Structuring the article
Your discipline or chosen journal may expect a particular structure. Many journal articles follow the IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) in both STEM and HASS fields, and it is a useful starting point for organising an empirical study.
In practice, though, published articles vary a great deal. In a cross-disciplinary analysis of 433 empirical articles from 39 disciplines, Lin and Evans (2012) found that only 12% used a plain IMRaD structure. Around half of the articles included a separate literature review section between the introduction and the method, about three-quarters included a separate conclusion, and around 40% merged results and discussion into a single section. Disciplinary patterns also cut across the STEM/HASS divide: IMRaD was common in applied biology, health technology, psychology and education, but comparatively rare in engineering disciplines, which more often used a literature review and a merged results and discussion section.
The practical implication is that IMRaD is a scaffold rather than a rule. Read recent articles in your target journal, notice how they are actually organised, and check the author guidelines. Check the guidelines for formatting as well as structure: whether headings use sentence case, whether they are numbered, whether italics are required, and so on. Failing to follow these can result in immediate rejection.
Select each tab below to explore the typical contents of an IMRaD style article structure.
This section explains why you decided to conduct the research. The introduction typically:
- introduces the topic in context
- provides relevant theoretical and technical background information
- states the gap, research problem and significance
- states the aim and scope of the research
- briefly outlines the structure of the article.
Some articles divide this work across two sections: a short introduction that identifies the topic and purpose, followed by a separate literature review or background section that establishes the research gap in detail.
This section explains how you conducted the research. It typically includes:
- a description of the study participants and/or data used
- an explanation of how the study was done and the data collection instruments used (e.g. case studies, surveys, observations)
- a justification of why a specific method is being used to understand or solve the problem, if relevant (e.g. why is the chosen method preferable to other methods?)
- a description and the details of experiments performed
- a description of how the data was analysed (e.g. statistical tests used to analyse the data).
Where you justify a methodological choice here, keep it in mind when you come to write about limitations in the discussion. The two sections make a single argument: this design was suited to the question, and these are the boundaries that came with it.
In this section, you explain what you found as a result of your investigation. It typically includes:
- a description of the results of the experiments and statistical tests
- an objective description of what the data analysis shows, including patterns and trends observed in the data.
Reporting statistics
Where your study involves quantitative data, report enough detail for a reader to interpret your findings and, in principle, replicate your analysis. What counts as enough varies by discipline and journal, but the following conventions are widely shared.
- Report descriptive statistics before inferential ones. Give the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for each group or condition, along with the number of cases (n), before presenting the test that compares them. A reader cannot judge a significant difference without knowing what was being compared.
- Report the full test result, not just the p value. Include the test statistic, degrees of freedom, the exact p value, and an effect size. For example: t(48) = 2.71, p = .009, d = 0.77. Where relevant, add confidence intervals.
- Always include an effect size. Statistical significance indicates whether an effect is likely to be real; effect size indicates whether it is large enough to matter. Common measures include Cohen's d, r, and partial eta squared.
- Use non-parametric equivalents where appropriate. If your data does not fit a normal distribution or uses ranks instead of numbers, report the corresponding statistic and effect size for the test you actually used.
- Italicise statistical symbols (M, SD, n, t, F, p, r, d), and keep decimal places consistent throughout. Under APA style, values that cannot exceed 1 are written without a leading zero (p = .03, r = .42); other styles differ, so check your journal's guidelines.
- Do not repeat everything twice. If a table presents the full set of means and standard deviations, the body text should summarise the pattern and highlight what matters, not restate every number.
In this section, you explain what you think the results mean. This is your interpretation of the results. This section can include:
- a summary of your main findings, recapping your key results
- analysis and evaluation of your findings, including possible explanations for them and justifications for any unexpected results
- comparison of your findings to previous studies
- an explanation of how your results confirm or contradict the results of previous studies
- clarification of the significance of your results in relation to the project aims
- acknowledgement of limitations and suggestions for future directions, where applicable.
As you draft this section, test it against the question your readers are silently asking: so what? Why does this matter, and what should they do or think differently as a result (Thomson, 2017, as cited in Jalongo, 2026)? A discussion that reports findings without answering this leaves readers to work out the significance for themselves.
Writing about limitations
Every study has limitations. Acknowledging them is not an admission of failure: it demonstrates that you understand the boundaries of what your data can support, and it is one of the things reviewers look for. Handled well, a limitations discussion also does positive work, because explaining what a design could not do is often the clearest way of explaining why it was the right design for the question you asked.
- Frame limitations as the consequence of a considered choice. Most limitations arise from a trade-off you made deliberately. A small purposive sample limits generalisability, but it may have been necessary to obtain the depth of data your research question required. Say so. The reader should see a decision, not an oversight.
- Connect back to the justification in your method. If you argued in the method section that a particular approach suited your aims, the limitations section is where that argument is completed. The two should read as a single line of reasoning rather than a claim and a later retraction.
- Distinguish limitations from flaws. A limitation is a boundary on what your findings can be taken to mean. An unaddressed error in design or analysis is a different matter, and is better fixed than disclosed.
- Be specific about the effect on your claims. Rather than noting generally that the sample was small, state what that means: which conclusions are provisional, which findings would need replication, and which claims remain well supported despite it.
- Point forward. Limitations lead naturally into directions for future research. What would a study need in order to address what yours could not?
- Keep it proportionate. A paragraph is usually enough. Excessive hedging invites reviewers to doubt findings you have good grounds to defend.
Some articles place limitations in a separate section rather than within the discussion, most often immediately before the conclusion. Check what is usual in your target journal.
Although the conclusion is not part of the IMRaD acronym, most published empirical articles include one (Lin & Evans, 2012). It is particularly common when results and discussion have been merged, since a separate conclusion allows you to draw the detailed commentary back together. If your article has a separate conclusion, it typically includes:
- a recap of your key results and main arguments, highlighting their significance in relation to your research aims and research questions
- brief acknowledgement of the limitations of your work
- brief recommendations, or directions for future research.
Common variations on IMRaDYou are likely to encounter these patterns when reading in your field. Recognising them will help you choose a structure that suits your own study.
|
Figures and tables
Tables and figures can appear anywhere in an article, not only in the results. A method section might include a diagram of a study design or a table of participant characteristics, and a discussion might use a figure to summarise a proposed model. Presenting information visually can help explain complex information or data. Tables are numerical values or text displayed in rows and columns. Figures are other illustrations such as graphs, charts, maps, diagrams, drawings and photographs.
Numbering
- Tables and figures are numbered in two separate sequences: Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3.
- Number them in the order in which they are first mentioned in the body text.
- Some journals require supplementary or appendix items to be numbered separately (for example, Table A1 or Figure S1).
Titles and captions
- Placement and formatting vary by style guide and by journal. Table numbers and titles are conventionally placed above the table. For figures, APA 7 places the number and title above the image, whereas Chicago, MLA and IEEE place the caption below it. Alignment also differs, so check the style guide you are using and your journal's author guidelines.
- Whatever the placement, write titles that stand alone. A reader should be able to understand what is being shown without returning to the body text.
- Use notes beneath a table to define abbreviations, give the sample size, or explain symbols used to mark significance.
Referring to them in text
- Refer to each table and figure by its number, not by its position. Avoid "the table below", as layout changes during typesetting.
- Every table and figure must be discussed in the body text. If you cannot find a reason to discuss it, it probably does not belong in the article.
- Include visual elements only where they do work that prose cannot do as well, and keep the number limited so the article stays focused.
Formatting and design
- Label axes with units, and keep scales, fonts and colours consistent across figures.
- Do not rely on colour alone to distinguish categories, since many readers will print in greyscale and some will not perceive colour differences. Use patterns, line styles or direct labelling as well.
- If you reproduce or adapt a figure from another source, you will usually need permission from the copyright holder as well as a citation.