guideline for writing research report

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and Types

Table of Contents

Research Report

Definition:

Research Report is a written document that presents the results of a research project or study, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions, in a clear and objective manner.

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the findings of the research to the intended audience, which could be other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public.

Components of Research Report

Components of Research Report are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the research report and provides a brief overview of the research question or problem being investigated. It should include a clear statement of the purpose of the study and its significance or relevance to the field of research. It may also provide background information or a literature review to help contextualize the research.

Literature Review

The literature review provides a critical analysis and synthesis of the existing research and scholarship relevant to the research question or problem. It should identify the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the literature and show how the current study addresses these issues. The literature review also establishes the theoretical framework or conceptual model that guides the research.

Methodology

The methodology section describes the research design, methods, and procedures used to collect and analyze data. It should include information on the sample or participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. The methodology should be clear and detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the study in a clear and objective manner. It should provide a detailed description of the data and statistics used to answer the research question or test the hypothesis. Tables, graphs, and figures may be included to help visualize the data and illustrate the key findings.

The discussion section interprets the results of the study and explains their significance or relevance to the research question or problem. It should also compare the current findings with those of previous studies and identify the implications for future research or practice. The discussion should be based on the results presented in the previous section and should avoid speculation or unfounded conclusions.

The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the study and restates the main argument or thesis presented in the introduction. It should also provide a brief overview of the contributions of the study to the field of research and the implications for practice or policy.

The references section lists all the sources cited in the research report, following a specific citation style, such as APA or MLA.

The appendices section includes any additional material, such as data tables, figures, or instruments used in the study, that could not be included in the main text due to space limitations.

Types of Research Report

Types of Research Report are as follows:

Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master’s or Doctoral degree, although it can also be written by researchers or scholars in other fields.

Research Paper

Research paper is a type of research report. A research paper is a document that presents the results of a research study or investigation. Research papers can be written in a variety of fields, including science, social science, humanities, and business. They typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Technical Report

A technical report is a detailed report that provides information about a specific technical or scientific problem or project. Technical reports are often used in engineering, science, and other technical fields to document research and development work.

Progress Report

A progress report provides an update on the progress of a research project or program over a specific period of time. Progress reports are typically used to communicate the status of a project to stakeholders, funders, or project managers.

Feasibility Report

A feasibility report assesses the feasibility of a proposed project or plan, providing an analysis of the potential risks, benefits, and costs associated with the project. Feasibility reports are often used in business, engineering, and other fields to determine the viability of a project before it is undertaken.

Field Report

A field report documents observations and findings from fieldwork, which is research conducted in the natural environment or setting. Field reports are often used in anthropology, ecology, and other social and natural sciences.

Experimental Report

An experimental report documents the results of a scientific experiment, including the hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions. Experimental reports are often used in biology, chemistry, and other sciences to communicate the results of laboratory experiments.

Case Study Report

A case study report provides an in-depth analysis of a specific case or situation, often used in psychology, social work, and other fields to document and understand complex cases or phenomena.

Literature Review Report

A literature review report synthesizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge on the subject. Literature review reports are often used in social sciences, education, and other fields to identify gaps in the literature and guide future research.

Research Report Example

Following is a Research Report Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Academic Performance among High School Students

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students. The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The findings indicate that there is a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students. The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers, as they highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities.

Introduction:

Social media has become an integral part of the lives of high school students. With the widespread use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, students can connect with friends, share photos and videos, and engage in discussions on a range of topics. While social media offers many benefits, concerns have been raised about its impact on academic performance. Many studies have found a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance among high school students (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012).

Given the growing importance of social media in the lives of high school students, it is important to investigate its impact on academic performance. This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance among high school students.

Methodology:

The study utilized a quantitative research design, which involved a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 200 high school students. The questionnaire was developed based on previous studies and was designed to measure the frequency and duration of social media use, as well as academic performance.

The participants were selected using a convenience sampling technique, and the survey questionnaire was distributed in the classroom during regular school hours. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

The findings indicate that the majority of high school students use social media platforms on a daily basis, with Facebook being the most popular platform. The results also show a negative correlation between social media use and academic performance, suggesting that excessive social media use can lead to poor academic performance among high school students.

Discussion:

The results of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. The negative correlation between social media use and academic performance suggests that strategies should be put in place to help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. For example, educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides evidence of the negative impact of social media on academic performance among high school students. The findings highlight the need for strategies that can help students balance their social media use and academic responsibilities. Further research is needed to explore the specific mechanisms by which social media use affects academic performance and to develop effective strategies for addressing this issue.

Limitations:

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future studies should use random sampling techniques to increase the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation is the use of self-reported measures, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future studies could use objective measures of social media use and academic performance, such as tracking software and school records.

Implications:

The findings of this study have important implications for educators, parents, and policymakers. Educators could incorporate social media into their teaching strategies to engage students and enhance learning. For example, teachers could use social media platforms to share relevant educational resources and facilitate online discussions. Parents could limit their children’s social media use and encourage them to prioritize their academic responsibilities. They could also engage in open communication with their children to understand their social media use and its impact on their academic performance. Policymakers could develop guidelines and policies to regulate social media use among high school students. For example, schools could implement social media policies that restrict access during class time and encourage responsible use.

References:

• Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
• Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 1-19.
• Pantic, I. (2014). Online social networking and mental health. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 652-657.
• Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948-958.

Note*: Above mention, Example is just a sample for the students’ guide. Do not directly copy and paste as your College or University assignment. Kindly do some research and Write your own.

Applications of Research Report

Research reports have many applications, including:

• Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field.
• Informing policy and practice : Research reports can inform policy and practice by providing evidence-based recommendations for decision-makers. For example, a research report on the effectiveness of a new drug could inform regulatory agencies in their decision-making process.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research in a particular area. Other researchers may use the findings and methodology of a report to develop new research questions or to build on existing research.
• Evaluating programs and interventions : Research reports can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. For example, a research report on a new educational program could provide evidence of its impact on student performance.
• Demonstrating impact : Research reports can be used to demonstrate the impact of research funding or to evaluate the success of research projects. By presenting the findings and outcomes of a study, research reports can show the value of research to funders and stakeholders.
• Enhancing professional development : Research reports can be used to enhance professional development by providing a source of information and learning for researchers and practitioners in a particular field. For example, a research report on a new teaching methodology could provide insights and ideas for educators to incorporate into their own practice.

How to write Research Report

Here are some steps you can follow to write a research report:

• Identify the research question: The first step in writing a research report is to identify your research question. This will help you focus your research and organize your findings.
• Conduct research : Once you have identified your research question, you will need to conduct research to gather relevant data and information. This can involve conducting experiments, reviewing literature, or analyzing data.
• Organize your findings: Once you have gathered all of your data, you will need to organize your findings in a way that is clear and understandable. This can involve creating tables, graphs, or charts to illustrate your results.
• Write the report: Once you have organized your findings, you can begin writing the report. Start with an introduction that provides background information and explains the purpose of your research. Next, provide a detailed description of your research methods and findings. Finally, summarize your results and draw conclusions based on your findings.
• Proofread and edit: After you have written your report, be sure to proofread and edit it carefully. Check for grammar and spelling errors, and make sure that your report is well-organized and easy to read.
• Include a reference list: Be sure to include a list of references that you used in your research. This will give credit to your sources and allow readers to further explore the topic if they choose.
• Format your report: Finally, format your report according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or organization. This may include formatting requirements for headings, margins, fonts, and spacing.

Purpose of Research Report

The purpose of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a specific audience, such as peers in the same field, stakeholders, or the general public. The report provides a detailed description of the research methods, findings, and conclusions.

Some common purposes of a research report include:

• Sharing knowledge: A research report allows researchers to share their findings and knowledge with others in their field. This helps to advance the field and improve the understanding of a particular topic.
• Identifying trends: A research report can identify trends and patterns in data, which can help guide future research and inform decision-making.
• Addressing problems: A research report can provide insights into problems or issues and suggest solutions or recommendations for addressing them.
• Evaluating programs or interventions : A research report can evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions, which can inform decision-making about whether to continue, modify, or discontinue them.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies.

When to Write Research Report

A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

In academic settings, research reports are often required as part of coursework or as part of a thesis or dissertation. In this case, the report should be written according to the guidelines provided by the instructor or institution.

In other settings, such as in industry or government, research reports may be required to inform decision-making or to comply with regulatory requirements. In these cases, the report should be written as soon as possible after the research is completed in order to inform decision-making in a timely manner.

Overall, the timing of when to write a research report depends on the purpose of the research, the expectations of the audience, and any regulatory requirements that need to be met. However, it is important to complete the report in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher’s mind.

Characteristics of Research Report

There are several characteristics of a research report that distinguish it from other types of writing. These characteristics include:

• Objective: A research report should be written in an objective and unbiased manner. It should present the facts and findings of the research study without any personal opinions or biases.
• Systematic: A research report should be written in a systematic manner. It should follow a clear and logical structure, and the information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand and follow.
• Detailed: A research report should be detailed and comprehensive. It should provide a thorough description of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research report should be accurate and based on sound research methods. The findings and conclusions should be supported by data and evidence.
• Organized: A research report should be well-organized. It should include headings and subheadings to help the reader navigate the report and understand the main points.
• Clear and concise: A research report should be written in clear and concise language. The information should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, and unnecessary jargon should be avoided.
• Citations and references: A research report should include citations and references to support the findings and conclusions. This helps to give credit to other researchers and to provide readers with the opportunity to further explore the topic.

Advantages of Research Report

Research reports have several advantages, including:

• Communicating research findings: Research reports allow researchers to communicate their findings to a wider audience, including other researchers, stakeholders, and the general public. This helps to disseminate knowledge and advance the understanding of a particular topic.
• Providing evidence for decision-making : Research reports can provide evidence to inform decision-making, such as in the case of policy-making, program planning, or product development. The findings and conclusions can help guide decisions and improve outcomes.
• Supporting further research: Research reports can provide a foundation for further research on a particular topic. Other researchers can build on the findings and conclusions of the report, which can lead to further discoveries and advancements in the field.
• Demonstrating expertise: Research reports can demonstrate the expertise of the researchers and their ability to conduct rigorous and high-quality research. This can be important for securing funding, promotions, and other professional opportunities.
• Meeting regulatory requirements: In some fields, research reports are required to meet regulatory requirements, such as in the case of drug trials or environmental impact studies. Producing a high-quality research report can help ensure compliance with these requirements.

Limitations of Research Report

Despite their advantages, research reports also have some limitations, including:

• Time-consuming: Conducting research and writing a report can be a time-consuming process, particularly for large-scale studies. This can limit the frequency and speed of producing research reports.
• Expensive: Conducting research and producing a report can be expensive, particularly for studies that require specialized equipment, personnel, or data. This can limit the scope and feasibility of some research studies.
• Limited generalizability: Research studies often focus on a specific population or context, which can limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations or contexts.
• Potential bias : Researchers may have biases or conflicts of interest that can influence the findings and conclusions of the research study. Additionally, participants may also have biases or may not be representative of the larger population, which can limit the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Accessibility: Research reports may be written in technical or academic language, which can limit their accessibility to a wider audience. Additionally, some research may be behind paywalls or require specialized access, which can limit the ability of others to read and use the findings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

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

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

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

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

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

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

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

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

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

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

These three steps are:

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

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

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

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

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

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

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Write and refine

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

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

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

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

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

Recap: Key Takeaways

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

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

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

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Research Report: Definition, Types + [Writing Guide]

One of the reasons for carrying out research is to add to the existing body of knowledge. Therefore, when conducting research, you need to document your processes and findings in a research report. 

With a research report, it is easy to outline the findings of your systematic investigation and any gaps needing further inquiry. Knowing how to create a detailed research report will prove useful when you need to conduct research.  

What is a Research Report?

A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.

In many ways, a research report can be considered as a summary of the research process that clearly highlights findings, recommendations, and other important details. Reading a well-written research report should provide you with all the information you need about the core areas of the research process.

Features of a Research Report 

So how do you recognize a research report when you see one? Here are some of the basic features that define a research report. 

• It is a detailed presentation of research processes and findings, and it usually includes tables and graphs. 
• It is written in a formal language.
• A research report is usually written in the third person.
• It is informative and based on first-hand verifiable information.
• It is formally structured with headings, sections, and bullet points.
• It always includes recommendations for future actions. 

Types of Research Report 

The research report is classified based on two things; nature of research and target audience.

Nature of Research

• Qualitative Research Report

This is the type of report written for qualitative research . It outlines the methods, processes, and findings of a qualitative method of systematic investigation. In educational research, a qualitative research report provides an opportunity for one to apply his or her knowledge and develop skills in planning and executing qualitative research projects.

A qualitative research report is usually descriptive in nature. Hence, in addition to presenting details of the research process, you must also create a descriptive narrative of the information.

• Quantitative Research Report

A quantitative research report is a type of research report that is written for quantitative research. Quantitative research is a type of systematic investigation that pays attention to numerical or statistical values in a bid to find answers to research questions. 

In this type of research report, the researcher presents quantitative data to support the research process and findings. Unlike a qualitative research report that is mainly descriptive, a quantitative research report works with numbers; that is, it is numerical in nature. 

Target Audience

Also, a research report can be said to be technical or popular based on the target audience. If you’re dealing with a general audience, you would need to present a popular research report, and if you’re dealing with a specialized audience, you would submit a technical report. 

• Technical Research Report

A technical research report is a detailed document that you present after carrying out industry-based research. This report is highly specialized because it provides information for a technical audience; that is, individuals with above-average knowledge in the field of study. 

In a technical research report, the researcher is expected to provide specific information about the research process, including statistical analyses and sampling methods. Also, the use of language is highly specialized and filled with jargon. 

Examples of technical research reports include legal and medical research reports. 

• Popular Research Report

A popular research report is one for a general audience; that is, for individuals who do not necessarily have any knowledge in the field of study. A popular research report aims to make information accessible to everyone. 

It is written in very simple language, which makes it easy to understand the findings and recommendations. Examples of popular research reports are the information contained in newspapers and magazines. 

Importance of a Research Report 

• Knowledge Transfer: As already stated above, one of the reasons for carrying out research is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, and this is made possible with a research report. A research report serves as a means to effectively communicate the findings of a systematic investigation to all and sundry.  
• Identification of Knowledge Gaps: With a research report, you’d be able to identify knowledge gaps for further inquiry. A research report shows what has been done while hinting at other areas needing systematic investigation. 
• In market research, a research report would help you understand the market needs and peculiarities at a glance. 
• A research report allows you to present information in a precise and concise manner. 
• It is time-efficient and practical because, in a research report, you do not have to spend time detailing the findings of your research work in person. You can easily send out the report via email and have stakeholders look at it. 

Guide to Writing a Research Report

A lot of detail goes into writing a research report, and getting familiar with the different requirements would help you create the ideal research report. A research report is usually broken down into multiple sections, which allows for a concise presentation of information.

Structure and Example of a Research Report

This is the title of your systematic investigation. Your title should be concise and point to the aims, objectives, and findings of a research report. 

• Table of Contents

This is like a compass that makes it easier for readers to navigate the research report.

An abstract is an overview that highlights all important aspects of the research including the research method, data collection process, and research findings. Think of an abstract as a summary of your research report that presents pertinent information in a concise manner. 

An abstract is always brief; typically 100-150 words and goes straight to the point. The focus of your research abstract should be the 5Ws and 1H format – What, Where, Why, When, Who and How. 

• Introduction

Here, the researcher highlights the aims and objectives of the systematic investigation as well as the problem which the systematic investigation sets out to solve. When writing the report introduction, it is also essential to indicate whether the purposes of the research were achieved or would require more work.

In the introduction section, the researcher specifies the research problem and also outlines the significance of the systematic investigation. Also, the researcher is expected to outline any jargons and terminologies that are contained in the research.  

• Literature Review

A literature review is a written survey of existing knowledge in the field of study. In other words, it is the section where you provide an overview and analysis of different research works that are relevant to your systematic investigation. 

It highlights existing research knowledge and areas needing further investigation, which your research has sought to fill. At this stage, you can also hint at your research hypothesis and its possible implications for the existing body of knowledge in your field of study. 

• An Account of Investigation

This is a detailed account of the research process, including the methodology, sample, and research subjects. Here, you are expected to provide in-depth information on the research process including the data collection and analysis procedures. 

In a quantitative research report, you’d need to provide information surveys, questionnaires and other quantitative data collection methods used in your research. In a qualitative research report, you are expected to describe the qualitative data collection methods used in your research including interviews and focus groups. 

In this section, you are expected to present the results of the systematic investigation. 

This section further explains the findings of the research, earlier outlined. Here, you are expected to present a justification for each outcome and show whether the results are in line with your hypotheses or if other research studies have come up with similar results.

• Conclusions

This is a summary of all the information in the report. It also outlines the significance of the entire study. 

• References and Appendices

This section contains a list of all the primary and secondary research sources. 

Tips for Writing a Research Report

• Define the Context for the Report

As is obtainable when writing an essay, defining the context for your research report would help you create a detailed yet concise document. This is why you need to create an outline before writing so that you do not miss out on anything. 

• Define your Audience

Writing with your audience in mind is essential as it determines the tone of the report. If you’re writing for a general audience, you would want to present the information in a simple and relatable manner. For a specialized audience, you would need to make use of technical and field-specific terms. 

• Include Significant Findings

The idea of a research report is to present some sort of abridged version of your systematic investigation. In your report, you should exclude irrelevant information while highlighting only important data and findings. 

• Include Illustrations

Your research report should include illustrations and other visual representations of your data. Graphs, pie charts, and relevant images lend additional credibility to your systematic investigation.

• Choose the Right Title

A good research report title is brief, precise, and contains keywords from your research. It should provide a clear idea of your systematic investigation so that readers can grasp the entire focus of your research from the title. 

• Proofread the Report

Before publishing the document, ensure that you give it a second look to authenticate the information. If you can, get someone else to go through the report, too, and you can also run it through proofreading and editing software. 

How to Gather Research Data for Your Report  

• Understand the Problem

Every research aims at solving a specific problem or set of problems, and this should be at the back of your mind when writing your research report. Understanding the problem would help you to filter the information you have and include only important data in your report. 

• Know what your report seeks to achieve

This is somewhat similar to the point above because, in some way, the aim of your research report is intertwined with the objectives of your systematic investigation. Identifying the primary purpose of writing a research report would help you to identify and present the required information accordingly. 

• Identify your audience

Knowing your target audience plays a crucial role in data collection for a research report. If your research report is specifically for an organization, you would want to present industry-specific information or show how the research findings are relevant to the work that the company does. 

• Create Surveys/Questionnaires

A survey is a research method that is used to gather data from a specific group of people through a set of questions. It can be either quantitative or qualitative. 

A survey is usually made up of structured questions, and it can be administered online or offline. However, an online survey is a more effective method of research data collection because it helps you save time and gather data with ease. 

You can seamlessly create an online questionnaire for your research on Formplus . With the multiple sharing options available in the builder, you would be able to administer your survey to respondents in little or no time. 

Formplus also has a report summary too l that you can use to create custom visual reports for your research.

Step-by-step guide on how to create an online questionnaire using Formplus  

• Sign into Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create different online questionnaires for your research by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus. 

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on Create new form to begin. 

• Edit Form Title : Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Research Questionnaire.”
• Edit Form : Click on the edit icon to edit the form.
• Add Fields : Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form in the Formplus builder inputs column. There are several field input options for questionnaires in the Formplus builder. 
• Edit fields
• Click on “Save”
• Form Customization: With the form customization options in the form builder, you can easily change the outlook of your form and make it more unique and personalized. Formplus allows you to change your form theme, add background images, and even change the font according to your needs. 
• Multiple Sharing Options: Formplus offers various form-sharing options, which enables you to share your questionnaire with respondents easily. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your organization’s social media pages.  You can also send out your survey form as email invitations to your research subjects too. If you wish, you can share your form’s QR code or embed it on your organization’s website for easy access. 

Conclusion  

Always remember that a research report is just as important as the actual systematic investigation because it plays a vital role in communicating research findings to everyone else. This is why you must take care to create a concise document summarizing the process of conducting any research. 

In this article, we’ve outlined essential tips to help you create a research report. When writing your report, you should always have the audience at the back of your mind, as this would set the tone for the document. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• ethnographic research survey
• research report
• research report survey
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

In this article, we will discuss a number of chrome extensions you can use to make your research process even seamless

Ethnographic Research: Types, Methods + [Question Examples]

Simple guide on ethnographic research, it types, methods, examples and advantages. Also highlights how to conduct an ethnographic...

How to Write a Problem Statement for your Research

Learn how to write problem statements before commencing any research effort. Learn about its structure and explore examples

Assessment Tools: Types, Examples & Importance

In this article, you’ll learn about different assessment tools to help you evaluate performance in various contexts

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Scientific Reports

What this handout is about.

This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.

Background and pre-writing

Why do we write research reports.

You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?

To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.

So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:

• They want to gather the information presented.
• They want to know that the findings are legitimate.

Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.

How do I do that?

Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:

• Introduction

Methods and Materials

This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.

The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.

Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.

Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.

What should I do before drafting the lab report?

The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:

• What are we going to do in this lab? (That is, what’s the procedure?)
• Why are we going to do it that way?
• What are we hoping to learn from this experiment?
• Why would we benefit from this knowledge?
• Consult your lab supervisor as you perform the lab. If you don’t know how to answer one of the questions above, for example, your lab supervisor will probably be able to explain it to you (or, at least, help you figure it out).
• Plan the steps of the experiment carefully with your lab partners. The less you rush, the more likely it is that you’ll perform the experiment correctly and record your findings accurately. Also, take some time to think about the best way to organize the data before you have to start putting numbers down. If you can design a table to account for the data, that will tend to work much better than jotting results down hurriedly on a scrap piece of paper.
• Record the data carefully so you get them right. You won’t be able to trust your conclusions if you have the wrong data, and your readers will know you messed up if the other three people in your group have “97 degrees” and you have “87.”
• Consult with your lab partners about everything you do. Lab groups often make one of two mistakes: two people do all the work while two have a nice chat, or everybody works together until the group finishes gathering the raw data, then scrams outta there. Collaborate with your partners, even when the experiment is “over.” What trends did you observe? Was the hypothesis supported? Did you all get the same results? What kind of figure should you use to represent your findings? The whole group can work together to answer these questions.
• Consider your audience. You may believe that audience is a non-issue: it’s your lab TA, right? Well, yes—but again, think beyond the classroom. If you write with only your lab instructor in mind, you may omit material that is crucial to a complete understanding of your experiment, because you assume the instructor knows all that stuff already. As a result, you may receive a lower grade, since your TA won’t be sure that you understand all the principles at work. Try to write towards a student in the same course but a different lab section. That student will have a fair degree of scientific expertise but won’t know much about your experiment particularly. Alternatively, you could envision yourself five years from now, after the reading and lectures for this course have faded a bit. What would you remember, and what would you need explained more clearly (as a refresher)?

Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.

Introductions

How do i write a strong introduction.

For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.

The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.

For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.

As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.

Not a hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”

Hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”

Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.

Justify your hypothesis

You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?

Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.

Background/previous research

This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.

Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.

Organization of this section

Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:

“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”

Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.

How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?

As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.

Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.

With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.

Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:

• How much detail? Be precise in providing details, but stay relevant. Ask yourself, “Would it make any difference if this piece were a different size or made from a different material?” If not, you probably don’t need to get too specific. If so, you should give as many details as necessary to prevent this experiment from going awry if someone else tries to carry it out. Probably the most crucial detail is measurement; you should always quantify anything you can, such as time elapsed, temperature, mass, volume, etc.
• Rationale: Be sure that as you’re relating your actions during the experiment, you explain your rationale for the protocol you developed. If you capped a test tube immediately after adding a solute to a solvent, why did you do that? (That’s really two questions: why did you cap it, and why did you cap it immediately?) In a professional setting, writers provide their rationale as a way to explain their thinking to potential critics. On one hand, of course, that’s your motivation for talking about protocol, too. On the other hand, since in practical terms you’re also writing to your teacher (who’s seeking to evaluate how well you comprehend the principles of the experiment), explaining the rationale indicates that you understand the reasons for conducting the experiment in that way, and that you’re not just following orders. Critical thinking is crucial—robots don’t make good scientists.
• Control: Most experiments will include a control, which is a means of comparing experimental results. (Sometimes you’ll need to have more than one control, depending on the number of hypotheses you want to test.) The control is exactly the same as the other items you’re testing, except that you don’t manipulate the independent variable-the condition you’re altering to check the effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you’re testing solubility rates at increased temperatures, your control would be a solution that you didn’t heat at all; that way, you’ll see how quickly the solute dissolves “naturally” (i.e., without manipulation), and you’ll have a point of reference against which to compare the solutions you did heat.

Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:

“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”

Structure and style

Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.

• Subsections: Occasionally, researchers use subsections to report their procedure when the following circumstances apply: 1) if they’ve used a great many materials; 2) if the procedure is unusually complicated; 3) if they’ve developed a procedure that won’t be familiar to many of their readers. Because these conditions rarely apply to the experiments you’ll perform in class, most undergraduate lab reports won’t require you to use subsections. In fact, many guides to writing lab reports suggest that you try to limit your Methods section to a single paragraph.
• Narrative structure: Think of this section as telling a story about a group of people and the experiment they performed. Describe what you did in the order in which you did it. You may have heard the old joke centered on the line, “Disconnect the red wire, but only after disconnecting the green wire,” where the person reading the directions blows everything to kingdom come because the directions weren’t in order. We’re used to reading about events chronologically, and so your readers will generally understand what you did if you present that information in the same way. Also, since the Methods section does generally appear as a narrative (story), you want to avoid the “recipe” approach: “First, take a clean, dry 100 ml test tube from the rack. Next, add 50 ml of distilled water.” You should be reporting what did happen, not telling the reader how to perform the experiment: “50 ml of distilled water was poured into a clean, dry 100 ml test tube.” Hint: most of the time, the recipe approach comes from copying down the steps of the procedure from your lab manual, so you may want to draft the Methods section initially without consulting your manual. Later, of course, you can go back and fill in any part of the procedure you inadvertently overlooked.
• Past tense: Remember that you’re describing what happened, so you should use past tense to refer to everything you did during the experiment. Writers are often tempted to use the imperative (“Add 5 g of the solid to the solution”) because that’s how their lab manuals are worded; less frequently, they use present tense (“5 g of the solid are added to the solution”). Instead, remember that you’re talking about an event which happened at a particular time in the past, and which has already ended by the time you start writing, so simple past tense will be appropriate in this section (“5 g of the solid were added to the solution” or “We added 5 g of the solid to the solution”).
• Active: We heated the solution to 80°C. (The subject, “we,” performs the action, heating.)
• Passive: The solution was heated to 80°C. (The subject, “solution,” doesn’t do the heating–it is acted upon, not acting.)

Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.

How do I write a strong Results section?

Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.

Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.

Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.

This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:

“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”

“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”

If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.

Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:

“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”

This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.

As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)

You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.

Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?

As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.

As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:

As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.

When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:

• Number your table. Then, when you refer to the table in the text, use that number to tell your readers which table they can review to clarify the material.
• Give your table a title. This title should be descriptive enough to communicate the contents of the table, but not so long that it becomes difficult to follow. The titles in the sample tables above are acceptable.
• Arrange your table so that readers read vertically, not horizontally. For the most part, this rule means that you should construct your table so that like elements read down, not across. Think about what you want your readers to compare, and put that information in the column (up and down) rather than in the row (across). Usually, the point of comparison will be the numerical data you collect, so especially make sure you have columns of numbers, not rows.Here’s an example of how drastically this decision affects the readability of your table (from A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry , by Herbert Beall and John Trimbur). Look at this table, which presents the relevant data in horizontal rows:

It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:

The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.

• Make sure to include units of measurement in the tables. Readers might be able to guess that you measured something in millimeters, but don’t make them try.
• Don’t use vertical lines as part of the format for your table. This convention exists because journals prefer not to have to reproduce these lines because the tables then become more expensive to print. Even though it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll be sending your Biology 11 lab report to Science for publication, your readers still have this expectation. Consequently, if you use the table-drawing option in your word-processing software, choose the option that doesn’t rely on a “grid” format (which includes vertical lines).

How do I include figures in my report?

Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.

When should you use a figure?

Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.

If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.

Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.

Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.

At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.

Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:

• Keep it as simple as possible. You may be tempted to signal the complexity of the information you gathered by trying to design a graph that accounts for that complexity. But remember the purpose of your graph: to dramatize your results in a manner that’s easy to see and grasp. Try not to make the reader stare at the graph for a half hour to find the important line among the mass of other lines. For maximum effectiveness, limit yourself to three to five lines per graph; if you have more data to demonstrate, use a set of graphs to account for it, rather than trying to cram it all into a single figure.
• Plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on the vertical (y) axis. Remember that the independent variable is the condition that you manipulated during the experiment and the dependent variable is the condition that you measured to see if it changed along with the independent variable. Placing the variables along their respective axes is mostly just a convention, but since your readers are accustomed to viewing graphs in this way, you’re better off not challenging the convention in your report.
• Label each axis carefully, and be especially careful to include units of measure. You need to make sure that your readers understand perfectly well what your graph indicates.
• Number and title your graphs. As with tables, the title of the graph should be informative but concise, and you should refer to your graph by number in the text (e.g., “Figure 1 shows the increase in the solubility rate as a function of temperature”).
• Many editors of professional scientific journals prefer that writers distinguish the lines in their graphs by attaching a symbol to them, usually a geometric shape (triangle, square, etc.), and using that symbol throughout the curve of the line. Generally, readers have a hard time distinguishing dotted lines from dot-dash lines from straight lines, so you should consider staying away from this system. Editors don’t usually like different-colored lines within a graph because colors are difficult and expensive to reproduce; colors may, however, be great for your purposes, as long as you’re not planning to submit your paper to Nature. Use your discretion—try to employ whichever technique dramatizes the results most effectively.
• Try to gather data at regular intervals, so the plot points on your graph aren’t too far apart. You can’t be sure of the arc you should draw between the plot points if the points are located at the far corners of the graph; over a fifteen-minute interval, perhaps the change occurred in the first or last thirty seconds of that period (in which case your straight-line connection between the points is misleading).
• If you’re worried that you didn’t collect data at sufficiently regular intervals during your experiment, go ahead and connect the points with a straight line, but you may want to examine this problem as part of your Discussion section.
• Make your graph large enough so that everything is legible and clearly demarcated, but not so large that it either overwhelms the rest of the Results section or provides a far greater range than you need to illustrate your point. If, for example, the seedlings of your plant grew only 15 mm during the trial, you don’t need to construct a graph that accounts for 100 mm of growth. The lines in your graph should more or less fill the space created by the axes; if you see that your data is confined to the lower left portion of the graph, you should probably re-adjust your scale.
• If you create a set of graphs, make them the same size and format, including all the verbal and visual codes (captions, symbols, scale, etc.). You want to be as consistent as possible in your illustrations, so that your readers can easily make the comparisons you’re trying to get them to see.

How do I write a strong Discussion section?

The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.

Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:

Explain whether the data support your hypothesis

• Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected

Derive conclusions, based on your findings, about the process you’re studying

• Relate your findings to earlier work in the same area (if you can)

Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings

Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.

This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,

“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”

Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.

Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).

Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected

You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.

Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.

If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.

This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.

Relate your findings to previous work in the field (if possible)

We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.

If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)

This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.

Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.

Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.

Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How to Write a Research Paper

Use the links below to jump directly to any section of this guide:

Research Paper Fundamentals

How to choose a topic or question, how to create a working hypothesis or thesis, common research paper methodologies, how to gather and organize evidence , how to write an outline for your research paper, how to write a rough draft, how to revise your draft, how to produce a final draft, resources for teachers .

It is not fair to say that no one writes anymore. Just about everyone writes text messages, brief emails, or social media posts every single day. Yet, most people don't have a lot of practice with the formal, organized writing required for a good academic research paper. This guide contains links to a variety of resources that can help demystify the process. Some of these resources are intended for teachers; they contain exercises, activities, and teaching strategies. Other resources are intended for direct use by students who are struggling to write papers, or are looking for tips to make the process go more smoothly.

The resources in this section are designed to help students understand the different types of research papers, the general research process, and how to manage their time. Below, you'll find links from university writing centers, the trusted Purdue Online Writing Lab, and more.

What is an Academic Research Paper?

"Genre and the Research Paper" (Purdue OWL)

There are different types of research papers. Different types of scholarly questions will lend themselves to one format or another. This is a brief introduction to the two main genres of research paper: analytic and argumentative. 

"7 Most Popular Types of Research Papers" (Personal-writer.com)

This resource discusses formats that high school students commonly encounter, such as the compare and contrast essay and the definitional essay. Please note that the inclusion of this link is not an endorsement of this company's paid service.

How to Prepare and Plan Out Writing a Research Paper

Teachers can give their students a step-by-step guide like these to help them understand the different steps of the research paper process. These guides can be combined with the time management tools in the next subsection to help students come up with customized calendars for completing their papers.

"Ten Steps for Writing Research Papers" (American University)  

This resource from American University is a comprehensive guide to the research paper writing process, and includes examples of proper research questions and thesis topics.

"Steps in Writing a Research Paper" (SUNY Empire State College)

This guide breaks the research paper process into 11 steps. Each "step" links to a separate page, which describes the work entailed in completing it.

How to Manage Time Effectively

The links below will help students determine how much time is necessary to complete a paper. If your sources are not available online or at your local library, you'll need to leave extra time for the Interlibrary Loan process. Remember that, even if you do not need to consult secondary sources, you'll still need to leave yourself ample time to organize your thoughts.

"Research Paper Planner: Timeline" (Baylor University)

This interactive resource from Baylor University creates a suggested writing schedule based on how much time a student has to work on the assignment.

"Research Paper Planner" (UCLA)

UCLA's library offers this step-by-step guide to the research paper writing process, which also includes a suggested planning calendar.

There's a reason teachers spend a long time talking about choosing a good topic. Without a good topic and a well-formulated research question, it is almost impossible to write a clear and organized paper. The resources below will help you generate ideas and formulate precise questions.

"How to Select a Research Topic" (Univ. of Michigan-Flint)

This resource is designed for college students who are struggling to come up with an appropriate topic. A student who uses this resource and still feels unsure about his or her topic should consult the course instructor for further personalized assistance.

"25 Interesting Research Paper Topics to Get You Started" (Kibin)

This resource, which is probably most appropriate for high school students, provides a list of specific topics to help get students started. It is broken into subsections, such as "paper topics on local issues."

"Writing a Good Research Question" (Grand Canyon University)

This introduction to research questions includes some embedded videos, as well as links to scholarly articles on research questions. This resource would be most appropriate for teachers who are planning lessons on research paper fundamentals.

"How to Write a Research Question the Right Way" (Kibin)

This student-focused resource provides more detail on writing research questions. The language is accessible, and there are embedded videos and examples of good and bad questions.

It is important to have a rough hypothesis or thesis in mind at the beginning of the research process. People who have a sense of what they want to say will have an easier time sorting through scholarly sources and other information. The key, of course, is not to become too wedded to the draft hypothesis or thesis. Just about every working thesis gets changed during the research process.

CrashCourse Video: "Sociology Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is tailored to sociology students, it is applicable to students in a variety of social science disciplines. This video does a good job demonstrating the connection between the brainstorming that goes into selecting a research question and the formulation of a working hypothesis.

"How to Write a Thesis Statement for an Analytical Essay" (YouTube)

Students writing analytical essays will not develop the same type of working hypothesis as students who are writing research papers in other disciplines. For these students, developing the working thesis may happen as a part of the rough draft (see the relevant section below). 

"Research Hypothesis" (Oakland Univ.)

This resource provides some examples of hypotheses in social science disciplines like Political Science and Criminal Justice. These sample hypotheses may also be useful for students in other soft social sciences and humanities disciplines like History.

When grading a research paper, instructors look for a consistent methodology. This section will help you understand different methodological approaches used in research papers. Students will get the most out of these resources if they use them to help prepare for conversations with teachers or discussions in class.

"Types of Research Designs" (USC)

A "research design," used for complex papers, is related to the paper's method. This resource contains introductions to a variety of popular research designs in the social sciences. Although it is not the most intuitive site to read, the information here is very valuable. 

"Major Research Methods" (YouTube)

Although this video is a bit on the dry side, it provides a comprehensive overview of the major research methodologies in a format that might be more accessible to students who have struggled with textbooks or other written resources.

"Humanities Research Strategies" (USC)

This is a portal where students can learn about four methodological approaches for humanities papers: Historical Methodologies, Textual Criticism, Conceptual Analysis, and the Synoptic method.

"Selected Major Social Science Research Methods: Overview" (National Academies Press)

This appendix from the book  Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy , printed by National Academies Press, introduces some methods used in social science papers.

"Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: 6. The Methodology" (USC)

This resource from the University of Southern California's library contains tips for writing a methodology section in a research paper.

How to Determine the Best Methodology for You

Anyone who is new to writing research papers should be sure to select a method in consultation with their instructor. These resources can be used to help prepare for that discussion. They may also be used on their own by more advanced students.

"Choosing Appropriate Research Methodologies" (Palgrave Study Skills)

This friendly and approachable resource from Palgrave Macmillan can be used by students who are just starting to think about appropriate methodologies.

"How to Choose Your Research Methods" (NFER (UK))

This is another approachable resource students can use to help narrow down the most appropriate methods for their research projects.

The resources in this section introduce the process of gathering scholarly sources and collecting evidence. You'll find a range of material here, from introductory guides to advanced explications best suited to college students. Please consult the LitCharts  How to Do Academic Research guide for a more comprehensive list of resources devoted to finding scholarly literature.

Google Scholar

Students who have access to library websites with detailed research guides should start there, but people who do not have access to those resources can begin their search for secondary literature here.

"Gathering Appropriate Information" (Texas Gateway)

This resource from the Texas Gateway for online resources introduces students to the research process, and contains interactive exercises. The level of complexity is suitable for middle school, high school, and introductory college classrooms.

"An Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Methods" (NSF)

This PDF from the National Science Foundation goes into detail about best practices and pitfalls in data collection across multiple types of methodologies.

"Social Science Methods for Data Collection and Analysis" (Swiss FIT)

This resource is appropriate for advanced undergraduates or teachers looking to create lessons on research design and data collection. It covers techniques for gathering data via interviews, observations, and other methods.

"Collecting Data by In-depth Interviewing" (Leeds Univ.)

This resource contains enough information about conducting interviews to make it useful for teachers who want to create a lesson plan, but is also accessible enough for college juniors or seniors to make use of it on their own.

There is no "one size fits all" outlining technique. Some students might devote all their energy and attention to the outline in order to avoid the paper. Other students may benefit from being made to sit down and organize their thoughts into a lengthy sentence outline. The resources in this section include strategies and templates for multiple types of outlines. 

"Topic vs. Sentence Outlines" (UC Berkeley)

This resource introduces two basic approaches to outlining: the shorter topic-based approach, and the longer, more detailed sentence-based approach. This resource also contains videos on how to develop paper paragraphs from the sentence-based outline.

"Types of Outlines and Samples" (Purdue OWL)

The Purdue Online Writing Lab's guide is a slightly less detailed discussion of different types of outlines. It contains several sample outlines.

"Writing An Outline" (Austin C.C.)

This resource from a community college contains sample outlines from an American history class that students can use as models.

"How to Structure an Outline for a College Paper" (YouTube)

This brief (sub-2 minute) video from the ExpertVillage YouTube channel provides a model of outline writing for students who are struggling with the idea.

"Outlining" (Harvard)

This is a good resource to consult after completing a draft outline. It offers suggestions for making sure your outline avoids things like unnecessary repetition.

As with outlines, rough drafts can take on many different forms. These resources introduce teachers and students to the various approaches to writing a rough draft. This section also includes resources that will help you cite your sources appropriately according to the MLA, Chicago, and APA style manuals.

"Creating a Rough Draft for a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

This resource is useful for teachers in particular, as it provides some suggested exercises to help students with writing a basic rough draft. 

Rough Draft Assignment (Duke of Definition)

This sample assignment, with a brief list of tips, was developed by a high school teacher who runs a very successful and well-reviewed page of educational resources.

"Creating the First Draft of Your Research Paper" (Concordia Univ.)

This resource will be helpful for perfectionists or procrastinators, as it opens by discussing the problem of avoiding writing. It also provides a short list of suggestions meant to get students writing.

Using Proper Citations

There is no such thing as a rough draft of a scholarly citation. These links to the three major citation guides will ensure that your citations follow the correct format. Please consult the LitCharts How to Cite Your Sources guide for more resources.

Chicago Manual of Style Citation Guide

Some call  The Chicago Manual of Style , which was first published in 1906, "the editors' Bible." The manual is now in its 17th edition, and is popular in the social sciences, historical journals, and some other fields in the humanities.

APA Citation Guide

According to the American Psychological Association, this guide was developed to aid reading comprehension, clarity of communication, and to reduce bias in language in the social and behavioral sciences. Its first full edition was published in 1952, and it is now in its sixth edition.

MLA Citation Guide

The Modern Language Association style is used most commonly within the liberal arts and humanities. The  MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing  was first published in 1985 and (as of 2008) is in its third edition.

Any professional scholar will tell you that the best research papers are made in the revision stage. No matter how strong your research question or working thesis, it is not possible to write a truly outstanding paper without devoting energy to revision. These resources provide examples of revision exercises for the classroom, as well as tips for students working independently.

"The Art of Revision" (Univ. of Arizona)

This resource provides a wealth of information and suggestions for both students and teachers. There is a list of suggested exercises that teachers might use in class, along with a revision checklist that is useful for teachers and students alike.

"Script for Workshop on Revision" (Vanderbilt University)

Vanderbilt's guide for leading a 50-minute revision workshop can serve as a model for teachers who wish to guide students through the revision process during classtime. 

"Revising Your Paper" (Univ. of Washington)

This detailed handout was designed for students who are beginning the revision process. It discusses different approaches and methods for revision, and also includes a detailed list of things students should look for while they revise.

"Revising Drafts" (UNC Writing Center)

This resource is designed for students and suggests things to look for during the revision process. It provides steps for the process and has a FAQ for students who have questions about why it is important to revise.

Conferencing with Writing Tutors and Instructors

No writer is so good that he or she can't benefit from meeting with instructors or peer tutors. These resources from university writing, learning, and communication centers provide suggestions for how to get the most out of these one-on-one meetings.

"Getting Feedback" (UNC Writing Center)

This very helpful resource talks about how to ask for feedback during the entire writing process. It contains possible questions that students might ask when developing an outline, during the revision process, and after the final draft has been graded.

"Prepare for Your Tutoring Session" (Otis College of Art and Design)

This guide from a university's student learning center contains a lot of helpful tips for getting the most out of working with a writing tutor.

"The Importance of Asking Your Professor" (Univ. of Waterloo)

This article from the university's Writing and Communication Centre's blog contains some suggestions for how and when to get help from professors and Teaching Assistants.

Once you've revised your first draft, you're well on your way to handing in a polished paper. These resources—each of them produced by writing professionals at colleges and universities—outline the steps required in order to produce a final draft. You'll find proofreading tips and checklists in text and video form.

"Developing a Final Draft of a Research Paper" (Univ. of Minnesota)

While this resource contains suggestions for revision, it also features a couple of helpful checklists for the last stages of completing a final draft.

Basic Final Draft Tips and Checklist (Univ. of Maryland-University College)

This short and accessible resource, part of UMUC's very thorough online guide to writing and research, contains a very basic checklist for students who are getting ready to turn in their final drafts.

Final Draft Checklist (Everett C.C.)

This is another accessible final draft checklist, appropriate for both high school and college students. It suggests reading your essay aloud at least once.

"How to Proofread Your Final Draft" (YouTube)

This video (approximately 5 minutes), produced by Eastern Washington University, gives students tips on proofreading final drafts.

"Proofreading Tips" (Georgia Southern-Armstrong)

This guide will help students learn how to spot common errors in their papers. It suggests focusing on content and editing for grammar and mechanics.

This final set of resources is intended specifically for high school and college instructors. It provides links to unit plans and classroom exercises that can help improve students' research and writing skills. You'll find resources that give an overview of the process, along with activities that focus on how to begin and how to carry out research. 

"Research Paper Complete Resources Pack" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, rubrics, and other resources is designed for high school students. The resources in this packet are aligned to Common Core standards.

"Research Paper—Complete Unit" (Teachers Pay Teachers)

This packet of assignments, notes, PowerPoints, and other resources has a 4/4 rating with over 700 ratings. It is designed for high school teachers, but might also be useful to college instructors who work with freshmen.

"Teaching Students to Write Good Papers" (Yale)

This resource from Yale's Center for Teaching and Learning is designed for college instructors, and it includes links to appropriate activities and exercises.

"Research Paper Writing: An Overview" (CUNY Brooklyn)

CUNY Brooklyn offers this complete lesson plan for introducing students to research papers. It includes an accompanying set of PowerPoint slides.

"Lesson Plan: How to Begin Writing a Research Paper" (San Jose State Univ.)

This lesson plan is designed for students in the health sciences, so teachers will have to modify it for their own needs. It includes a breakdown of the brainstorming, topic selection, and research question process. 

"Quantitative Techniques for Social Science Research" (Univ. of Pittsburgh)

This is a set of PowerPoint slides that can be used to introduce students to a variety of quantitative methods used in the social sciences.

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1929 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 40,694 quotes across 1929 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play

Need something? Request a new guide .

How can we improve? Share feedback .

LitCharts is hiring!

Writing up a Research Report

• First Online: 04 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Stefan Hunziker 3 &
• Michael Blankenagel 3  

431 Accesses

A research report is one big argument about how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, there are distinct issues that need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the report is full disclosure: to explain everything and ensure replicability by another researcher.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• 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

Institutional subscriptions

Barros, L. O. (2016). The only academic phrasebook you’ll ever need . Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Google Scholar  

Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics. The reality enigma . SAGE.

Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

Früh, M., Keimer, I., & Blankenagel, M. (2019). The impact of Balanced Scorecard excellence on shareholder returns. IFZ Working Paper No. 0003/2019. https://zenodo.org/record/2571603#.YMDUafkzZaQ . Accessed: 9 June 2021.

Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Basic Books.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ, Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug, Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2024). Writing up a Research Report. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_4

Published : 04 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-42738-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-42739-9

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

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Writing a Research Paper

This page lists some of the stages involved in writing a library-based research paper.

Although this list suggests that there is a simple, linear process to writing such a paper, the actual process of writing a research paper is often a messy and recursive one, so please use this outline as a flexible guide.

Discovering, Narrowing, and Focusing a Researchable Topic

• Try to find a topic that truly interests you
• Try writing your way to a topic
• Talk with your course instructor and classmates about your topic
• Pose your topic as a question to be answered or a problem to be solved

Finding, Selecting, and Reading Sources

You will need to look at the following types of sources:

• library catalog, periodical indexes, bibliographies, suggestions from your instructor
• primary vs. secondary sources
• journals, books, other documents

Grouping, Sequencing, and Documenting Information

The following systems will help keep you organized:

• a system for noting sources on bibliography cards
• a system for organizing material according to its relative importance
• a system for taking notes

Writing an Outline and a Prospectus for Yourself

Consider the following questions:

• What is the topic?
• Why is it significant?
• What background material is relevant?
• What is my thesis or purpose statement?
• What organizational plan will best support my purpose?

Writing the Introduction

In the introduction you will need to do the following things:

• present relevant background or contextual material
• define terms or concepts when necessary
• explain the focus of the paper and your specific purpose
• reveal your plan of organization

Writing the Body

• Use your outline and prospectus as flexible guides
• Build your essay around points you want to make (i.e., don’t let your sources organize your paper)
• Integrate your sources into your discussion
• Summarize, analyze, explain, and evaluate published work rather than merely reporting it
• Move up and down the “ladder of abstraction” from generalization to varying levels of detail back to generalization

Writing the Conclusion

• If the argument or point of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize the argument for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the end of your paper to add your points up, to explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction.
• Perhaps suggest what about this topic needs further research.

Revising the Final Draft

• Check overall organization : logical flow of introduction, coherence and depth of discussion in body, effectiveness of conclusion.
• Paragraph level concerns : topic sentences, sequence of ideas within paragraphs, use of details to support generalizations, summary sentences where necessary, use of transitions within and between paragraphs.
• Sentence level concerns: sentence structure, word choices, punctuation, spelling.
• Documentation: consistent use of one system, citation of all material not considered common knowledge, appropriate use of endnotes or footnotes, accuracy of list of works cited.

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

In Spring 2021, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) PubMed® Special Query on this page will no longer be curated by NLM. If you have questions, please contact NLM Customer Support at https://support.nlm.nih.gov/

This chart lists the major biomedical research reporting guidelines that provide advice for reporting research methods and findings. They usually "specify a minimum set of items required for a clear and transparent account of what was done and what was found in a research study, reflecting, in particular, issues that might introduce bias into the research" (Adapted from the EQUATOR Network Resource Centre ). The chart also includes editorial style guides for writing research reports or other publications.

See the details of the search strategy. More research reporting guidelines are at the EQUATOR Network Resource Centre .

Last Reviewed: April 14, 2023

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

• Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
• Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
• Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
• Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research

• Courses & events
• Librarian Network
• Search for reporting guidelines

Browse for reporting guidelines by selecting one or more of these drop-downs:

Displaying 622 reporting guidelines found.

Most recently added records are displayed first.

• Consensus reporting guidelines to address gaps in descriptions of ultra-rare genetic conditions
• Biofield therapies: Guidelines for reporting clinical trials
• The PICOTS-ComTeC Framework for Defining Digital Health Interventions: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report
• REPORT-SCS : minimum reporting standards for spinal cord stimulation studies in spinal cord injury
• CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports
• Trial Forge Guidance 4: a guideline for reporting the results of randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)
• The RETRIEVE Checklist for Studies Reporting the Elicitation of Stated Preferences for Child Health -Related Quality of Life
• We don’t know what you did last summer. On the importance of transparent reporting of reaction time data pre-processing
• Introducing So NHR-Reporting guidelines for Social Networks In Health Research
• Reporting standard for describing first responder systems, smartphone alerting systems, and AED networks
• The reporting checklist for Chinese patent medicine guidelines: RIGHT for CPM
• The SHARE : SHam Acupuncture REporting guidelines and a checklist in clinical trials
• REPCAN : Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data
• The Test Adaptation Reporting Standards (TARES) : reporting test adaptations
• ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi
• Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation
• Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide
• Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO) : a minimum requirements
• Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop
• Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES) : A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews
• ENLIGHT : A consensus checklist for reporting laboratory-based studies on the non-visual effects of light in humans
• Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement
• Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement
• Adjusting for Treatment Switching in Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Reporting
• Modeling Infectious Diseases in Healthcare Network (MInD-Healthcare) Framework for Describing and Reporting Multidrug-resistant Organism and Healthcare -Associated Infections Agent-based Modeling Methods
• LEVEL (Logical Explanations & Visualizations of Estimates in Linear mixed models): recommendations for reporting multilevel data and analyses
• Data linkage in pharmacoepidemiology: A call for rigorous evaluation and reporting
• Expert consensus document: Reporting checklist for quantification of pulmonary congestion by lung ultrasound in heart failure
• Commentary: minimum reporting standards should be expected for preclinical radiobiology irradiators and dosimetry in the published literature
• Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis
• Evaluating the quality of studies reporting on clinical applications of stromal vascular fraction: A systematic review and proposed reporting guidelines (CLINIC-STRA-SVF)
• Enhancing reporting quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials: CONSORT Dose-finding Extension (CONSORT-DEFINE) guidance
• Enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (SPIRIT-DEFINE) guidance
• ESMO Guidance for Reporting Oncology real -World evidence (GROW)
• A systematic review and cluster analysis approach of 103 studies of high-intensity interval training on cardiorespiratory fitness
• Generate Analysis -Ready Data for Real-world Evidence: Tutorial for Harnessing Electronic Health Records With Advanced Informatic Technologies
• Developing Consensus -Based Guidelines for Case Reporting in Aesthetic Medicine: Enhancing Transparency and Standardization
• MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting): Developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care
• Presenting artificial intelligence, deep learning, and machine learning studies to clinicians and healthcare stakeholders: an introductory reference with a guideline and a Clinical AI Research (CAIR) checklist proposal
• Data Processing Strategies to Determine Maximum Oxygen Uptake: A Systematic Scoping Review and Experimental Comparison with Guidelines for Reporting
• Improving the Rigor of Mechanistic Behavioral Science: The Introduction of the Checklist for Investigating Mechanisms in Behavior -Change Research (CLIMBR)
• An analysis of reporting practices in the top 100 cited health and medicine-related bibliometric studies from 2019 to 2021 based on a proposed guidelines
• Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement
• Checklist for studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence or incidence: rationale and recommended use
• Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses
• Systematic Development of Standards for Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation Health Sciences Research
• Minimal reporting guideline for research involving eye tracking (2023 edition)
• CHEERS Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI) Reporting Standards – Explanation and Elaboration
• Initial Standardized Framework for Reporting Social Media Analytics in Emergency Care Research
• The adapted Autobiographical interview: A systematic review and proposal for conduct and reporting
• Paediatric Ureteroscopy (P-URS) reporting checklist: a new tool to aid studies report the essential items on paediatric ureteroscopy for stone disease
• Adult Ureteroscopy (A-URS) Checklist: A New Tool To Standardise Reporting in Endourology
• Recommendations for the development, implementation, and reporting of control interventions in efficacy and mechanistic trials of physical, psychological, and self-management therapies: the Co PPS Statement
• Reporting Eye-tracking Studies In DEntistry (RESIDE) checklist
• AdVi SHE : A Validation -Assessment Tool of Health -Economic Models for Decision Makers and Model Users
• i CHECK-DH : Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations
• New reporting items and recommendations for randomized trials impacted by COVID- 19 and force majeure events: a targeted approach
• Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT)
• Reporting guidelines for allergy and immunology survey research
• CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR) : a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSo MII
• Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis: checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA)
• Preferred Reporting Items for Complex Sample Survey Analysis (PRICSSA)
• Defining measures of kidney function in observational studies using routine health care data: methodological and reporting considerations
• CORE-CERT Items as a Minimal Requirement for Replicability of Exercise Interventions: Results From Application to Exercise Studies for Breast Cancer Patients
• Recommendations for Reporting Machine Learning Analyses in Clinical Research
• ACURATE : A guide for reporting sham controls in trials using acupuncture
• Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) : A Guide for Authors and Reviewers
• STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Tuina/Massage (STRICTOTM) : Extending the CONSORT statement
• Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklist
• The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique
• Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension
• Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension
• PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in Endodontics: A consensus-based development study
• CONFERD-HP : recommendations for reporting COmpeteNcy FramEwoRk Development in health professions
• Development of the ASSESS tool: a comprehenSive tool to Support rEporting and critical appraiSal of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods implementation reSearch outcomes
• Guiding document analyses in health professions education research
• Evidence-based statistical analysis and methods in biomedical research (SAMBR) checklists according to design features
• Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR 4Research): checklist to strengthen reporting on studies on social accountability in the literature
• How to Report Data on Bilateral Procedures and Other Issues with Clustered Data: The CLUDA Reporting Guidelines
• Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols
• Establishing reporting standards for participant characteristics in post-stroke aphasia research: An international e -Delphi exercise and consensus meeting
• STARTER Checklist for Antimalarial Therapeutic Efficacy Reporting
• Best Practice in the chemical characterisation of extracts used in pharmacological and toxicological research -The ConPhy MP-Guidelines
• Advising on Preferred Reporting Items for patient-reported outcome instrument development: the PRIPROID
• Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing
• Methodical approaches to determine the rate of radial muscle displacement using tensiomyography: A scoping review and new reporting guideline
• Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis
• Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines
• Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement
• The Do CTRINE Guidelines: Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education
• Development of guidelines to reduce, handle and report missing data in palliative care trials: A multi-stakeholder modified nominal group technique
• The RIPI-f (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) checklist was developed to guide reporting of treatment integrity in face-to-face psychological interventions
• The Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) Global Surgical Collaboration Project: Development of Criteria for Reporting Adverse Events During Surgical Procedures and Evaluating Their Impact on the Postoperative Course
• CODE-EHR best-practice framework for the use of structured electronic health-care records in clinical research
• A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist
• Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine
• TIDieR-telehealth : precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials – unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist
• Towards better reporting of the proportion of days covered method in cardiovascular medication adherence: A scoping review and new tool TEN-SPIDERS
• Murine models of radiation cardiotoxicity: a systematic review and recommendations for future studies
• Systematic Review and Meta -Analysis of Outcomes After Operative Treatment of Aberrant Subclavian Artery Pathologies and Suggested Reporting Items
• Reporting standards for psychological network analyses in cross-sectional data
• Reporting ChAracteristics of cadaver training and sUrgical studies: The CACTUS guidelines
• EULAR points to consider for minimal reporting requirements in synovial tissue research in rheumatology
• Methods and Applications of Social Media Monitoring of Mental Health During Disasters: Scoping Review
• Position Statement on Exercise Dosage in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: The Role of the IMPACT-RMD Toolkit
• A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of concurrent t ES-fMRI studies (ContES checklist): a consensus study and statement
• Application of Mixed Methods in Health Services Management Research: A Systematic Review
• Methodological standards for conducting and reporting meta-analyses: Ensuring the replicability of meta-analyses of pharmacist-led medication review
• A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting
• The Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Reporting Studies of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures
• How to Report Light Exposure in Human Chronobiology and Sleep Research Experiments
• Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI
• Use of actigraphy for assessment in pediatric sleep research
• EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology
• International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)
• Developing a checklist for reporting research using simulated patient methodology (CRiSP) : a consensus study
• Conceptual Ambiguity Surrounding Gamification and Serious Games in Health Care: Literature Review and Development of Game -Based Intervention Reporting Guidelines (GAMING)
• Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines
• Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting
• Recommendations and publication guidelines for studies using frequency domain and time-frequency domain analyses of neural time series
• EVIDENCE Publication Checklist for Studies Evaluating Connected Sensor Technologies: Explanation and Elaboration
• An extension of the RIGHT statement for introductions and interpretations of clinical practice guidelines: RIGHT for INT
• Rasch Reporting Guideline for Rehabilitation Research (RULER) : The RULER Statement
• Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report
• Preliminary Minimum Reporting Requirements for In -Vivo Neural Interface Research: I. Implantable Neural Interfaces
• Standardized Reporting of Machine Learning Applications in Urology: The STREAM-URO Framework
• Guidance for publishing qualitative research in informatics
• Guidelines for reporting on animal fecal transplantation (GRAFT) studies: recommendations from a systematic review of murine transplantation protocols
• A Scoping Review of Four Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies: Part 3 -A Proposed Framework for Standardized Data Collection and Reporting of Endodontic Outcome Studies
• Health -Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting
• Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist
• Smartphone -Delivered Ecological Momentary Interventions Based on Ecological Momentary Assessments to Promote Health Behaviors: Systematic Review and Adapted Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention Studies
• A Systematic Review of Methods and Procedures Used in Ecological Momentary Assessments of Diet and Physical Activity Research in Youth: An Adapted STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA Studies (CREMAS)
• Reporting Data on Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR) in Rats: Recommendations Based on Review of Experimental Protocols and Literature
• Heterogeneity in the Identification of Potential Drug -Drug Interactions in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review, Critical Appraisal, and Reporting Recommendations
• Development of the CLARIFY (CheckList stAndardising the Reporting of Interventions For Yoga) guidelines: a Delphi study
• Early phase clinical trials extension to guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans
• PRESENT 2020: Text Expanding on the Checklist for Proper Reporting of Evidence in Sport and Exercise Nutrition Trials
• Intraoperative fluorescence diagnosis in the brain: a systematic review and suggestions for future standards on reporting diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility
• Checklist for Theoretical Report in Epidemiological Studies (CRT-EE) : explanation and elaboration
• STAndard Reporting of CAries Detection and Diagnostic Studies (STARCARDDS)
• Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance
• Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement
• Recommended reporting items for epidemic forecasting and prediction research: The EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines
• Extending the CONSORT Statement to moxibustion
• Consensus-based recommendations for case report in Chinese medicine (CARC)
• Reporting Guidelines for Whole -Body Vibration Studies in Humans, Animals and Cell Cultures: A Consensus Statement from an International Group of Experts
• Guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-Path extension
• A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies: The AGReMA Statement
• Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) : Development of the SIFHR Checklist
• How to write a guideline: a proposal for a manuscript template that supports the creation of trustworthy guidelines
• REPORT-PFP : a consensus from the International Patellofemoral Research Network to improve REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain studies
• Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) : an expert consensus-based statement
• Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta-analyses: The REGEMA checklist
• Evaluation of post-introduction COVID- 19 vaccine effectiveness: Summary of interim guidance of the World Health Organization
• Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report
• Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID- 19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement
• Describing deprescribing trials better: an elaboration of the CONSORT statement
• Comprehensive reporting of pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence: CERT-PFMT
• International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement: Methods for Recording and Reporting of Epidemiological Data on Injury and Illness in Sports 2020 (Including the STROBE Extension for Sports Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS))
• RIGHT for Acupuncture: An Extension of the RIGHT Statement for Clinical Practice Guidelines on Acupuncture
• The APOSTEL 2.0 Recommendations for Reporting Quantitative Optical Coherence Tomography Studies
• Room Indirect Calorimetry Operating and Reporting Standards (RICORS 1.0): A Guide to Conducting and Reporting Human Whole -Room Calorimeter Studies
• COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures
• Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE 2 Genomics)
• A Consensus -Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS)
• CONSORT extension for the reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) : checklist with explanation and elaboration
• Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration
• An analysis of preclinical efficacy testing of antivenoms for sub -Saharan Africa: Inadequate independent scrutiny and poor-quality reporting are barriers to improving snakebite treatment and management
• Artificial intelligence in dental research: Checklist for authors, reviewers, readers
• EULAR recommendations for the reporting of ultrasound studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)
• PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development
• The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG
• SQUIRE-EDU (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education): Publication Guidelines for Educational Improvement
• PRISMA-S : an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews
• Anaesthesia Case Report (ACRE) checklist: a tool to promote high-quality reporting of cases in peri-operative practice
• Strengthening tRansparent reporting of reseArch on uNfinished nursing CARE : The RANCARE guideline
• Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report
• Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards
• Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review
• PRISMA extension for moxibustion 2020: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration
• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta -Analyses) Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicines 2020 (PRISMA-CHM 2020)
• Reporting gaps in immunization costing studies: Recommendations for improving the practice
• The RIGHT Extension Statement for Traditional Chinese Medicine: Development, Recommendations, and Explanation
• Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging -Related Machine Learning Evaluation (PRIME) : A Checklist: Reviewed by the American College of Cardiology Healthcare Innovation Council
• Benefit -Risk Assessment of Vaccines. Part II : Proposal Towards Consolidated Standards of Reporting Quantitative Benefit -Risk Models Applied to Vaccines (BRIVAC)
• BIAS : Transparent reporting of biomedical image analysis challenges
• Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist
• STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies: Development of the STROPS guideline
• TIDieR-Placebo : a guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls
• Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI Extension
• Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI Extension
• The IDEAL Reporting Guidelines: A Delphi Consensus Statement Stage specific recommendations for reporting the evaluation of surgical innovation
• The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design
• Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE)
• Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist)
• PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development
• PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development
• Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED) : an evidence-based consensus study
• Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials with Traditional Chinese Medicine 2018: Recommendations, Explanation and Elaboration (SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018)
• SPIRIT extension and elaboration for n-of-1 trials: SPENT 2019 checklist
• Standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of cupping (STRICTOC) : extending the CONSORT statement
• Pa CIR : A tool to enhance pharmacist patient care intervention reporting
• Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline
• Guidelines for reporting case studies and series on drug-induced QT interval prolongation and its complications following acute overdose
• Criteria for describing and evaluating training interventions in healthcare professions – CRe-DEPTH
• CONSORT extension for reporting N-of- 1 trials for traditional Chinese medicine (CENT for TCM) : Recommendations, explanation and elaboration
• Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist
• Consolidated criteria for strengthening reporting of health research involving indigenous peoples: the CONSIDER statement
• Checklist for the preparation and review of pain clinical trial publications: a pain-specific supplement to CONSORT
• Reporting guidelines on remotely collected electronic mood data in mood disorder (e MOOD)-recommendations
• CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials
• Reporting of Multi -Arm Parallel -Group Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement
• Microbiology Investigation Criteria for Reporting Objectively (MICRO) : a framework for the reporting and interpretation of clinical microbiology data
• Core Outcome Set -STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement
• The Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research (RECOvER) Checklist: A Joint Statement by the ERAS ® and ERAS ® USA Societies
• Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration
• Improving reporting of Meta -Ethnography : The e MERGe Reporting Guidance
• The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes statement
• Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions
• The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology (RECORD-PE)
• PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) : Checklist and Explanation
• Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations
• ESPACOMP Medication Adherence Reporting Guideline (EMERGE)
• Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension
• Reporting guidelines for implementation research on nurturing care interventions designed to promote early childhood development
• Strengthening the reporting of empirical simulation studies: Introducing the STRESS guidelines
• TIDieR-PHP : a reporting guideline for population health and policy interventions
• Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient -Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension
• Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement
• Structural brain development: A review of methodological approaches and best practices
• Improving the Development, Monitoring and Reporting of Stroke Rehabilitation Research: Consensus -Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
• Variability in the Reporting of Serum Urate and Flares in Gout Clinical Trials: Need for Minimum Reporting Requirements
• Methodology of assessment and reporting of safety in anti-malarial treatment efficacy studies of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in pregnancy: a systematic literature review
• Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE Checklist
• Consideration of Sex Differences in Design and Reporting of Experimental Arterial Pathology Studies -Statement From ATVB Council
• Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials
• RECORDS : Improved reporting of Monte Carlo Radiation transport studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268
• Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis
• CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials
• Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of systematic reviews including harms checklist: A pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms
• Reporting Guidelines for the Use of Expert Judgement in Model -Based Economic Evaluations
• Standards for reporting chronic periodontitis prevalence and severity in epidemiologic studies: Proposed standards from the Joint EU / USA Periodontal Epidemiology Working Group
• Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication
• Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research
• Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0
• Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance
• Guidelines for Reporting on Latent Trajectory Studies (GRoLTS)
• AMWA ‒ EMWA ‒ ISMPP Joint Position Statement on the Role of Professional Medical Writers
• STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery
• Unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature: the Resource Identification Initiative (RRID)
• Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE)
• STARD for Abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts
• GRIPP 2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research
• Single organ cutaneous vasculitis: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data
• Improving the reporting of clinical trials of infertility treatments (IMPRINT) : modifying the CONSORT statement
• Improving the reporting of therapeutic exercise interventions in rehabilitation research
• Guidance to develop individual dose recommendations for patients on chronic hemodialysis
• A literature review of applied adaptive design methodology within the field of oncology in randomised controlled trials and a proposed extension to the CONSORT guidelines
• AHRQ Series on Complex Intervention Systematic Reviews – Paper 6: PRISMA-CI Extension Statement & Checklist
• Adaptation of the CARE Guidelines for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork Publications: Efforts To Improve the Impact of Case Reports
• A review of published analyses of case-cohort studies and recommendations for future reporting
• Guidelines for reporting evaluations based on observational methodology
• Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies
• Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) : Platelet -Rich Plasma and Mesenchymal Stem Cells
• CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials
• CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration
• Methods and processes of developing the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology – veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement
• CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
• STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
• SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials
• Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing in Neuroimaging using MRI
• Latent Class Analysis: An example for reporting results
• Guidelines for Developing and Reporting Machine Learning Predictive Models in Biomedical Research: A Multidisciplinary View
• Clarity in Reporting Terminology and Definitions of Set End Points in Resistance Training
• An introduction to using Bayesian linear regression with clinical data
• Making economic evaluations more helpful for treatment choices in haemophilia
• Guideline for Reporting Interventions on Spinal Manipulative Therapy: Consensus on Interventions Reporting Criteria List for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (CIRCLe SMT)
• Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review
• STARD-BLCM : Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies that use Bayesian Latent Class Models
• A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT Statement
• The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines
• The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety by modifying the CONSORT statement
• Reporting Items for Updated Clinical Guidelines: Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp)
• Preferred Reporting Items for the Development of Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines in Traditional Medicine (PRIDE-CPG-TM) : Explanation and elaboration
• Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement
• Preferred Reporting Of Case Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2023 guidelines
• Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) : Modified Delphi Study
• Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies
• CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials
• Core Outcome Set -STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement
• Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement
• Evaluation of response after pre-operative radiotherapy in soft tissue sarcomas; the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer -Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC-STBSG) and Imaging Group recommendations for radiological examination and reporting with an emphasis on magnetic resonance imaging
• Standardization of pathologic evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant specimens in clinical trials of breast cancer: recommendations from an international working group
• Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria—A 10 -Year Update
• Irreversible Electroporation (IRE) : Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria for Analysis and Comparison
• Recommendations for improving the quality of reporting clinical electrochemotherapy studies based on qualitative systematic review
• METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: Practical Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Evaluations of Multiorgan Involvement in Advanced Prostate Cancer
• Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations -A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force
• Transcription factor HIF 1A: downstream targets, associated pathways, polymorphic hypoxia response element (HRE) sites, and initiative for standardization of reporting in scientific literature
• Eliciting the child’s voice in adverse event reporting in oncology trials: Cognitive interview findings from the Pediatric Patient -Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events initiative
• CONSISE statement on the reporting of Seroepidemiologic Studies for influenza (ROSES-I statement): an extension of the STROBE statement
• REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)
• Recommendations to improve adverse event reporting in clinical trial publications: a joint pharmaceutical industry/journal editor perspective
• Reporting studies on time to diagnosis: proposal of a guideline by an international panel (REST)
• A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi -Attribute Utility -Based Instruments (CREATE)
• Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Newborn Infection (STROBE-NI) : an extension of the STROBE statement for neonatal infection research
• The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines
• Development and validation of the guideline for reporting evidence-based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET)
• Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
• Homeopathic clinical case reports: Development of a supplement (HOM-CASE) to the CARE clinical case reporting guideline
• Reporting Guidelines for Health Care Simulation Research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE Statements
• Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH) : recommendations to advance research communication
• RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations
• Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting: the GATHER statement
• Medical abortion reporting of efficacy: the MARE guidelines.
• Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut) : An Extension of the STROBE Statement
• Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use
• The Single -Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement
• Consensus on Recording Deep Endometriosis Surgery: the CORDES statement
• Developing the Clarity and Openness in Reporting: E3-based (CORE) reference user manual for creation of clinical study reports in the era of clinical trial transparency
• SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee
• Definition and classification of intraoperative complications (CLASSIC) : Delphi study and pilot evaluation
• Improving research practice in rat orthotopic and partial orthotopic liver transplantation: a review, recommendation, and publication guide
• Methodology used in studies reporting chronic kidney disease prevalence: a systematic literature review
• Standardized outcomes reporting in metabolic and bariatric surgery
• Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting
• DELTA 2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial
• Transparent reporting of data quality in distributed data networks
• Quality of methods reporting in animal models of colitis
• Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (m ERA) checklist
• Quality of pain intensity assessment reporting: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations
• An extension of STARD statements for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies on liver fibrosis tests: the Liver -FibroSTARD standards
• STROBE-AMS : recommendations to optimise reporting of epidemiological studies on antimicrobial resistance and informing improvement in antimicrobial stewardship
• Reporting guidelines for population pharmacokinetic analyses
• Recommendations for the improved effectiveness and reporting of telemedicine programs in developing countries: results of a systematic literature review
• Guidelines for the reporting of treatment trials for alcohol use disorders
• Development of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) checklist: A guideline for the reporting of incidence and prevalence studies in neuroepidemiology
• A review of 40 years of enteric antimicrobial resistance research in Eastern Africa: what can be done better?
• Ensuring consistent reporting of clinical pharmacy services to enhance reproducibility in practice: an improved version of DEPICT
• RiGoR: reporting guidelines to address common sources of bias in risk model development
• Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures
• Utstein-style guidelines on uniform reporting of in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs and cats
• Guidelines for reporting embedded recruitment trials
• PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews
• Developing a methodological framework for organisational case studies: a rapid review and consensus development process
• The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
• The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
• A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions
• The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement
• Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement
• A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
• Guidelines for uniform reporting of body fluid biomarker studies in neurologic disorders
• The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations
• Setting number of decimal places for reporting risk ratios: rule of four
• Too many digits: the presentation of numerical data
• The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials
• A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors
• Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group
• Standardized reporting guidelines for emergency department syncope risk-stratification research
• Designing and reporting case series in plastic surgery
• Disaster medicine reporting: the need for new guidelines and the CONFIDE statement
• Development and validation of reporting guidelines for studies involving data linkage
• A reporting guide for studies on individual differences in traffic safety
• Translating trial-based molecular monitoring into clinical practice: importance of international standards and practical considerations for community practitioners
• Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy
• A tool to analyze the transferability of health promotion interventions
• A new manner of reporting pressure results after glaucoma surgery
• Do the media provide transparent health information? A cross-cultural comparison of public information about the HPV vaccine
• Recommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models
• An introduction to standardized clinical nomenclature for dysmorphic features: the Elements of Morphology project
• Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Respondent -Driven Sampling Studies: ‘ STROBE-RDS ’ Statement.
• CONSORT extension for reporting N-of- 1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement
• A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies
• Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate
• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta -Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement
• Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews
• Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ)
• Developing a guideline to standardize the citation of bioresources in journal articles (CoBRA)
• Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies: The Clin PK Statement
• Using the spinal cord injury common data elements
• Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro-computed tomography
• Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research
• Protecting the power of interventions through proper reporting
• Reporting of data from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has to involve emergency medical dispatching – taking the recommendations on reporting OHCA the Utstein style a step further
• A position paper on standardizing the nonneoplastic kidney biopsy report
• Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations
• Reporting of interaction
• Head, neck, and brain tumor embolization guidelines
• Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: a modified Delphi study
• A common language in neoadjuvant breast cancer clinical trials: proposals for standard definitions and endpoints
• Viscerotropic disease: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data
• Diarrhea: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data
• Immunization site pain: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data
• Can the Brighton Collaboration case definitions be used to improve the quality of Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) reporting? Anaphylaxis as a case study
• Definitions, methodological and statistical issues for phase 3 clinical trials in chronic myeloid leukemia: a proposal by the European LeukemiaNet
• A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials
• A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies
• A proposed taxonomy of terms to guide the clinical trial recruitment process
• Minimum data elements for research reports on CFS
• Reporting standards for angiographic evaluation and endovascular treatment of cerebral arteriovenous malformations
• How to report low-level laser therapy (LLLT) /photomedicine dose and beam parameters in clinical and laboratory studies
• Common data elements for posttraumatic stress disorder research
• American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants
• Completeness of reporting of radiation therapy planning, dose, and delivery in veterinary radiation oncology manuscripts from 2005 to 2010
• Criteria for Reporting the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CReDECI 2)
• TRIPOD + AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods
• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta -Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
• Reporting guidance for violence risk assessment predictive validity studies: the RAGEE Statement
• Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations
• A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting
• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically
• Guidelines for reporting case studies on extracorporeal treatments in poisonings: methodology
• Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative.
• Strengthening the reporting of molecular epidemiology for infectious diseases (STROME-ID) : an extension of the STROBE statement
• Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
• Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries
• CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials
• The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development
• Documenting Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications: The CLIP Principles
• ICMJE : Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests in ICMJE Journals
• Selection and presentation of imaging figures in the medical literature
• Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration
• Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Chapter 5 – Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Systematic Reviews. CRD ’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
• The Hu GENet ™ Hu GE Review Handbook, version 1.0. Guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis of gene disease association studies
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1
• Writing for Publication in Veterinary Medicine. A Practical Guide for Researchers and Clinicians
• Publication of population data for forensic purposes
• Publication of population data of linearly inherited DNA markers in the International Journal of Legal Medicine
• Proposed definitions and criteria for reporting time frame, outcome, and complications for clinical orthopedic studies in veterinary medicine
• Recommended guidelines for the conduct and evaluation of prognostic studies in veterinary oncology
• Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations
• Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench
• Consensus-based reporting standards for diagnostic test accuracy studies for paratuberculosis in ruminants
• A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible
• The ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
• International Society for Medical Publication Professionals Code of Ethics
• Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials
• What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature?
• Electrodermal activity at acupoints: literature review and recommendations for reporting clinical trials
• Systematic review to determine best practice reporting guidelines for AFO interventions in studies involving children with cerebral palsy
• EANM Dosimetry Committee guidance document: good practice of clinical dosimetry reporting
• ASAS recommendations for collecting, analysing and reporting NSAID intake in clinical trials/epidemiological studies in axial spondyloarthritis
• International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set (version 3.0) – including standardization of reporting
• Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after stopping treatment in cohort studies: recommendation for acceptable rates and standardized reporting
• The importance of uniform venous terminology in reports on varicose veins
• Recommendations for reporting perioperative transoesophageal echo studies
• Guidelines for reporting an f MRI study
• Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance guidelines for reporting cardiovascular magnetic resonance examinations
• Criteria for evaluation of novel markers of cardiovascular risk
• American Society of Transplantation recommendations for screening, monitoring and reporting of infectious complications in immunosuppression trials in recipients of organ transplantation
• Research reporting standards for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies
• Research reporting standards for image-guided ablation of bone and soft tissue tumors
• EANM procedure guidelines for brain neurotransmission SPECT using I-labelled dopamine transporter ligands, version 2
• Transcatheter Therapy for Hepatic Malignancy: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria
• Reporting standards for percutaneous thermal ablation of renal cell carcinoma
• Research reporting standards for percutaneous vertebral augmentation
• Reporting standards for percutaneous interventions in dialysis access
• Reporting standards for clinical evaluation of new peripheral arterial revascularization devices
• Guidelines for the reporting of renal artery revascularization in clinical trials
• Reporting standards for carotid interventions from the Society for Vascular Surgery
• Reporting standards for carotid artery angioplasty and stent placement
• Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in carotid artery and supra-aortic trunk revascularization trials
• Setting the standards for reporting ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm
• Endovascular repair compared with operative repair of traumatic rupture of the thoracic aorta: a nonsystematic review and a plea for trauma-specific reporting guidelines
• Reporting standards for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)
• Research reporting standards for endovascular treatment of pelvic venous insufficiency
• Reporting standards for endovascular treatment of pulmonary embolism
• Reporting Standards for Endovascular Repair of Saccular Intracranial Cerebral Aneurysms
• Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke
• Target registration and target positioning errors in computer-assisted neurosurgery: proposal for a standardized reporting of error assessment
• Recommended guidelines for reporting on emergency medical dispatch when conducting research in emergency medicine: the Utstein style
• Recommended guidelines for reviewing, reporting, and conducting research on post-resuscitation care: the Utstein style
• Utstein-style guidelines for uniform reporting of laboratory CPR research
• Recommendations for uniform reporting of data following major trauma–the Utstein style
• Recommended guidelines for reviewing, reporting, and conducting research on in-hospital resuscitation: the in-hospital ‘Utstein style’
• Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Results of the First International Workshop
• EACTS / ESCVS best practice guidelines for reporting treatment results in the thoracic aorta
• Consensus statement: Defining minimal criteria for reporting the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass
• Guidelines for reporting data and outcomes for the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation
• Recommendations for reporting morbid events after heart valve surgery
• Standards for reporting results of refractive surgery
• Quality of study methods in individual- and group-level HIV intervention research: critical reporting elements
• Quality of reporting in evaluations of surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia: recommendations for future reports
• Guidelines for reporting case series of tumours of the colon and rectum
• Guidance on reporting ultrasound exposure conditions for bio-effects studies
• American College of Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies (IVUS)
• Standardized reporting of bleeding complications for clinical investigations in acute coronary syndromes: a proposal from the academic bleeding consensus (ABC) multidisciplinary working group
• Standardized reporting guidelines for studies evaluating risk stratification of ED patients with potential acute coronary syndromes
• Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines
• Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies
• The lessons of QUANTEC : recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome
• A reporting guideline for clinical platelet transfusion studies from the BEST Collaborative
• Clinical trials focusing on cancer pain educational interventions: core components to include during planning and reporting
• Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR / ACR collaborative recommendations
• Exercise therapy and low back pain: insights and proposals to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical trials
• Eligibility and outcomes reporting guidelines for clinical trials for patients in the state of a rising prostate-specific antigen: recommendations from the Prostate -Specific Antigen Working Group
• Consensus guidelines for the conduct and reporting of clinical trials in systemic light-chain amyloidosis
• Diagnosis and management of acute myeloid leukemia in adults: recommendations from an international expert panel, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet
• Revised recommendations of the International Working Group for Diagnosis, Standardization of Response Criteria, Treatment Outcomes, and Reporting Standards for Therapeutic Trials in Acute Myeloid Leukemia
• Methodological challenges when using actigraphy in research
• Draft STROBE checklist for conference abstracts
• Conflict of Interest in Peer -Reviewed Medical Journals
• Financial Conflicts of Interest Checklist 2010 for clinical research studies
• Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest
• How to formulate research recommendations
• Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: the role of narrative
• The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers
• More medical journals should inform their contributors about three key principles of graph construction
• Figures in clinical trial reports: current practice & scope for improvement
• Recommendations for the assessment and reporting of multivariable logistic regression in transplantation literature
• Reporting results of latent growth modeling and multilevel modeling analyses: some recommendations for rehabilitation psychology
• Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls
• Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal
• Statistics in medicine–reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials
• Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study
• Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review
• Basic Statistical Reporting for Articles Published in Biomedical Journals: The “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature” or The SAMPL Guidelines
• Establishing a knowledge trail from molecular experiments to clinical trials
• Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers
• Best practices in the reporting of participatory action research: Embracing both the forest and the trees
• A comprehensive checklist for reporting the use of OSCEs
• Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: review and recommendations
• Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data
• Perspective: Guidelines for reporting team-based learning activities in the medical and health sciences education literature
• Authors’ Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published
• Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: GPP 3
• Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization
• A new structure for quality improvement reports
• Guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation of fall prevention strategies
• Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics
• Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
• Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II : Focus on modelling studies
• Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies
• Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report
• Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost -Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
• The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research
• Qualitative research review guidelines – RATS
• Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields
• Revealing the wood and the trees: reporting qualitative research
• Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
• RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
• RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
• Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group
• Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting
• PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity
• PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts
• The STARD statement for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: application to the history and physical examination
• Capturing momentary, self-report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines
• Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)
• Guidelines for field surveys of the quality of medicines: a proposal
• A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians
• Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research
• Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group
• Recommendations for biomarker identification and qualification in clinical proteomics
• Missing covariate data within cancer prognostic studies: a review of current reporting and proposed guidelines
• Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: ready for clinical use?
• Anecdotes as evidence
• Recommendations for reporting adverse drug reactions and adverse events of traditional Chinese medicine
• Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication
• Guidelines for clinical case reports in behavioral clinical psychology
• Instructions to authors for case reporting are limited: a review of a core journal list
• Reporting participation in case-control studies
• Conducting and reporting case series and audits–author guidelines for acupuncture in medicine
• Appropriate use and reporting of uncontrolled case series in the medical literature
• Improving the reporting of clinical case series
• EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology
• Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology
• A community standard for immunogenomic data reporting and analysis: proposal for a STrengthening the REporting of Immunogenomic Studies statement
• STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology – Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) : An extension of the STROBE statement
• STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) : An Extension of the STROBE Statement.
• Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond
• Reporting experiments in homeopathic basic research (REHBaR) – a detailed guideline for authors
• Guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods
• Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: Defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources
• Guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies
• Setting the bar in phase II trials: the use of historical data for determining “go/no go” decision for definitive phase III testing
• GNOSIS : Guidelines for Neuro -Oncology : Standards for Investigational Studies – reporting of surgically based therapeutic clinical trials
• The standard of reporting of health-related quality of life in clinical cancer trials
• A systematic review of the reporting of Data Monitoring Committees’ roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric clinical trials
• “Brimful of STARLITE ”: toward standards for reporting literature searches
• Systematic prioritization of the STARE-HI reporting items. An application to short conference papers on health informatics evaluation
• CONSORT-EHEALTH : improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions
• Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension
• Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations
• Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ
• Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: recommendation proposal
• Relevance of CONSORT reporting criteria for research on eHealth interventions
• Reporting guidelines for music-based interventions
• Reporting whole-body vibration intervention studies: recommendations of the International Society of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions
• Reporting standards for studies of tailored interventions
• Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot) : A supplement to CONSORT
• Evaluating the quality of reporting occupational therapy randomized controlled trials by expanding the CONSORT criteria
• WIDER recommendations for reporting of behaviour change interventions
• Evidence-based behavioral medicine: what is it and how do we achieve it?
• CONSORT 2010: CONSORT-C (children)
• The CONSORT statement checklist in allergen-specific immunotherapy: a GA 2 LEN paper
• Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement
• CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts
• CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts
• Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT Statement
• Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
• Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement
• Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) : extending the CONSORT statement
• STARE-HI – Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics
• The ORION statement: guidelines for transparent reporting of Outbreak Reports and Intervention studies Of Nosocomial infection
• Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1
• Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting
• Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment
• Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed
• SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process
• Refining a checklist for reporting patient populations and service characteristics in hospice and palliative care research
• Point and interval estimates of effect sizes for the case-controls design in neuropsychology: rationale, methods, implementations, and proposed reporting standards
• Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of pediatric advanced life support: the pediatric Utstein style
• Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) : a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups
• Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials
• Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations of haemophilia prophylaxis
• Overview of methods used in cross-cultural comparisons of menopausal symptoms and their determinants: Guidelines for Strengthening the Reporting of Menopause and Aging (STROMA) studies
• Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies: the GRIPS Statement
• GNOSIS : guidelines for neuro-oncology: standards for investigational studies-reporting of phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials
• Standard guidelines for publication of deep brain stimulation studies in Parkinson’s disease (Guide 4 DBS-PD)

Reporting guidelines for main study types

Translations.

Some reporting guidelines are also available in languages other than English. Find out more in our Translations section .

• About the Library

For information about Library scope and content, identification of reporting guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria please visit About the Library .

Visit our Help page for information about searching for reporting guidelines and for general information about using our website.

Library index

• What is a reporting guideline?
• Browse reporting guidelines by specialty
• Reporting guidelines under development
• Translations of reporting guidelines
• EQUATOR Network reporting guideline manual
• Reporting guidelines for animal research
• Guidance on scientific writing
• Guidance developed by editorial groups
• Research funders’ guidance on reporting requirements
• Professional medical writing support
• Research ethics, publication ethics and good practice guidelines
• Links to other resources

Essential Rules for Academic Writing: A Beginner’s Guide

Unlock the key rules for academic writing: from structure to citations. Master scholarly communication with expert insights.

Mastering the art of academic writing is a fundamental skill that empowers students and researchers to express their ideas, convey complex concepts, and contribute meaningfully to their respective fields. However, for beginners venturing into the realm of scholarly writing, navigating the intricacies of this formal discourse can be a daunting task.

“Essential Rules for Academic Writing: A Beginner’s Guide” serves as a beacon of guidance, illuminating the path for aspiring scholars as they embark on their academic journey. This comprehensive article offers invaluable insights into the fundamental principles and key rules that underpin successful academic writing, providing a strong foundation for those new to the craft.

What Is Academic Writing?

Academic writing refers to a formal style of writing that is prevalent in academic settings such as universities, research institutions, and scholarly publications. It is a mode of communication used by students, researchers, and scholars to convey their ideas, present research findings, and engage in intellectual discourse within their respective fields of study.

Related article: 11 Best Grammar Checker Tools For Academic Writing

Unlike other forms of writing, academic writing adheres to specific conventions and standards that prioritize clarity, precision, objectivity, and critical thinking. It is characterized by a rigorous approach to presenting arguments, supporting claims with evidence, and adhering to the principles of logic and reasoning.

Academic writing encompasses a wide range of genres, including essays, research papers, literature reviews, theses, dissertations, conference papers, and journal articles. Regardless of the specific genre, academic writing typically follows a structured format, includes proper citation and referencing, and adheres to established academic style guides such as APA (American Psychological Association) or MLA (Modern Language Association).

Types Of Academic Writing

Here’s a table summarizing the different types of academic writing, along with their definitions, purposes and typical structures:

Also read: Words To Use In Essays: Amplifying Your Academic Writing

General Rules For Academic Writing

Here are some general rules for academic writing: by adhering to these general guidelines, you can enhance the clarity, effectiveness, and professionalism of your academic writing, ensuring that your ideas are communicated with precision and impact.

Clarity and Precision

Academic writing demands clarity and precision in the expression of ideas. Use clear and concise language to communicate your thoughts effectively. Avoid ambiguous or vague statements, and strive for a logical flow of ideas within your writing.

Audience Awareness

Consider your intended audience when writing academically. Be aware of their background knowledge and familiarity with the topic. Adapt your writing style and level of technicality accordingly, ensuring that your content is accessible and understandable to your readers.

Use Formal Language

Academic writing requires a formal tone and language. Avoid colloquialisms, slang, and overly informal expressions. Instead, employ a vocabulary appropriate to the academic context, using specialized terms when necessary.

Structure and Organization

Structure your writing in a logical and coherent manner. Use clear headings, subheadings, and paragraphs to guide the reader through your work. Ensure that your ideas are well-organized and presented in a cohesive manner, with each paragraph or section contributing to the overall argument or discussion.

Evidence-Based Reasoning

Support your arguments and claims with credible evidence. Reference authoritative sources and cite them appropriately to establish the foundation for your ideas. Use empirical data, scholarly research, and reputable references to strengthen the validity and reliability of your work.

Critical Thinking

Academic writing encourages critical thinking and analysis. Engage with the existing literature, identify strengths and weaknesses in the arguments, and develop your own well-reasoned perspective. Challenge assumptions, evaluate alternative viewpoints, and provide well-supported arguments.

Proper Referencing and Citation

Maintain academic integrity by properly referencing and citing all sources used in your writing. Follow the specific citation style required by your academic institution or field, such as APA , MLA , or Chicago style . Accurate referencing gives credit to the original authors, allows readers to verify your sources, and demonstrates your commitment to scholarly integrity.

Revision and Proofreading

Academic writing involves a process of revision and proofreading. Review your work for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your writing is free from typographical mistakes and inconsistencies. Seek feedback from peers, instructors, or writing centers to enhance the quality of your work.

Also read: What Is Proofreading And How To Harness Its Benefits?

How To Improve The Academic Writing

To enhance your academic writing skills, it is crucial to engage in regular practice and give careful consideration to various aspects. Here are some essential focal points to pay attention to in order to improve your academic writing:

Punctuation

• Proper use of commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation marks to enhance clarity and meaning in sentences.
• Effective use of semicolons and colons to join related independent clauses and introduce lists or explanations.
• Understanding the role of dashes and hyphens to indicate interruptions or join words in compound adjectives.

Capitalization

• Capitalize proper nouns, including names of people, places, institutions, and specific titles or terms.
• Follow capitalization rules for titles, capitalizing the first and last words, as well as major words within the title.
• Ensure consistency in capitalization within headings and subheadings.

Grammar and Sentence Structure

• Ensure subject-verb agreement, ensuring that the subject and verb agree in number and person.
• Use proper tenses and maintain consistency in verb tense usage within a paragraph or section.
• Write clear and unambiguous sentences, avoiding run-on sentences, fragments, or unclear pronoun references.

Academic Conventions

• Apply appropriate formatting and font style as per the guidelines of the specific academic institution or style guide.
• Use headings and subheadings correctly, following a consistent hierarchy and formatting style.
• Use abbreviations appropriately and consistently, following the accepted conventions in the field.
• Adhere to specific guidelines for tables, figures, and graphs, including proper numbering, labeling, and citation.

Infographic Templates Made By Scientists

Mind the Graph revolutionizes scientific communication by offering scientists a user-friendly platform with scientifically-themed infographic templates. Publication-ready exporting ensures seamless integration into scientific papers and presentations. Mind the Graph empowers scientists to make their research more accessible and engaging through visually appealing infographics. Start your free trial now!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

How to Write a Research Paper 

• Smodin Editorial Team
• Updated: May 17, 2024

Most students hate writing research papers. The process can often feel long, tedious, and sometimes outright boring. Nevertheless, these assignments are vital to a student’s academic journey. Want to learn how to write a research paper that captures the depth of the subject and maintains the reader’s interest? If so, this guide is for you.

Today, we’ll show you how to assemble a well-organized research paper to help you make the grade. You can transform any topic into a compelling research paper with a thoughtful approach to your research and a persuasive argument.

In this guide, we’ll provide seven simple but practical tips to help demystify the process and guide you on your way. We’ll also explain how AI tools can expedite the research and writing process so you can focus on critical thinking.

By the end of this article, you’ll have a clear roadmap for tackling these essays. You will also learn how to tackle them quickly and efficiently. With time and dedication, you’ll soon master the art of research paper writing.

Ready to get started?

What Is a Research Paper?

A research paper is a comprehensive essay that gives a detailed analysis, interpretation, or argument based on your own independent research. In higher-level academic settings, it goes beyond a simple summarization and includes a deep inquiry into the topic or topics.

The term “research paper” is a broad term that can be applied to many different forms of academic writing. The goal is to combine your thoughts with the findings from peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

By the time your essay is done, you should have provided your reader with a new perspective or challenged existing findings. This demonstrates your mastery of the subject and contributes to ongoing scholarly debates.

7 Tips for Writing a Research Paper

Often, getting started is the most challenging part of a research paper. While the process can seem daunting, breaking it down into manageable steps can make it easier to manage. The following are seven tips for getting your ideas out of your head and onto the page.

1. Understand Your Assignment

It may sound simple, but the first step in writing a successful research paper is to read the assignment. Sit down, take a few moments of your time, and go through the instructions so you fully understand your assignment.

Misinterpreting the assignment can not only lead to a significant waste of time but also affect your grade. No matter how patient your teacher or professor may be, ignoring basic instructions is often inexcusable.

If you read the instructions and are still confused, ask for clarification before you start writing. If that’s impossible, you can use tools like Smodin’s AI chat to help. Smodin can help highlight critical requirements that you may overlook.

This initial investment ensures that all your future efforts will be focused and efficient. Remember, thinking is just as important as actually writing the essay, and it can also pave the wave for a smoother writing process.

2. Gather Research Materials

Now comes the fun part: doing the research. As you gather research materials, always use credible sources, such as academic journals or peer-reviewed papers. Only use search engines that filter for accredited sources and academic databases so you can ensure your information is reliable.

To optimize your time, you must learn to master the art of skimming. If a source seems relevant and valuable, save it and review it later. The last thing you want to do is waste time on material that won’t make it into the final paper.

To speed up the process even more, consider using Smodin’s AI summarizer . This tool can help summarize large texts, highlighting key information relevant to your topic. By systematically gathering and filing research materials early in the writing process, you build a strong foundation for your thesis.

3. Write Your Thesis

Creating a solid thesis statement is the most important thing you can do to bring structure and focus to your research paper. Your thesis should express the main point of your argument in one or two simple sentences. Remember, when you create your thesis, you’re setting the tone and direction for the entire paper.

Of course, you can’t just pull a winning thesis out of thin air. Start by brainstorming potential thesis ideas based on your preliminary research. And don’t overthink things; sometimes, the most straightforward ideas are often the best.

You want a thesis that is specific enough to be manageable within the scope of your paper but broad enough to allow for a unique discussion. Your thesis should challenge existing expectations and provide the reader with fresh insight into the topic. Use your thesis to hook the reader in the opening paragraph and keep them engaged until the very last word.

4. Write Your Outline

An outline is an often overlooked but essential tool for organizing your thoughts and structuring your paper. Many students skip the outline because it feels like doing double work, but a strong outline will save you work in the long run.

Here’s how to effectively structure your outline.

• Introduction: List your thesis statement and outline the main questions your essay will answer.
• Literature Review: Outline the key literature you plan to discuss and explain how it will relate to your thesis.
• Methodology: Explain the research methods you will use to gather and analyze the information.
• Discussion: Plan how you will interpret the results and their implications for your thesis.
• Conclusion: Summarize the content above to elucidate your thesis fully.

To further streamline this process, consider using Smodin’s Research Writer. This tool offers a feature that allows you to generate and tweak an outline to your liking based on the initial input you provide. You can adjust this outline to fit your research findings better and ensure that your paper remains well-organized and focused.

5. Write a Rough Draft

Once your outline is in place, you can begin the writing process. Remember, when you write a rough draft, it isn’t meant to be perfect. Instead, use it as a working document where you can experiment with and rearrange your arguments and evidence.

Don’t worry too much about grammar, style, or syntax as you write your rough draft. Focus on getting your ideas down on paper and flush out your thesis arguments. You can always refine and rearrange the content the next time around.

Follow the basic structure of your outline but with the freedom to explore different ways of expressing your thoughts. Smodin’s Essay Writer offers a powerful solution for those struggling with starting or structuring their drafts.

After you approve the outline, Smodin can generate an essay based on your initial inputs. This feature can help you quickly create a comprehensive draft, which you can then review and refine. You can even use the power of AI to create multiple rough drafts from which to choose.

6. Add or Subtract Supporting Evidence

Once you have a rough draft, but before you start the final revision, it’s time to do a little cleanup. In this phase, you need to review all your supporting evidence. You want to ensure that there is nothing redundant and that you haven’t overlooked any crucial details.

Many students struggle to make the required word count for an essay and resort to padding their writing with redundant statements. Instead of adding unnecessary content, focus on expanding your analysis to provide deeper insights.

A good essay, regardless of the topic or format, needs to be streamlined. It should convey clear, convincing, relevant information supporting your thesis. If you find some information doesn’t do that, consider tweaking your sources.

Include a variety of sources, including studies, data, and quotes from scholars or other experts. Remember, you’re not just strengthening your argument but demonstrating the depth of your research.

If you want comprehensive feedback on your essay without going to a writing center or pestering your professor, use Smodin. The AI Chat can look at your draft and offer suggestions for improvement.

7. Revise, Cite, and Submit

The final stages of crafting a research paper involve revision, citation, and final review. You must ensure your paper is polished, professionally presented, and plagiarism-free. Of course, integrating Smodin’s AI tools can significantly streamline this process and enhance the quality of your final submission.

Start by using Smodin’s Rewriter tool. This AI-powered feature can help rephrase and refine your draft to improve overall readability. If a specific section of your essay just “doesn’t sound right,” the AI can suggest alternative sentence structures and word choices.

Proper citation is a must for all academic papers. Thankfully, thanks to Smodin’s Research Paper app, this once tedious process is easier than ever. The AI ensures all sources are accurately cited according to the required style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).

Plagiarism Checker:

All students need to realize that accidental plagiarism can happen. That’s why using a Plagiarism Checker to scan your essay before you submit it is always useful. Smodin’s Plagiarism Checker can highlight areas of concern so you can adjust accordingly.

Final Submission

After revising, rephrasing, and ensuring all citations are in order, use Smodin’s AI Content Detector to give your paper one last review. This tool can help you analyze your paper’s overall quality and readability so you can make any final tweaks or improvements.

Mastering Research Papers

Mastering the art of the research paper cannot be overstated, whether you’re in high school, college, or postgraduate studies. You can confidently prepare your research paper for submission by leveraging the AI tools listed above.

Research papers help refine your abilities to think critically and write persuasively. The skills you develop here will serve you well beyond the walls of the classroom. Communicating complex ideas clearly and effectively is one of the most powerful tools you can possess.

With the advancements of AI tools like Smodin , writing a research paper has become more accessible than ever before. These technologies streamline the process of organizing, writing, and revising your work. Write with confidence, knowing your best work is yet to come!

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident than in academia. From the quick scribbles of eager students to the inquisitive thoughts of renowned scholars, academic essays depict the power of the written word. These well-crafted writings propel ideas forward and expand the existing boundaries of human intellect.

What is an Academic Essay

An academic essay is a nonfictional piece of writing that analyzes and evaluates an argument around a specific topic or research question. It serves as a medium to share the author’s views and is also used by institutions to assess the critical thinking, research skills, and writing abilities of a students and researchers.  

Importance of Academic Essays

4 main types of academic essays.

While academic essays may vary in length, style, and purpose, they generally fall into four main categories. Despite their differences, these essay types share a common goal: to convey information, insights, and perspectives effectively.

1. Expository Essay

2. Descriptive Essay

3. Narrative Essay

4. Argumentative Essay

Expository and persuasive essays mainly deal with facts to explain ideas clearly. Narrative and descriptive essays are informal and have a creative edge. Despite their differences, these essay types share a common goal ― to convey information, insights, and perspectives effectively.

Expository Essays: Illuminating ideas

An expository essay is a type of academic writing that explains, illustrates, or clarifies a particular subject or idea. Its primary purpose is to inform the reader by presenting a comprehensive and objective analysis of a topic.

By breaking down complex topics into digestible pieces and providing relevant examples and explanations, expository essays allow writers to share their knowledge.

What are the Key Features of an Expository Essay

Provides factual information without bias

Presents multiple viewpoints while maintaining objectivity

Uses direct and concise language to ensure clarity for the reader

Composed of a logical structure with an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion

When is an expository essay written.

1. For academic assignments to evaluate the understanding of research skills.

2. As instructional content to provide step-by-step guidance for tasks or problem-solving.

3. In journalism for objective reporting in news or investigative pieces.

4. As a form of communication in the professional field to convey factual information in business or healthcare.

How to Write an Expository Essay

Expository essays are typically structured in a logical and organized manner.

1. Topic Selection and Research

• Choose a topic that can be explored objectively
• Gather relevant facts and information from credible sources
• Develop a clear thesis statement

2. Outline and Structure

• Create an outline with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion
• Introduce the topic and state the thesis in the introduction
• Dedicate each body paragraph to a specific point supporting the thesis
• Use transitions to maintain a logical flow

3. Objective and Informative Writing

• Maintain an impartial and informative tone
• Avoid personal opinions or biases
• Support points with factual evidence, examples, and explanations

4. Conclusion

• Summarize the key points
• Reinforce the significance of the thesis

Descriptive Essays: Painting with words

Descriptive essays transport readers into vivid scenes, allowing them to experience the world through the writer ‘s lens. These essays use rich sensory details, metaphors, and figurative language to create a vivid and immersive experience . Its primary purpose is to engage readers’ senses and imagination.

It allows writers to demonstrate their ability to observe and describe subjects with precision and creativity.

What are the Key Features of Descriptive Essay

Employs figurative language and imagery to paint a vivid picture for the reader

Demonstrates creativity and expressiveness in narration

Includes close attention to detail, engaging the reader’s senses

Engages the reader’s imagination and emotions through immersive storytelling using analogies, metaphors, similes, etc.

When is a descriptive essay written.

1. Personal narratives or memoirs that describe significant events, people, or places.

2. Travel writing to capture the essence of a destination or experience.

3. Character sketches in fiction writing to introduce and describe characters.

4. Poetry or literary analyses to explore the use of descriptive language and imagery.

How to Write a Descriptive Essay

The descriptive essay lacks a defined structural requirement but typically includes: an introduction introducing the subject, a thorough description, and a concluding summary with insightful reflection.

1. Subject Selection and Observation

• Choose a subject (person, place, object, or experience) to describe
• Gather sensory details and observations

2. Engaging Introduction

• Set the scene and provide the context
• Use of descriptive language and figurative techniques

3. Descriptive Body Paragraphs

• Focus on specific aspects or details of the subject
• Engage the reader ’s senses with vivid imagery and descriptions
• Maintain a consistent tone and viewpoint

4. Impactful Conclusion

• Provide a final impression or insight
• Leave a lasting impact on the reader

Narrative Essays: Storytelling in Action

Narrative essays are personal accounts that tell a story, often drawing from the writer’s own experiences or observations. These essays rely on a well-structured plot, character development, and vivid descriptions to engage readers and convey a deeper meaning or lesson.

What are the Key features of Narrative Essays

Written from a first-person perspective and hence subjective

Based on real personal experiences

Uses an informal and expressive tone

Presents events and characters in sequential order

When is a narrative essay written.

It is commonly assigned in high school and college writing courses to assess a student’s ability to convey a meaningful message or lesson through a personal narrative. They are written in situations where a personal experience or story needs to be recounted, such as:

1. Reflective essays on significant life events or personal growth.

2. Autobiographical writing to share one’s life story or experiences.

3. Creative writing exercises to practice narrative techniques and character development.

4. College application essays to showcase personal qualities and experiences.

How to Write a Narrative Essay

Narrative essays typically follow a chronological structure, with an introduction that sets the scene, a body that develops the plot and characters, and a conclusion that provides a sense of resolution or lesson learned.

1. Experience Selection and Reflection

• Choose a significant personal experience or event
• Reflect on the impact and deeper meaning

2. Immersive Introduction

• Introduce characters and establish the tone and point of view

3. Plotline and Character Development

• Advance   the  plot and character development through body paragraphs
• Incorporate dialog , conflict, and resolution
• Maintain a logical and chronological flow

4. Insightful Conclusion

• Reflect on lessons learned or insights gained
• Leave the reader with a lasting impression

Argumentative Essays: Persuasion and Critical Thinking

Argumentative essays are the quintessential form of academic writing in which writers present a clear thesis and support it with well-researched evidence and logical reasoning. These essays require a deep understanding of the topic, critical analysis of multiple perspectives, and the ability to construct a compelling argument.

What are the Key Features of an Argumentative Essay?

Logical and well-structured arguments

Credible and relevant evidence from reputable sources

Consideration and refutation of counterarguments

Critical analysis and evaluation of the issue 

When is an argumentative essay written.

Argumentative essays are written to present a clear argument or stance on a particular issue or topic. In academic settings they are used to develop critical thinking, research, and persuasive writing skills. However, argumentative essays can also be written in various other contexts, such as:

1. Opinion pieces or editorials in newspapers, magazines, or online publications.

2. Policy proposals or position papers in government, nonprofit, or advocacy settings.

3. Persuasive speeches or debates in academic, professional, or competitive environments.

4. Marketing or advertising materials to promote a product, service, or idea.

How to write an Argumentative Essay

Argumentative essays begin with an introduction that states the thesis and provides context. The body paragraphs develop the argument with evidence, address counterarguments, and use logical reasoning. The conclusion restates the main argument and makes a final persuasive appeal.

• Choose a debatable and controversial issue
• Conduct thorough research and gather evidence and counterarguments

2. Thesis and Introduction

• Craft a clear and concise thesis statement
• Provide background information and establish importance

3. Structured Body Paragraphs

• Focus each paragraph on a specific aspect of the argument
• Support with logical reasoning, factual evidence, and refutation

4. Persuasive Techniques

• Adopt a formal and objective tone
• Use persuasive techniques (rhetorical questions, analogies, appeals)

5. Impactful Conclusion

• Summarize the main points
• Leave the reader with a strong final impression and call to action

To learn more about argumentative essay, check out this article .

5 Quick Tips for Researchers to Improve Academic Essay Writing Skills

Use clear and concise language to convey ideas effectively without unnecessary words

Use well-researched, credible sources to substantiate your arguments with data, expert opinions, and scholarly references

Ensure a coherent structure with effective transitions, clear topic sentences, and a logical flow to enhance readability 

To elevate your academic essay, consider submitting your draft to a community-based platform like Open Platform  for editorial review 

Review your work multiple times for clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic guidelines to ensure a polished final product

By mastering the art of academic essay writing, researchers and scholars can effectively communicate their ideas, contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and engage in meaningful scholarly discourse.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

• Industry News
• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Need for Diversifying Academic Curricula: Embracing missing voices and marginalized perspectives

In classrooms worldwide, a single narrative often dominates, leaving many students feeling lost. These stories,…

• Reporting Research

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

The pressure to “publish or perish” is a well-known reality for academics, striking fear into…

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without…

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a crucial section in research that examines existing studies and publications related to a specific topic. It summarizes and synthesizes previous findings, identifies gaps, and provides context for the current research. RRL ensures the research is grounded in established knowledge, guiding the direction and focus of new studies.

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a detailed analysis of existing research relevant to a specific topic. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes previous studies to identify trends, gaps, and conflicts in the literature. RRL provides a foundation for new research, ensuring it builds on established knowledge and addresses existing gaps.

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a critical part of any research paper or thesis . It provides an overview of existing research on your topic and helps to establish the context for your study. Here is a typical format for an RRL:

1. Introduction

• Purpose : Explain the purpose of the review and its importance to your research.
• Scope : Define the scope of the literature reviewed, including the time frame, types of sources, and key themes.

2. Theoretical Framework

• Concepts and Theories : Present the main theories and concepts that underpin your research.
• Relevance : Explain how these theories relate to your study.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

• Sub-theme 1 : Summarize key studies, including methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Sub-theme 2 : Continue summarizing studies, focusing on different aspects or variables.
• Sub-theme 3 : Include any additional relevant studies.

4. Methodological Review

• Approaches : Discuss the various methodologies used in the reviewed studies.
• Strengths and Weaknesses : Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies.
• Gaps : Identify gaps in the existing research that your study aims to address.

5. Synthesis and Critique

• Integration : Integrate findings from the reviewed studies to show the current state of knowledge.
• Critique : Critically evaluate the literature, discussing inconsistencies, limitations, and areas for further research.

6. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Research Gap : Clearly state the research gap your study will address.
• Contribution : Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

7. References

• Citation Style : List all the sources cited in your literature review in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Review of Related Literature (RRL) 1. Introduction This review examines research on social media’s impact on mental health, focusing on anxiety and depression across various demographics over the past ten years. 2. Theoretical Framework Anchored in Social Comparison Theory and Uses and Gratifications Theory, this review explores how individuals’ social media interactions affect their mental health. 3. Review of Empirical Studies Adolescents’ Mental Health Instagram & Body Image : Smith & Johnson (2017) found Instagram use linked to body image issues and lower self-esteem among 500 high school students. Facebook & Anxiety : Brown & Green (2016) showed Facebook use correlated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal study of 300 students. Young Adults’ Mental Health Twitter & Stress : Davis & Lee (2018) reported higher stress levels among heavy Twitter users in a survey of 400 university students. LinkedIn & Self-Esteem : Miller & White (2019) found LinkedIn use positively influenced professional self-esteem in 200 young professionals. Adult Mental Health General Social Media Use : Thompson & Evans (2020) found moderate social media use associated with better mental health outcomes, while excessive use correlated with higher anxiety and depression in 1,000 adults. 4. Methodological Review Studies used cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal designs, and mixed methods. Cross-sectional surveys provided large data sets but couldn’t infer causation. Longitudinal studies offered insights into long-term effects but were resource-intensive. Mixed methods enriched data through qualitative insights but required careful integration. 5. Synthesis and Critique The literature shows a complex relationship between social media and mental health, with platform-specific and demographic-specific effects. However, reliance on self-reported data introduces bias, and many cross-sectional studies limit causal inference. More longitudinal and experimental research is needed. 6. Conclusion Current research offers insights into social media’s mental health impact but leaves gaps, particularly regarding long-term effects and causation. This study aims to address these gaps through comprehensive longitudinal analysis. 7. References Brown, A., & Green, K. (2016). Facebook Use and Anxiety Among High School Students . Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 257-264. Davis, R., & Lee, S. (2018). Twitter and Psychological Stress: A Study of University Students . Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 120-135. Miller, P., & White, H. (2019). LinkedIn and Its Effect on Professional Self-Esteem . Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 78-90. Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2017). The Impact of Instagram on Teen Body Image . Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(5), 555-560. Thompson, M., & Evans, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Mental Health in Adults . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 201-208.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

Review of related literature in research, review of related literature in research paper, review of related literature qualitative research.

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

• Impact of E-learning on Student Performance
• Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Workplace
• Green Building and Energy Efficiency
• Impact of Technology on Healthcare Delivery
• Effects of Nutrition on Cognitive Development in Children
• Impact of Employee Training Programs on Productivity
• Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Impact of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Effects of Mobile Learning on Student Engagement
• Effects of Urban Green Spaces on Mental Health

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) serves several critical purposes in research:

• Establishing Context : It situates your research within the broader field, showing how your study relates to existing work.
• Identifying Gaps : It highlights gaps, inconsistencies, and areas needing further exploration in current knowledge, providing a clear rationale for your study.
• Avoiding Duplication : By reviewing what has already been done, it helps ensure your research is original and not a repetition of existing studies.
• Building on Existing Knowledge : It allows you to build on the findings of previous research, using established theories and methodologies to inform your work.
• Theoretical Foundation : It provides a theoretical basis for your research, grounding it in existing concepts and theories.
• Methodological Insights : It offers insights into the methods and approaches used in similar studies, helping you choose the most appropriate methods for your research.
• Establishing Credibility : It demonstrates your familiarity with the field, showing that you are well-informed and have a solid foundation for your research.
• Supporting Arguments : It provides evidence and support for your research questions, hypotheses, and objectives, strengthening the overall argument of your study.

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Writing a Review of Related Literature (RRL) involves several key steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Determine the Scope : Decide on the breadth of the literature you will review, including specific themes, time frame, and types of sources.
• Set Objectives : Clearly define the purpose of the review. What do you aim to achieve? Identify gaps, establish context, or build on existing knowledge.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

• Identify Keywords : Use keywords and phrases related to your research topic.
• Use Databases : Search academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc., for relevant articles, books, and papers.
• Select Sources : Choose sources that are credible, recent, and relevant to your research.

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

• Read Abstracts and Summaries : Quickly determine the relevance of each source.
• Assess Quality : Consider the methodology, credibility of the authors, and publication source.
• Select Key Studies : Choose studies that are most relevant to your research questions and objectives.

4. Organize the Literature

• Thematic Organization : Group studies by themes or topics.
• Chronological Organization : Arrange studies in the order they were published to show the development of ideas over time.
• Methodological Organization : Categorize studies by the methods they used.

5. Write the Review

• State the purpose and scope of the review.
• Explain the importance of the topic.
• Theoretical Framework : Present and discuss the main theories and concepts.
• Summarize key studies, including their methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Organize by themes or other chosen organizational methods.
• Methodological Review : Discuss the various methodologies used, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
• Synthesis and Critique : Integrate findings, critically evaluate the literature, and identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the research gaps your study will address.
• State how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

6. Cite the Sources

• Use Appropriate Citation Style : Follow the required citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• List References : Provide a complete list of all sources cited in your review.

What is an RRL?

An RRL summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic to identify gaps and guide future studies.

Why is RRL important?

It provides context, highlights gaps, and ensures new research builds on existing knowledge.

How do you write an RRL?

Organize by themes, summarize studies, evaluate methodologies, identify gaps, and conclude with relevance to current research.

What sources are used in RRL?

Peer-reviewed journals, books, conference papers, and credible online resources.

How long should an RRL be?

Length varies; typically 10-20% of the total research paper.

What are common RRL mistakes?

Lack of organization, insufficient synthesis, over-reliance on outdated sources, and failure to identify gaps.

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

Primarily scholarly, but reputable non-scholarly sources can be included for context.

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

RRL synthesizes and analyzes the literature, while a bibliography lists sources.

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

Yes, it identifies gaps and trends that shape the focus and methodology of new research.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

AI-assisted writing is quietly booming in academic journals. Here’s why that’s OK

Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Julian Koplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

If you search Google Scholar for the phrase “ as an AI language model ”, you’ll find plenty of AI research literature and also some rather suspicious results. For example, one paper on agricultural technology says:

As an AI language model, I don’t have direct access to current research articles or studies. However, I can provide you with an overview of some recent trends and advancements …

Obvious gaffes like this aren’t the only signs that researchers are increasingly turning to generative AI tools when writing up their research. A recent study examined the frequency of certain words in academic writing (such as “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”), and found they became far more common after the launch of ChatGPT – so much so that 1% of all journal articles published in 2023 may have contained AI-generated text.

(Why do AI models overuse these words? There is speculation it’s because they are more common in English as spoken in Nigeria, where key elements of model training often occur.)

The aforementioned study also looks at preliminary data from 2024, which indicates that AI writing assistance is only becoming more common. Is this a crisis for modern scholarship, or a boon for academic productivity?

Who should take credit for AI writing?

Many people are worried by the use of AI in academic papers. Indeed, the practice has been described as “ contaminating ” scholarly literature.

Some argue that using AI output amounts to plagiarism. If your ideas are copy-pasted from ChatGPT, it is questionable whether you really deserve credit for them.

But there are important differences between “plagiarising” text authored by humans and text authored by AI. Those who plagiarise humans’ work receive credit for ideas that ought to have gone to the original author.

By contrast, it is debatable whether AI systems like ChatGPT can have ideas, let alone deserve credit for them. An AI tool is more like your phone’s autocomplete function than a human researcher.

The question of bias

Another worry is that AI outputs might be biased in ways that could seep into the scholarly record. Infamously, older language models tended to portray people who are female, black and/or gay in distinctly unflattering ways, compared with people who are male, white and/or straight.

This kind of bias is less pronounced in the current version of ChatGPT.

However, other studies have found a different kind of bias in ChatGPT and other large language models : a tendency to reflect a left-liberal political ideology.

Any such bias could subtly distort scholarly writing produced using these tools.

The hallucination problem

The most serious worry relates to a well-known limitation of generative AI systems: that they often make serious mistakes.

For example, when I asked ChatGPT-4 to generate an ASCII image of a mushroom, it provided me with the following output.

It then confidently told me I could use this image of a “mushroom” for my own purposes.

These kinds of overconfident mistakes have been referred to as “ AI hallucinations ” and “ AI bullshit ”. While it is easy to spot that the above ASCII image looks nothing like a mushroom (and quite a bit like a snail), it may be much harder to identify any mistakes ChatGPT makes when surveying scientific literature or describing the state of a philosophical debate.

Unlike (most) humans, AI systems are fundamentally unconcerned with the truth of what they say. If used carelessly, their hallucinations could corrupt the scholarly record.

Should AI-produced text be banned?

One response to the rise of text generators has been to ban them outright. For example, Science – one of the world’s most influential academic journals – disallows any use of AI-generated text .

I see two problems with this approach.

The first problem is a practical one: current tools for detecting AI-generated text are highly unreliable. This includes the detector created by ChatGPT’s own developers, which was taken offline after it was found to have only a 26% accuracy rate (and a 9% false positive rate ). Humans also make mistakes when assessing whether something was written by AI.

It is also possible to circumvent AI text detectors. Online communities are actively exploring how to prompt ChatGPT in ways that allow the user to evade detection. Human users can also superficially rewrite AI outputs, effectively scrubbing away the traces of AI (like its overuse of the words “commendable”, “meticulously” and “intricate”).

The second problem is that banning generative AI outright prevents us from realising these technologies’ benefits. Used well, generative AI can boost academic productivity by streamlining the writing process. In this way, it could help further human knowledge. Ideally, we should try to reap these benefits while avoiding the problems.

The problem is poor quality control, not AI

The most serious problem with AI is the risk of introducing unnoticed errors, leading to sloppy scholarship. Instead of banning AI, we should try to ensure that mistaken, implausible or biased claims cannot make it onto the academic record.

After all, humans can also produce writing with serious errors, and mechanisms such as peer review often fail to prevent its publication.

We need to get better at ensuring academic papers are free from serious mistakes, regardless of whether these mistakes are caused by careless use of AI or sloppy human scholarship. Not only is this more achievable than policing AI usage, it will improve the standards of academic research as a whole.

This would be (as ChatGPT might say) a commendable and meticulously intricate solution.

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Academic journals
• Academic publishing
• Hallucinations
• Scholarly publishing
• Academic writing
• Large language models
• Generative AI

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Research Fellow

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health