Standard academic paper structure for research articles. IMRaD = Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.
IMRaD is the dominant structure for empirical research papers in sciences, social sciences, and many other fields. Understanding this structure helps plan writing efficiently.
## Abstract (150-300 words)
**Purpose:** Standalone summary of the entire paper.
**Components:**
1. **Background/Context** (1-2 sentences): Why this research matters
2. **Objective/Question** (1 sentence): What you investigated
3. **Methods** (1-2 sentences): How you did it
4. **Results** (2-3 sentences): What you found
5. **Conclusions** (1-2 sentences): What it means
**Writing mode:** Reviewer (user writes, Claude critiques)
**When to write:** LAST - after all other sections
**Common mistakes:**
- Too long (>300 words for most venues)
- Vague results ("significant findings were observed")
- Missing methods
- Conclusions that go beyond findings
## Introduction (10-15% of paper)
**Purpose:** Establish context, identify gap, state contribution.
**Structure (the "funnel"):**
1. **Hook** (1-2 paragraphs): Why this topic matters, broad context
2. **Literature context** (2-4 paragraphs): What's known, key prior work
3. **Gap identification** (1-2 paragraphs): What's missing, the problem
4. **Thesis/Contribution** (1 paragraph): What you did and why it matters
5. **Roadmap** (1 paragraph, optional): Paper structure preview
**Writing mode:** Co-Author → Reviewer
**Typical plans:** 2-3
**Common mistakes:**
- Too broad opening (doesn't connect to specific research)
- Insufficient citations for claims
- Gap not clearly articulated
- Thesis buried or unclear
## Methods (20-30% of paper)
**Purpose:** Enable replication, establish rigor.
**Typical subsections:**
1. **Study Design/Overview**: Type of study, overall approach
2. **Participants/Sample**: Who/what was studied, selection criteria
3. **Materials/Instruments**: What tools, measures, materials used
4. **Procedure**: Step-by-step what happened
5. **Data Analysis**: How data was analyzed
**Writing mode:** Co-Author (often procedural)
**Typical plans:** 2-3
**Common mistakes:**
- Insufficient detail for replication
- Missing rationale for choices
- Results in methods section
- Vague ("standard procedures were followed")
## Results (20-30% of paper)
**Purpose:** Present findings objectively, without interpretation.
**Structure:**
1. **Descriptive statistics/Overview**: Sample characteristics, basic numbers
2. **Main findings**: Primary results addressing research question
3. **Secondary/Supporting findings**: Additional analyses
4. **Figures and tables**: Visual presentation of key data
**Writing mode:** Scaffold (Claude structures, user fills specifics)
**Typical plans:** 2
**Common mistakes:**
- Interpretation in results (belongs in Discussion)
- Repeating all table/figure data in text
- Not addressing all research questions
- Vague statistics ("p < .05" without effect sizes)
## Discussion (20-30% of paper)
**Purpose:** Interpret findings, connect to literature, acknowledge limitations.
**Structure (the "reverse funnel"):**
1. **Summary** (1 paragraph): Key findings recap
2. **Interpretation** (2-4 paragraphs): What findings mean
3. **Relation to prior work** (2-3 paragraphs): How this fits/extends literature
4. **Implications** (1-2 paragraphs): Practical/theoretical significance
5. **Limitations** (1-2 paragraphs): Honest acknowledgment of weaknesses
6. **Future directions** (1 paragraph): What comes next
7. **Conclusion** (1 paragraph): Final takeaway (may be separate section)
**Writing mode:** Reviewer (user writes, Claude critiques)
**Typical plans:** 2-3
**Common mistakes:**
- Repeating results without interpretation
- Overstating conclusions
- Limitations as afterthought
- Not connecting to prior work
## Conclusion (if separate, 5% of paper)
**Purpose:** Final synthesis and takeaway.
**Components:**
1. Main contribution restated
2. Key implications
3. Final thought/call to action
**Writing mode:** Reviewer
**Typical plans:** 1
**Note:** Many papers combine conclusion into Discussion. Check venue guidelines.
**References/Bibliography**
- Not written, but cited throughout
- Format per venue style guide
- Track in sources/literature.md
**Acknowledgments**
- Funding sources
- Contributors who don't meet authorship criteria
- Write last, verify requirements
**Appendices** (if needed)
- Supplementary materials
- Detailed methods
- Additional analyses
```
Abstract ← (depends on all)
↑
Introduction → Methods → Results → Discussion → Conclusion
↑ ↑
|-----------| (Discussion interprets Results)
```
**Recommended writing order:**
1. Methods (most concrete)
2. Results (report what happened)
3. Introduction (frame the contribution)
4. Discussion (interpret findings)
5. Conclusion (synthesize)
6. Abstract (summarize all)
This order lets you know what you're introducing before writing the intro, and what you're discussing before the discussion.
| Section | % of Paper | 8000-word Paper | 5000-word Paper |
|---------|------------|-----------------|-----------------|
| Abstract | 2-3% | 200 | 150 |
| Introduction | 12-15% | 1000 | 650 |
| Methods | 20-25% | 1800 | 1100 |
| Results | 20-25% | 1800 | 1100 |
| Discussion | 25-30% | 2200 | 1400 |
| Conclusion | 5-8% | 500 | 350 |
| References | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Adjust based on venue requirements and content needs.
**APA Style** (Psychology, Social Sciences)
- Standard IMRaD with specific formatting
- Often has separate Participants and Procedure sections
**Chicago/Humanities**
- May not follow IMRaD strictly
- More emphasis on argument structure
- Thematic organization possible
**Grant Proposals** (not IMRaD)
- Specific Aims, Background, Approach
- See grant/ templates
**Conference Papers**
- Shorter, often 6-8 pages
- Same structure, compressed
- May omit some subsections