The IMRaD Research

Formatting
Dr. Maria Eliza P. Cruz
Topic Outline:

1. Overview of the IMRaD Format

2. Preparing an Abstract using IMRaD
3. Introduction
4. Methods
5. Results, and
6. Discussions
7. Oral Presentations Using IMRaD

Learning Outcomes:

1. Systematically organize a research abstract using the IMRaD Format.

2. Systematically organize research presentations using the IMRaD Format.
IMRaD Format Overview

1. It has been adopted by leading scientific journals around the

1940s and is now the dominant format for research papers
worldwide.
2. Its modular structure helps the author to organise ideas and
remember critical elements while at the same time, allowing
the reader to skim and scan specific information without
reading the entire article.
3. Theses and dissertations typically use the chapter format; if
it is to be converted into a journal article, it is recommended
to be converted into IMRaD Formatting.
4. Thesis and dissertation abstracts and oral presentations are
recommended to be organised thru use of the IMRaD format.
Preparing an ABSTRACT Using IMRaD

1. An abstract is an organized summary of a longer document (in our case,

theses or dissertations) that highlights the salient points in the document.
2. It must describe the scope of the research, the methods used, findings,
conclusions and intended results. It is also supposed to present sound/
feasible recommendations for further work.
3. In professional conferences, the research abstract serves as the entrance
point.
4. For an abstract to be organized, it must answer the following:
- What is the problem and why is it important to know?
- What methods did you use?
- What were the main results?
- What conclusions were generated?
- What do you recommend be done for further work?
5. Abstracts are done last.
 Title

1. The typical way in which a paper is “browsed” by readers is in this order:

title— abstract- results (tables and figures)— full paper.
2. Trend is, on an average, the number of readers from one section to the
next in the above sequence decreases by a factor of 10. This means for
every 1 person who have read the results in the full paper, 1000 have read
the title!
3. A good research title should:
* contain as few words as possible
* Easy to understand
* Describe the contents of the paper accurately and precisely
* No abbreviations, formulas and jargons
* No low- impact words such as “some notes”, “observations on”, “study
of”… so forth, so on.
* Not flashy as newspaper headlines and/or novel titles
* Follows the style preference/s of the target journal.
Introduction

1. Establish the background of the study. Provide a significance or larger

reason for the study. How will you contribute in improving the discussed
background of the study?
2. It is expected to cover the following:
- Purpose
- Description of the problem
- Your possible contribution to help resolve the research gap/ problem.
3. It is relatively brief, with most journals suggesting less than 500 words.
4. It must not be a repetition of the abstract.
5. It does not require an extensive literature review; 2-4 most relevant
citations could be adequate to corroborate the thesis statement.
 Methods

1. The purpose of this section is to present in a simple and direct manner

what has been done, how, and when, and how the data were analysed
and presented.
2. It serves to provide information that allows other researchers to judge the
study or to actually, replicate it.
3. Simplest way to organise this section is chronologically (pattern it after
how data will be generated as per research questions mapped).
4. Usual inclusions are:
* research locale (description of the study location)
* Design of the research
* Experimental/ research units used
* Materials and methods
* Assumptions and their rationale
* Statistical and mathematical procedures
 Results

1. This section presents the new knowledge.

2. Some guidelines:
* present results simply and clearly
* Report only representative data rather than repetitive data
* Do not report large masses of data
* Include only tables and figures that are necessary, clear and worth
reproducing.
Discussion

1. This is the section where the authors explain the meanings and
implications of the results (new knowledge).
2. A good discussion should:
* relate the results to the research questions
* Show how the results (new knowledge) agree, disagree with current
knowledge.
* Explain the theoretical background using generated results.
* Indicate the significance of the results (link it to research gap in the
introduction)
* Suggest future research (recommendation) that is anchored only to the
generated results.
* State conclusions with valid evidences corroborating claims.
IMRaD Format Overview as could be used in ORAL PRESENTATIONS

3
A

4
5
6

B
C

Wu (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond

Landscape Ecology. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3
References

.  Day RA (1989) The origins of the scientific paper: the IMRAD format. AMWA Journal 4:16–18


 Day RA, Gastel B (2006) How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed). Greenwood Press, Westport. (Also, Day RA (1998) How to write and publish a

scientific paper, 5th ed. Oryx Press, Phoenix)


Gustavii B (2008) How to write and illustrate a scientific paper, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge


 Hartley J (1999) From structured abstracts to structured articles: a modest proposal. J Tech Writ Commun 29:255–270


 Hartley D (2003) Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology. Sci Commun 24:366–379


 Meadows AJ (1985) The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. J Inf Sci 11:27–30


 Meadows AJ (1998) Communicating research. Academic Press, San Diego


PKR Nair et al. (2014) Chapter 2 Organization of a Research paper: The IMRAD Format

Sharp D (2002) Kipling’s guide to writing a scientific paper. Croatian Med J 43:262–267


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


 Southgate DAT (1995) The structure of scientific papers. Br J Nutr 74:605–606

Wu (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond Landscape Ecology. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s10980-011-9674-3