant correlations between perceived importance ranking and reading order were observed for the Introduction (rho = 0.467, p < .001), Methods (rho = 0.426, p < .001), Results (text) (rho = 0.250, p = .003), Results (figures & tables) (rho = 0.173, p = .048), Discussion (rho = 0.214, p = 0.14) and Conclusion (rho = 0.302, p < .001) sections, suggesting that the more important a respondent perceived that section to be, the more likely they were to read it at an earlier stage.

Values are presented as Spearman correlation coefficients (rho) between perceived difficulty ranking, perceived importance ranking and research paper reading order, for each section (n = 139).

Significant p highlighted .

When and why respondents stop reading a paper

We asked respondents why they stopped reading a research paper. The main sections were (in no particular order) results, introduction, methods and abstract. Of the 98.6% that read the abstract first, 28% (42/149) then stopped reading at this stage. The reason given in all cases is lack of relevance (“not relevant to my interests”, “will have identified if it is of relevance”). The main reasons for those that stop reading at the introduction is the writing style (“poorly written”, if the writing style is overly complex”, it’s too dense and not interesting”, not relevant, poorly conducted”. For those who stop reading at the results section, the main reasons given are the results are too complex or poorly explained (“it gets too difficult to understand”, “paper is not relevant”, “too complicated”, “it’s no longer relevant if results are not clear”). For those who stop reading at the methods section, the main reason is they are unclear or too difficult or there is a perception that the methods are not needed (“becomes technical and I don’t’ need more details”, the methods might not be interesting to what I am trying to learn from reading the paper”, generally for my work methods are not important”, not interested in it, I Know already by the methods if I ‘like’ the paper”, “most often the methodology is not clear enough”).

We know most research papers are published in IMRAD format, preceded by an abstract. We sought to establish if researchers, and at different career stages, typically read a paper in this way. We found that even though most researchers consider themselves experienced readers of primary research papers, respondents did not typically engage with the literature in IMRAD format. Reading strategies varied depending on perceived difficulty and perceived importance of the paper sections. The more important a respondent perceived the section to be, the more likely they were to read it at an earlier stage. Almost all science and health researchers read the abstract first, and a significant proportion stop reading there. The primary reason for stopping is lack of relevance.

We can see very clearly that the abstract is read first by most researchers, regardless of career stage, perceived to be the most important, and also perceived to be the easiest to read. While there isn’t prior research to compare this finding to, we surmise that it is because it is a summary of the overall paper, and a logical place to begin. It’s also possible that it is because it is presented first in all research papers, or for pay per view journals/papers it is usually available when the rest of a paper is beyond a paywall. It could be that researchers know the abstract is used by journal editors to decide if it is worth continuing to read a paper to decide if it should be peer-reviewed or it could be that the abstract is often used in systematic reviews when screening (typically title and abstract) and thus habitually researchers read it first. However, we don’t know any of this for sure and would need a qualitative study to confirm or refute these. We do know the reasons that a significant number of people stop reading the abstract and that is relevance, or the lack of it. Another consideration might be the reading level at which the abstract is pitched. We have conducted a previous study on the readability of trial lay summaries, which are written for a lay audience [ 14 ]. We found that no lay summary met the recommended reading age for health care information of 11–12 years. None of them were considered "easy" to read, in fact over 85% were considered "difficult" to read [ 14 ]. By extension we can assume the scientific abstract, which we have considered here, will be no better, and likely worse, and thus challenging for a novice researcher. We recommend that when teaching the skill of writing a scientific paper, or report, in the science or health research disciplines, teachers emphasise the importance of the abstract and give consideration to the target audience when formulating their approach. Online readability tools are readily available to assist the process, but we do not recommend relying on them solely [ 14 ].

Further evidence of the complexity of reading different parts of scientific papers is the response to the methods section. The evidence that does exist on how to read a paper suggests that if you are deciding whether a paper is worthy of study, you should do so based on the design of the methods section. As mentioned previously, this was opinion based rather than evidence based [ 3 ]. Our respondents typically considered the methods section to be of low importance on the 7-point Likert Scale and some stopped reading there due to the unclear language or technical nature of the section. This result was unexpected, as there is a general consensus in the scientific community that the methods section is considered one of the most important sections of any research paper, given that it provides essential insight into the conduct of the study and its integrity, the conclusions derived from them, and the reproducibility of the work [ 3 ]. Indeed, across several well recognized and validated critical appraisal tools, including the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) for Randomized Control Trials [ 15 ], the ROB 2.0 Risk of Bias Tool [ 16 ] and the ROBINS-I Risk of Bias for non-randomized (observational) studies [ 17 ], focus is directed towards systematically examining the methods section in order for the reader to determine the strength of the evidence presented, its reliability and relevance to clinical practice.

Strengths and weaknesses

We had a reasonable response (n = 139) but we are unable to calculate a response rate due to the mode of distribution, a significant weakness to the study. Our study likely demonstrates selection bias, given the known research networks through which the survey was distributed are all funded through academic grants and the majority of our respondents were academic researchers working in a University/College. The research would be enhanced if we had a larger response from non-profit organisations. There were only six respondents outside of Europe and this is a weakness in terms of generalisability. However, on the positive side, non-response bias was not evident, and we had a full dataset for 139 respondents.

Recommendations

The lessons for future practice are:

• Ensure your abstract gives enough detail to ensure relevance and pique interest because if you don’t, science and health researchers will lose interest and stop reading;
• Ensure the introduction is well written because if it is poorly written, you will lose the reader (we suggest using the freely available online readability scales, e.g., Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG), Gunning Fog (GF), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI) readability scales and paying attention to Plain Language guidelines [ 18 ], e.g., in the UK the Plain English UK guidelines are most relevant;
• Don’t make the methods section too technical. Find the balance between overcomplicating the methods and giving enough detail so the study can be replicated;
• Keep the results simple and explain them well.

Conclusions

This study provides an insight into the order in which IMRAD papers are read and the reasons for doing so. Existing evidence says that to determine if a paper is worthy of reading, you should read the methods section to decide. Our results refute this and show the methods section to be one of the sections perceived most difficult to read and also the least important. Our results show the importance of the abstract to the scientific and health research community, and we recommend when teaching the skill of scientific writing a particular focus is given to the abstract. Future research on this topic is welcome in a more diverse and larger sample.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank those who took the time to fill in our questionnaire.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund at University College Cork for a summer student scholarship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability