Why the Literature Bores you and how IMRaD Makes it Better
We’re all thinking it, so I’m just going to say it:
Journal articles are boring.
I don’t mean that journal articles should be boring, or that we should be boring writers. But I’m sure you’ve read enough publications to agree that reading, start-to-finish, a scientific journal article of typical writing-quality is something you’d rather not do while sipping margaritas on a beach.
And one more thing:
Journal articles are confusing, too.
We’ve all stumbled our way to the end of a publication and wondered, “What on earth did I just read…?” It’s easy to get lost in these dense, wandering documents.
But what exactly causes this boredom and confusion?
One cause is bad writing. The typical science and engineering publication flows poorly. It crams too much information. It uses too much complicated language and too few short sentences.
Another cause is weird structure. Journal articles put information in strange places. They require lots of deciphering. They’re organization is unlike any other thing you’ve ever read.
Consequently, we learn to approach the literature with hesitation. Too many articles have made us feel dumb. We’ve spent too much time searching cryptic texts for hidden information. We feel anxious that each new journal article will lead us through an unsolvable maze.
That’s not a good thing. Because the literature overflows with exciting science that we truly want to learn. But how can we cut through the boredom and confusion to discover it?
The solution is to leverage that weird journal article structure. Yes, ironically, the very structure that makes journal articles so difficult is also the tool that will unlock our ability to read them.
So, in this article, we’re going to take a deep dive into journal article structure. This might feel a bit like cozying up with the enemy. But once you get to know the structure, it will help you simplify the way you read and write publications. And that will help you replace your boredom, confusion, and anxiety with confidence.
In this Article
A Guide to the IMRaD Sections
A Visual Guide to Journal Article Structure
Leverage the IMRaD Structure for Reading
Skim Articles out of Order
Guide your Reading with a Template
Leverage the IMRaD Structure for Writing
Put Elements in the Right Locations
Simplify your Writing Standards
too long; didn’t read?
Download my guide on Journal Article Structure
Master the IMRaD Structure
Let’s get into the specifics.
Now, you probably already know this part. But just for clarity’s sake, when I talk about structure, I mean Introduction, Methods, and Results & Discussion—or IMRaD. We’ll also talk about Title, Abstract, and common sub-sections like the Background and Conclusion. But for the most part, the three IMRaD sections describe the bulk of a typical article’s framework.
Put simply, we can define these three sections by how they relate to the research question:
Introduction: why does the research question matter?
Methods: how was the research question answered?
Results & Discussion: what is the research question’s answer?
Most science and engineering publications follow this basic outline at the section level. And many articles will build their sub-sections on a common framework, too: they’ll place their literature review, research question, and other important points in similar locations.
That common structure provides just enough guideposts for us to peruse an article’s outline and quickly identify its main points. And that’s an extremely valuable tool. It means that—no matter how boring the text or how confusing the writing—you can use the IMRaD structure to pinpoint an article’s highlights.
It’s a bit like coloring between the lines. Artists may use different designs to fill the same black outline with color. The coloring design below, for example, is boring and confusing. But thanks to the outline, we can quickly pinpoint Saturn’s features.
Despite the confusing and boring coloring, the structure helps us pinpoint Saturn’s main features.
Of course, few researchers write so poorly as this coloring job. But even if they did, you could still learn their project’s main points as long as they followed the IMRaD structure.
All to say that the IMRaD structure is a very valuable tool. It helps you navigate poorly-written articles. It helps you write well-organized manuscripts. And it’s fairly consistent across the science and engineering literature.
But to realize these benefits—to develop your competency with this tool—you must master the IMRaD structure.
Now, master is a somewhat loaded word. We all have some basic level of IMRaD understanding. Some of us more than others. But how do we know when we’ve really mastered it?
Consider the following question: Would you feel comfortable giving a 30-minute presentation about the purpose, value, and application of the IMRaD structure?
Probably not.
And that means your grasp of this valuable tool may be weaker than you think. That your reading is more boring than it needs to be. That your writing is more confusing than it needs to be.
A better understanding of the IMRaD structure will help you fix those problems. For each IMRaD section, you must know its contents, its purpose, how the reader uses it, how the writer uses it, and its common mistakes. Here’s a guide to get you started.
A Guide to the IMRaD Sections
Purpose
Market the publication. Summarize the project’s key points. Entice readers to download the article.
Reader’s Goal
Decide if the article is worth reading. Read only articles that provide relevant information for your project. If the Title & Abstract seem relevant to your project, then download the article. Otherwise, ignore it.
Writer’s Goal
Convince readers to download your article. No, that doesn’t mean being a tacky salesman. It means sharing the important points of your work in an engaging way:
The Title contains your most important two key words, main finding, niche research topic, and an important experimental variable.
The Abstract mimics the Title’s message, but in a longer form. It contains a few more key words and the high points of each of the article’s sections.
Common Mistakes
Title is too broad, too narrow, or just vague.
Abstract is too comprehensive. It fails to highlight the most important takeaways, but instead tries to share everything about the article.
These mistakes confuse the reader. An ambiguous title and wordy abstract can cause the reader to avoid downloading a helpful publication.
Purpose
Show how the study advances science and improves society. Provide broad scientific and social motivations, frame the research gap, and identify the research question.
Synthesize the literature to frame the research gap. This is done in the “Background” portion. It may sit within the Introduction section. Or it may have its own section entitled Background or Literature Review.
Reader’s Goal
Find the research gap and research question. Often, you can find that information in the Introduction’s first and last paragraphs. Novice researchers may read the entire Background in depth to learn more about their field.
Writer’s Goal
Prove the project’s novelty. Reviewers want to see a well-developed research gap. Use the Background to identify unknown knowledge. At the end of the Introduction, use that unknown knowledge to synthesize the research gap and pose a research question whose answer will fill that gap.
Common Mistakes
The Background provides a scattered summary of the literature without synthesizing it into a research gap.
The Introduction fails to clearly identify the research gap and research question.
The Introduction fails to shows how the research question’s answer will fill the research gap.
These mistakes disorient the reader. The reader may vaguely understand the project, but cannot guess what the rest of the article will contain.
Purpose
Describe the process that produced the output data. That process may include apparatus, samples, procedures, data, statistics, and other components.
Reader’s Goal
Determine the study’s legitimacy. Use a general understanding of the Methods to determine the study’s limitations, accuracy, and applicability to solving the research question.
Replicate the study. You may want to apply a study’s methods to your own project. In that case, read the Methods thoroughly to understand the specifics of each experimental component. You might also read the article’s appendices.
Writer’s Goal
Defend the experiment. Convince the audience that the experiment adequately answers the research question. Begin the Methods section with a strong introduction that summarizes the whole method, its applicability to the research question, and its limitations. Begin each sub-section by describing that experimental stage’s contribution to the whole experiment and its applicability to the research question.
Common Mistakes
Fails to summarize the overall method. Does not describe how the different experiment stages fit together.
Dives too quickly into the experiment’s details.
These mistakes overwhelm the reader. Without a good, high-level introduction, the reader cannot see the experiment as a whole. The small details, rather than enriching the reader’s understanding, will quickly exhaust them.
Purpose
Describe the experiment’s output data. Indicate trends, relationships, or other observations that fuel the discussion. Avoid making interpretations, yet.
Reader’s Goal
Understand the data behind the Discussion. Look for output data trends, relationships, and other observations that answer the research question. Focus on figures and tables, using the main text for context.
Compare the study’s findings with your own work. You might use a publication’s results as a comparison point for your own research project. In that case, read the Results in detail and note which output data directly compare to your own experiments.
Writer’s Goal
Present data that support the Discussion. Focus on your main finding—the data that most directly answers your research question. Any other findings should provide context to that main result.
Common Mistakes
Shares too many findings. Describes data that do not really answer the research question.
This mistake muddles the results. It makes the reader try to discern which findings answer the research question, which results add useful context, and which data distract from the main story.
Purpose
Interpret the results to generate new knowledge. Apply that new knowledge to answer the research question and update the research gap.
Reader’s Goal
Find the research question’s answer. Critique how well the findings answer the research question and fill the research gap. Identify limitations, inaccuracies, unexplained results, weak assumptions, and unanswered questions: you can use those shortcomings to develop the research gap that your project will address.
Writer’s Goal
Answer the research question. Interpret the results to answer your research question. Compare your results with the existing literature. Use those comparisons to comment on how the research gap is evolving.
Common Mistakes
Claims are too bold. Overuse of pump-up words like “important”, “novel”, and “exciting.”
Fails to connect back to the research question.
Fails to discuss how the research gap has been filled and what new questions now arise.
These mistakes emasculate the project. Instead of finishing strong and tying up loose ends and unanswered questions, the article fizzles out. This leaves the reader feeling dissatisfied.
Purpose
Apply the research question’s answer to broader science and society.
Reader’s Goal
Confirm the article’s main points. The Conclusion reiterates the research project’s main question, result, interpretation, and application. Read the Conclusion to make sure you correctly understood the article. There should be no surprises here.
Writer’s Goal
Reconnect the Results and Discussion with the Introduction. Because it ends the manuscript, the Conclusion sits in a strong structural position. Use that positioning to emphasize your main argument. Repeat the research question, it’s answer, how that answer fills the research gap, and then describe how these things advance science and society.
Common Mistakes
Simply repeats the results and summarizes the article.
Fails to reconnect the research with the Introduction’s motivations.
These mistakes disengage the article. Instead of interpreting how the article’s findings benefit broader science and society, this weak conclusion isolates the article from the literature. It misses an opportunity to show the project’s value.
Well, there you have it. That’s roughly how the IMRaD sections work. And—just to give you some extra material, because I’m a nice person—I made this diagram to visualize where an article’s main points sit within the different IMRaD sections.
Of course, some articles will break the IMRaD conventions I just described. But most sections in most science and engineering articles will follow that structure. And if you master it, you’ll develop valuable knowledge that will energize your reading and streamline your writing. The rest of this article gives a few ideas on how to do that.
Leverage the IMRaD Structure for Reading
Do journal articles seem boring? Do you finish them confused about what you just read? Let’s fix that by leveraging the IMRaD structure to make your reading more enjoyable and effective.
Skim Articles out of Order
What’s the biggest mistake you make when reading a journal article? You actually read it. All of it. From start to finish.
That strategy works great for reading books. But journal articles are not books. While your goal for reading a book is total comprehension, your goal for reading a journal article is to find useful information that will help you advance your research.
Because of these different goals, you must read books and journal articles with different strategies. In particular, when reading a journal article:
You don’t need to read the whole thing.
You don’t need to read it in order.
That is, you can skim a journal article out of order and still find what you’re looking for. You can hunt for what you need and skip the rest. When you skim this way—instead of reading start-to-finish—you bypass unnecessary information, which saves you time, effort, and frustration.
Great!
But how exactly do you skim an article? You can start by identifying:
the research question by looking near the end of the Introduction,
the main findings by browsing the sub-section titles and figures in the Results,
the experiment’s high points by looking near the beginning of the Methods and by browsing the Methods sub-section titles, and
the answer to the research question by looking near the Discussion’s last few paragraphs.
This way of skimming jumps around the IMRaD sections out of order. It skips a lot of text. But it quickly leads you to the article’s most important points.
Guide your Reading with a Template
The main danger with skimming journal articles out of order is that you might get a bit lost. It’s easy to forget what information you’re supposed to be looking for, where to look for it, and what to do once you’ve found it.
The best way to solve that problem is to use a note-taking template. Write down what information you want to find before you search for it. Outline your notes before you begin reading. That note-taking outline—even if it’s mostly empty—will limit your wandering.
It’s a lot like a grocery shopping list.
Have you ever gone to the grocery store without a list? Right before dinnertime. When you’re hungry. When free samples abound. Every foodstuff seems like a reasonable purchase. You forget what items you meant to buy, bring home a few items you didn’t need, and spend twice as much time shopping as you should have.
Oh—an interesting side discussion…very intriguing. Wait, is this even relevant? What am I supposed to be looking for, again?
But when you have a list—i.e., a grocery shopping template—your trip becomes faster and more effective. Sure, the store might be out of sriracha sauce. And maybe there’s a sale on boxed wine that you must, of course, indulge. But you’ll navigate the store quickly. And you’ll leave with the items you came for.
Like a grocery list, a good template streamlines your note-taking session. It guides your hunt for useful information. It helps you know when to stop. By glancing back and forth between the article and your notes, you’ll navigate the article quickly. And you’ll leave with the items you came for.
Here’s the template I use when I read a new article. It helps me leverage the IMRaD structure to hunt for useful information. It keeps my notes organized. And it doesn’t limit my reading: I can still read a bit deeper if I find a really helpful article. Use a template like this one when you begin a new article, and you’ll make literature review faster, easier, and more engaging.
Guiding your reading with a template and skimming articles out of order will make your reading more enjoyable, effective, and easier. But if you want to really master the journal article reading process—the literature review phase of your project—see this article where I cover literature review in more detail.
Leverage the IMRaD Structure for Writing
Are you unsure where to place different elements of your project in your journal article manuscript? Do you feel bogged down, working in the weeds of your paper, unsure whether your writing reads clearly? You can solve these problems by leveraging the IMRaD structure to make your writing process simpler and clearer.
Put Elements in the Right Locations
Now that you’ve started skimming articles instead of reading them start-to-finish, you realize that many in your audience will read your paper using the tactics. When they read your article, they look for certain elements in specific places. If your reader doesn’t find those elements in these places, they’ll struggle to understand your project’s main points.
When you ignore the IMRaD conventions, your reader suffers.
So, pay close attention to your article’s layout. Put the important elements—research gap, research question, methods summary, main findings, and conclusion—right where the reader expects to see them.
Your main tool for doing that is the “Guide to the IMRaD Sections” that we discussed earlier.
Use that guide to outline your manuscript: build a framework for your article that aligns with the IMRaD guide’s conventions.
Use that guide to edit your manuscript: make sure the structure of your manuscript draft accomplishes the IMRaD guide’s purposes and writing goals.
When you work hard to align your article with IMRaD conventions, your reader benefits. Savvy readers will skim your article out of order and find what they need in the places they expect to see them. Other readers will read start-to-finish without getting lost.
And when your audience benefits, you benefit too, because people are more likely to read, share, and cite your work.
Simplify your Writing Standards
The IMRaD structure reveals one more thing that will help our writing: each IMRaD section is different, and we should write them with those differences in mind.
If you’re like me, you’re prone to write every section the same way: or at least to the same standards. And if you’re a perfectionist like me then that standard is quite high and you agonize over your manuscript. The story, structure, and sentences must be perfect throughout the article.
If that sounds like you, then you probably dread writing journal articles. It takes forever. You battle constantly with writer’s block. And once you finally have everything the way you like it, your supervisor floods the draft with edits.
That’s a frustrating way to write. But you can reduce those frustrations by simplifying your writing standards.
Yes, story, structure, and sentences are valuable. But each of these standards accomplishes a different goal. Story gives your article context. Structure keeps it organized. And sharp sentences accentuate the project’s most important takeaways.
But you needn’t accomplish all of those goals in every IMRaD section. Some sections don’t need a strong structure. Others work fine with good-but-not-excellent sentences. By focusing on each section’s goal and how to best achieve it, you can simplify your writing standards.
To do that strategically, you must understand two key attributes about each section:
Sections have different purposes: some sections market your article to readers. Some deliver objective information. Some put your work into broader context.
Sections have different difficulties: most of your audience will ease through the Introduction and Discussion but struggle with the Methods and Results.
You can account for these differences by writing each section with a unique strategy—by focusing on story, structure, or sentences without slaving over all three. Here’s how:
Title, Abstract, and the Introduction’s first paragraphs
These sections market your article; they convince your audience to read on. They are short, easy-to-read, and powerful.
You have limited text here to captivate your audience. So don’t agonize over the structure or story—it’s hard to mess them up in so little space.
Focus rather on sentences. Choose impeccable wording. Develop excellent sentence-to-sentence flow. And remove superfluous text.
Your reader should finish the Title, Abstract, and the Introduction’s first paragraphs with a sense of anticipation. The Introduction should engage them. The Abstract and Title should foreshadow some interesting findings.
Methods and Results
These sections deliver objective information. They are long, difficult-to-read, and concerned with complicated details.
To help the reader navigate these sections, they must be clearly organized. So don’t agonize over word choice or sentence flow. Most of your readers won’t read deeply here anyway.
Focus instead on structure. Put your sub-sections in a logical order. Write descriptive sub-titles. Open each sub-section with a summarizing paragraph. Make figures and captions that can stand alone without any supporting text.
Your reader should be able to skim the Methods’ and Results’ subtitles, tables, and figures and gain a basic understanding of your experiment and its main findings. If they want to read deeper they won’t expect any elegant sentences or captivating narratives.
Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion
These sections put your work into context. They reinforce each other, tie your work to the broader literature, and tell your reader why your project is important.
To accomplish those goals, these sections must tell a cohesive story. That is, the main elements of your project—the motivation, research gap, research question, the answer to the research question, and the broad impacts—must all deliver a consistent message.
Your reader should be able to able to read each Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion section in isolation and have a good idea of what the other sections will say. That requires a strong story. The sentences and the structure of that story are less important than its consistency.
So, don’t slave over story, structure, and sentences in every section. Rather, focus those standards on the sections that will benefit most from them: story for the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion; structure for the Methods and Results; and sentences for the Title, Abstract, and opening paragraphs.
Simplifying your writing standards and putting elements in the right location will help your writing be less painful—both for you and your readers. But if you want to really master the journal article writing process—see this article where I cover that process in detail.
resources I used to write this article
Published by Thomas Deetjen
Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage by Katharine E. Hubbard & Sonja D. Dunbar
Writing Science by Joshua Schimel
Write it Up by Paul J. Silvia