Tips for writing the perfect IMRAD manuscript

To ensure that your manuscript conveys your ideas effectively, it is essential for you to structure it well. Many journals expect scientific research papers to be written in the traditional format, which is also referred to as the IMRaD format (Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, and Discussion). Here, I will cover some quick tips on writing each of the IMRaD sections to help you ensure that your manuscript communicates your research effectively. Jump to Contents

• What Is the IMRAD Format?
• IMRAD vs. Other Manuscript Formats
• How to Write Each IMRaD Section
• Common Mistakes to Avoid in Each Section
• Pre-Submission Checklist
• Frequently Asked Questions

What Is the IMRAD Format?

IMRaD stands for Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion. It is the dominant structure for empirical research papers in the natural sciences, life sciences, medical sciences, and increasingly in social sciences. The format became widely adopted in biomedical publishing during the 1970s, championed by journals and bodies such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its popularity stems from a simple principle: it mirrors the logical flow of the scientific method itself — you ask a question, describe how you investigated it, report what you found, and interpret what it means.

Why do journals prefer IMRaD?

• It makes papers easier to peer review, since reviewers know exactly where to find specific information
• It allows readers to selectively read only the sections relevant to them
• It provides a consistent framework that speeds up indexing and literature review
• It reduces ambiguity about what belongs where in a manuscript

Most journals in medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and psychology either require or strongly recommend the IMRaD structure. Always check your target journal’s author guidelines to confirm.

IMRAD vs. Other Manuscript Formats

Not all research papers follow the IMRaD structure. Choosing the right format depends on your study type, discipline, and target journal.

Format	Best suited for	Key difference from IMRaD
IMRaD	Original empirical research	Rigid four-section structure following the scientific method
Review article	Synthesizing existing literature	No Methods/Results in the traditional sense; structured around themes
CONSORT	Randomized controlled trials	Adds specific reporting items like CONSORT flow diagram
PRISMA	Systematic reviews and meta-analyses	Requires a PRISMA checklist and flow diagram
Narrative/humanities format	Qualitative, interpretive, or theoretical work	Argument-driven; no fixed section sequence
Case report	Clinical case documentation	Follows a Case Presentation + Discussion structure

If you are writing an original research paper for a science or medical journal, IMRaD is almost certainly the expected format. For clinical trials or systematic reviews, check whether your journal requires adherence to CONSORT or PRISMA reporting guidelines in addition to the IMRaD framework.

How to Write Each IMRaD Section

Introduction

The Introduction section sets the stage for your study. It should move from the broad context of your field to the specific problem your research addresses.

What to include:

• Background context that a non-specialist can follow
• A summary of what is already known about the topic
• A clear statement of the gap in existing knowledge
• Your research question, hypothesis, or objective
• A brief statement of your approach (without going into Methods detail)

Think of the Introduction as an inverted triangle: start wide and narrow down to your specific study.

Materials and Methods

This section answers the question: how did you conduct your research? It’s also called just Methods. It must be detailed enough for another researcher to replicate your study independently.

What to include:

• Study design and setting
• Participant selection criteria or sample description
• All materials, instruments, reagents, or software used (with versions and sources)
• Step-by-step procedures in chronological order
• Statistical methods used for data analysis
• Ethical approvals and consent procedures, where applicable

Write this section in the past tense, since you are describing what you did. Group related procedures under subheadings to improve readability.

Results

The Results section presents your findings objectively, without interpretation. It should directly address the questions or hypotheses you stated in the Introduction.

What to include:

• Key findings presented in a logical sequence (not necessarily chronological)
• Data supported by tables, figures, or graphs where appropriate
• Statistical outcomes including effect sizes, confidence intervals, and p-values
• Any unexpected or negative results

Do not discuss the meaning of your results here; that belongs in the Discussion. Every figure and table must be referenced in the text.

Discussion

The Discussion section interprets your results and places them in the context of existing research.

What to include:

• An explanation of what your results mean
• How your findings compare to previous studies
• Possible explanations for unexpected results
• The limitations of your study, stated honestly
• The implications of your findings for the field or for practice
• Directions for future research

The Discussion should mirror the Introduction. If the Introduction moved from broad to specific, the Discussion moves from specific findings back out to broader implications.

Conclusion

The Conclusion is a concise summary of what your study established. It is not a repetition of the Results.

What to include:

• The primary conclusion in direct relation to your original research question
• The significance or practical implication of the finding
• A forward-looking statement, if appropriate for your field

Keep the Conclusion brief, typically one to three paragraphs. Avoid introducing new data or arguments here.

Common Mistakes to Avoid in Each Section

Introduction mistakes

• Starting too broadly, with statements like “Since the beginning of time, scientists have studied…”
• Failing to clearly state the research gap that justifies your study
• Burying the research question at the end rather than stating it prominently
• Including procedural details that belong in the Methods section
• Over-citing tangential literature instead of focusing on directly relevant work

Materials and Methods mistakes

• Being vague about quantities, concentrations, or equipment specifications
• Omitting statistical methods or not justifying the choice of tests used
• Failing to mention ethical approval, especially for human or animal studies
• Describing procedures in the wrong tense (use past tense throughout)
• Referencing a cited protocol without describing any modifications you made to it

Results mistakes

• Interpreting findings instead of just reporting them
• Presenting the same data in both a table and a figure without justification
• Omitting negative or non-significant results, which are still scientifically relevant
• Not referencing every figure and table within the text
• Reporting statistics without context (e.g., reporting a p-value without the actual effect)

Discussion mistakes

• Restating the Results rather than interpreting them
• Overclaiming (drawing conclusions that go beyond what your data supports)
• Failing to acknowledge limitations, which undermines credibility with reviewers
• Ignoring contradictory evidence from prior literature
• Conflating correlation with causation

Conclusion mistakes

• Introducing new findings or evidence not mentioned elsewhere in the paper
• Repeating the abstract verbatim
• Being so vague that the conclusion could apply to almost any study in the field
• Omitting the practical significance of the findings entirely

Pre-Submission Checklist

Use this checklist to review your manuscript before submission.

Introduction

• Research context is established clearly for a broad scientific audience
• Key prior literature is cited and the gap is explicitly identified
• The research question or hypothesis is clearly stated
• The scope of the study is defined

Materials and Methods

• Study design, sample size, and sampling are described
• All materials, equipment, and software are named with version or catalogue details
• Procedures are described in sufficient detail to allow replication
• Statistical methods are named and justified
• Ethical approvals and participant consent are documented

Results

• All findings directly address the stated research question
• Every table and figure is numbered and cited within the text
• Statistical data includes effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values
• No interpretation or discussion of results appears in this section

Discussion

• Findings are compared to prior literature
• Limitations are acknowledged honestly
• Conclusions drawn are supported by the data presented
• Future research directions are suggested

Conclusion

• The primary conclusion directly answers the research question
• No new information is introduced
• Broader implications are briefly noted

General

• The manuscript follows the target journal’s author guidelines
• All sections are written in the appropriate tense
• References are formatted correctly and consistently

Frequently Asked Questions

Does every research paper have to follow the IMRaD format?

No, IMRaD is standard for empirical research papers in the sciences, but review articles, case reports, opinion pieces, and papers in humanities disciplines follow different structures. Always check your target journal’s author guidelines before drafting.

Can the Results and Discussion sections be combined?

Yes, in some journals and disciplines, a combined Results and Discussion section is acceptable or even preferred, particularly in shorter papers or in fields where results cannot be cleanly separated from interpretation. Check whether your journal permits this.

What comes before the Introduction in an IMRaD paper?

Most journals also require a Title, Abstract, and Keywords before the Introduction. Some require a Highlights section. These elements sit outside the IMRaD structure itself but are essential parts of the manuscript.

Is a Conclusion required in IMRaD?

Technically, the classic IMRaD acronym does not include a separate Conclusion—it ends at Discussion. However, most journals expect a brief concluding paragraph, either as its own section or as the final part of the Discussion. Always follow the specific journal’s template.

How long should each IMRaD section be?

There is no universal rule, but a rough guide for a typical 4,000–6,000 word paper is: Introduction (10–15%), Methods (20–25%), Results (25–35%), Discussion (25–35%), and Conclusion (5%). Your discipline and journal may have different norms.

What is the best order to write the IMRaD sections?

Most experienced researchers recommend writing the Methods first (since it is the most factual), then Results, then Introduction and Discussion, and finally the Abstract and Title last. Writing in this order ensures your framing in the Introduction accurately reflects what you actually did and found. This article was originally published on October 15, 2013, and updated on April 8, 2026.