- Affiliate Program
- UNITED STATES
- 台灣 (TAIWAN)
- TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
- Academic Editing Services
- - Research Paper
- - Journal Manuscript
- - Dissertation
- - College & University Assignments
- Admissions Editing Services
- - Application Essay
- - Personal Statement
- - Recommendation Letter
- - Cover Letter
- - CV/Resume
- Business Editing Services
- - Business Documents
- - Report & Brochure
- - Website & Blog
- Writer Editing Services
- - Script & Screenplay
- Our Editors
- Client Reviews
- Editing & Proofreading Prices
- Wordvice Points
- Partner Discount
- Plagiarism Checker
- APA Citation Generator
- MLA Citation Generator
- Chicago Citation Generator
- Vancouver Citation Generator
- - APA Style
- - MLA Style
- - Chicago Style
- - Vancouver Style
- Writing & Editing Guide
- Academic Resources
- Admissions Resources
How to Write a Journal Article Introduction Section
Our journal manuscript series has covered the various sections of a scientific article according to the order in which we recommend you write them ( Figures , Methods section , Results section , Discussion section , and Conclusion section ). In this second-to-last installment, we’ll talk about the Introduction and how to draft it in a way that intrigues your readers and makes them want to continue reading. After all, the journal publications industry is a business, so editors won’t accept your article unless they’re confident their readership will be interested.
What is an Introduction in a research paper?
After the Abstract (the final section of the paper you should draft) and the visual aids, like figures, a reader’s first true interaction with your work is the Introduction . Thus, like any other story, you must set a compelling stage that invites your readers into your research world. Essentially, your Introduction will establish the foundation upon which your readers will approach your work . You lay down the rules of interpretation, and if your manuscript follows the tips we’ve given in this series, your readers should be able to logically apply those rules throughout all parts of your paper, including the conclusion in your Discussion section.
Before we examine what specifically belongs in this critical context-defining section of your manuscript, let’s explore a practical point about writing the Introduction.
When should I write the Introduction section?
You may recall that we recommended a particular order for drafting your manuscript—an order that suggests the Introduction should be written second to last. You may also remember we talked about how the Discussion (or the Conclusion section for journals that separate the Discussion and Conclusion) should answer the questions raised in the Introduction. So which is it? Write the Introduction first or the Discussion? Honestly, the Introduction should come second to last because it is one of the harder sections of the manuscript to nail correctly. Therefore, we recommend writing the Introduction in two stages.
Start with a skeletal Introduction that clearly states the hypothesis (the question your research answers). Then proceed with fully drafting the remaining parts of your manuscript, including analyzing your results in the Discussion and drawing rough conclusions that you will later refine. Once you’ve finished the other parts, return to your Introduction and incorporate the information we outline further below under the heading “What should I include in the Introduction?” After, modify the Discussion’s conclusion accordingly and polish the entire piece once again.
What to Include in the Introduction Section
Your paper must read like a chronological story ; it will begin with point A (the Introduction) and advance in time toward point B (the Discussion/Conclusion). If you recall from our prior article, the Discussion should answer the questions “why this particular study was needed to fill the gap in scientific knowledge we currently have and why that gap needed filling in the first place.” The Introduction answers similar but distinct questions. The context you establish in the Introduction must first identify that there is a knowledge gap and then explain how you intend to fill that gap and why .
Imagine that your paper is an hourglass figure, as in the infographic below. Your Introduction holds the sand of knowledge that we currently have (the top bulb), and as the sand trickles through the neck (your research), it builds up a new base of knowledge (the bottom bulb). Thus your paper traces that journey from the top of the hourglass to the bottom, answering the questions in the infographic along the way. As a part of that journey, your Introduction is the starting point that answers the first three questions concisely.
As you can see from above, your Introduction should start broadly and narrow until it reaches your hypothesis. Now, let’s examine how we can achieve this flow of ideas more closely.
What is known about the current research topic?
- Start the Introduction with a strong statement that reflects your research subject area. Use keywords from your title to help you focus and avoid starting too broadly .
- Avoid stating too many obvious facts that your target readers would know . You should be precise about the area of focus so that readers can properly orient themselves before diving into your paper.
- As a trick to help you combat too broad a start, write down your hypothesis or purpose first .
- Then work backward to think about what background information your reader needs to appreciate the significance of your study.
- Stop going back when you reach the point where your readers would be comfortable understanding the statements you make but might not be fully confident to explain all the aspects of those facts.
- Cite relevant, up-to-date primary literature to support your explanation of our current base of knowledge . Make sure to include any significant works that might contradict your argument and address the flaws with that opposing line of thought. You want your readers to conclude that your approach is more plausible than alternative theories.
- Be sure to cite your sources . Plagiarism is a serious offense in the academic community that will hurt your credibility (not to mention it is a violation of many copyright laws). Direct copying or a closely matched language should be avoided. Instead, be sure to use your own words to rephrase what you read in the literature and include references.
- Remember that the Introduction is not meant to be a comprehensive literature review ! Don’t overwhelm your reader with a sea of citations. Instead, use key primary literature (i.e., journal articles) to quickly guide your reader from the general study area to more specific material covered by your hypothesis. In other words, the literature you cite should logically lead your reader to develop the same questions that prompted you to do your research project. Roughly a half page should suffice, but double-check with your target journal’s information for authors.
What is the gap in knowledge?
- As you describe our understanding of the relevant subject matter, highlight areas where too little information is available . However, don’t stop at saying “little is known about…” You must elaborate and tell your readers why we should care about unearthing additional information about this knowledge gap. See the subheading “How and why should we fill that gap?” for further details.
- Alternatively, your Introduction should identify what logical next steps can be developed based on existing research . After all, the purpose of sharing research is to prompt other researchers to develop new inquiries and improve our comprehension of a particular issue. By showing you have examined current data and devised a method to find new applications and make new inferences, you’re showing your peers that you are aware of the direction your field is moving in and confident in your decision to pursue the study contemplated by your paper.
How should we fill that knowledge gap?
- State your purpose/hypothesis clearly . Surprisingly, many people actually forget to do so! If all else fails, a simple “The purpose of this study was to examine/study X” will suffice.
- You are proposing a solution to a problem (the gap) you observed in our current knowledge base. As such, your Introduction must convince your readers that this problem needs solving .
- In particular, since we are writing with a particular journal’s readership in mind (or, at least, you should be!), make sure to address how pertinent your project would be to the reader’s interests.
- In other words, if we fill this gap, what useful information will the readers gain ? The answer to that question is the promise you are delivering to your readers, and in the conclusion part of your Discussion, you will give final confirmation of your findings and elaborate more on what your readers can now do with the information your project has contributed to the research community.
- DON’T draw any conclusions or include any data from your study . Those aspects belong in other parts of your paper.
- Similarly , DON’T talk about specific techniques in your Introduction because your readers ought to be familiar with most of them. If you employed a novel technique in your study, and the development of that process is central to your study, then, by all means, include a brief overview.
How to Write the Introduction Section
To round out our guide to drafting the Introduction of your journal article, we provide some general tips about the technical aspects of writing the Introduction section below.
- Use the active voice.
- Be concise.
- Avoid nominalizations (converting phrases, including adjectives and verbs, into nouns). Instead, use the verb form where practical. When you eliminate nominalizations, your sentences will shorten, you’ll maintain an active voice, and your sentences will flow more like natural speech.
- Do you see those uber long sentences in your draft? Revise them. Anything longer than three to four lines is absurd, and even sentences of that length should be rare. Shorter sentences are clearer, making it easier for your readers to follow your arguments. With that said, don’t condense every sentence. Incorporate a variety of sentence structures and lengths.
- Similarly, drop the extended sentences with semicolons and serial clauses connected by commas. Again, the purpose of your paper is to provide a CLEAR explanation of your findings.
- Avoid overusing first-person pronouns. Use them rarely at the beginning of the section and sprinkle them toward the end when you discuss your hypothesis and the rationale behind your study.
- Organize your thoughts from broad to specific (as described in the section “What should I include in the Introduction” above).
- BONUS TIP #1: Like any other type of writing, start your Introduction with an active hook . Writing a summary of your findings shouldn’t be boring. In fact, a dull start will make your readers stop long before they get to the good stuff—your results and discussion! So how do you make an exciting hook? Think about techniques in creative nonfiction like starting with a provoking anecdote, quote or striking piece of empirical data. You’re telling a story, after all, so make it enjoyable!
- BONUS TIP #2: As one author, reviewer, and editor once stated , your Introduction should avoid using phrases like “novel,” “first ever,” and “paradigm-changing.” Your project might not be paradigm-shifting (few studies truly are); however, if your idea isn’t novel in the first instance, then should you be writing the paper now? If you don’t feel like your research would make a meaningful contribution to current knowledge, then you might want to consider conducting further research before approaching the drafting table.
And keep in mind that receiving English proofreading and paper editing services for your manuscript before submission to journals greatly increases your chances of publication. Wordvice provides high-quality professional editing for all types of academic documents and includes a free certificate of editing .
You can also find these resources plus information about the journal submission process in our FREE downloadable e-book: Research Writing and Journal Publication E-Book .
Wordvice Resources
- How to Write a Research Paper Introduction
- Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
- How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
- How to Write a Research Paper Title
- Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
- Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
- Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
- 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
- Tips for Paraphrasing in R esearch Papers
Additional Resources
- Guide for Authors. (Elsevier)
- How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper. (Bates College)
- Structure of a Research Paper. (University of Minnesota Biomedical Library)
- How to Choose a Target Journal (Springer)
- How to Write Figures and Tables (UNC Writing Center)
Orsuamaeze Blessings, Adebayo Alaba Joseph and Oguntimehin Ilemobayo Ifedayo, 2018. Deleterious effects of cadmium solutions on onion (Allium cepa) growth and the plant’s potential as bioindicator of Cd exposure. Res. J. Environ. Sci., 12: 114-120. Online: http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/academicjournals/rjes/2018/114-120.pdf
Writing a journal article
- Introduction
The introduction of a paper is critically important. Even if your results are quite good, unless you introduce your work well, interesting results can come across as boring or meaningless. This issue is related to that of framing, which I discuss separately elsewhere.
Introductions need to start with a broad motivating statement, which takes up one or two sentences. The scheme for these sentences typically is something like this: “XYZ is a really important issue because of A, B, and C.”
Following such a broad statement, there is usually some review of existing knowledge. This serves two purposes. One, you need to embed your work in the context of other people’s work. Two (a more political reason), you need to demonstrate that you know about other important players in the area in which you are publishing. Reviewers get very annoyed if you have missed their very important work, even though it’s on a related topic. You can’t (and shouldn’t!) cite everything, but it’s a good idea to be familiar with who else is working in your area, and give them credit for their work.
Introductions then become increasingly specific, like a funnel. At the very end, you present specific aims. The logic of an introduction thus typically flows something like this:
- XY is an important issue
- For example, it has these effects, and these other effects
- These have been investigated in a number of ways
- Author A came up with this explanation
- Author B proposed an alternative explanation
- To date, it is unknown what the role of the phenomenon Z is.
- Phenomenon Z could be important because of this, that, and something else.
- Here, we investigate the role of phenomenon Z in the context of …
- Specifically, we addressed three aims:
- First, we tested whether …
- Second, we compared our findings …
- Third, we applied our insights to …
- Optional last sentence to summarise the key finding: “We show that …”
The last optional sentence wraps up the introduction. It basically states the main finding. While that might seem unusual, it gives a strong ending to the introduction, and makes it very clear for the reader in which direction you are heading. Some leading journals now encourage a summary sentence at the end of the introduction.
How long should an introduction be? This depends on the discipline and journal you are writing for, and on your overall strategy to fit your content within the prescribed length. You might want to copy and paste the introductions from some papers that you like (which are broadly similar), and do a word count on them to get a rough idea for what is appropriate.
- Other SECTIONS RELEVANT TO ALL PAPERS and
- ADDITIONAL SECTIONS IN EMPIRICAL PAPERS
- Collect the introductions from several published papers, both from your own area of expertise and from outside your own expertise.
- Analyse these introductions: Do they follow a clear structure? Which introductions lead you clearly to key aims? Which take big detours? Do you think those detours are useful (because they add depth), or are they a distraction? Why? After the introduction, are you inspired to read the rest of the paper? Are the aims clear — do you know what’s coming?
- Write a short list of attributes that you found frustrating in other people’s introductions, and a list of things you found really useful.
- When you write your own introduction, use this list as a reference point.
Share this:
Leave a comment ».
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
- Framing your paper
- Planning your paper
- Prioritising content
- Fitting the content to the length
- Content-to-length-ratio
- Structure: the paper
- Structure: section and paragraph
- Structure: the sentence
- Phrases to use and phrases to avoid
- Who to cite, when and where?
- Acknowledgements
- Supplementary online material
- Formatting your manuscript
- Should I care about impact factors?
- Cover letter
- Open access
- Revising a paper after review
- TOPICS NOT COVERED
- OTHER SOURCES
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
- Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
- Follow Following
- Copy shortlink
- Report this content
- View post in Reader
- Manage subscriptions
- Collapse this bar
- my research
- contributions and comments
writing the introduction to a journal article
So you want to write a journal article but are unsure about how to start it off? Well, here’s a few things to remember.
The introduction to your journal article must create a good impression . Readers get a strong view of the rest of the paper from the first couple of paragraphs. If your work is engaging, concise and well structured, then readers are encouraged to go on. On the other hand, if the introduction is poorly structured, doesn’t get to the point, and is either boring or too clever by half, then the reader may well decide that those two or three paragraphs were enough. Quite enough.
At the end of the introduction, you want your reader to read on, and read on with interest, not with a sense of impending doom, or simply out of duty. The introduction therefore has to say what the reader is going to encounter in the paper, as well as why it is important. While in some scholarly traditions it is customary to let the reader find out the point of the paper at the very end – ta da – this is not how the English tradition usually works. English language journals want the rationale for the paper, and its argument, flagged up at the start.
The introduction can actually be thought of as a kind of mini-thesis statement, with the what, why and how of the argument spelled out in advance of the extended version. The introduction generally lays out a kind of road-map for the
A simple introduction is often welcome
Writing an introduction is difficult. You have to think about:
- the question, problem or puzzle that you will pose at the outset, as well as
- the answer, and
- how the argument that constitutes your answer is to be staged.
At the same time, you also have to think about how you can make this opening compelling. You have to ask yourself how you will place your chosen question, problem or puzzle in a context the reader will understand. You need to consider: How broad or narrow should the context be – how local, how international, how discipline specific? Should the problem, question or puzzle be located in policy, practice or the state of scholarly debate – the literatures?
Then you have to consider the ways in which you will get the reader’s attention via a gripping opening sentence and/or the use of a provocation – an anecdote, snippet of empirical data, media headline, scenario, quotation or the like. And you must write this opener with authority – confidently and persuasively.
Writing a good introduction typically means “straightforward” writing. Not too many citations to trip the reader up. No extraordinarily long sentences with multiple ideas separated by commas and semicolons. Not too much passive voice and heavy use of nominalisation, so that the reader feels as if they are swallowing a particularly stodgy bowl of cold, day-old tapioca.
All of this? Questions, context, arguments, sequence and style as well? This is a big ask.
An introduction has a lot of work to do in few words. It is little wonder that people often stall on introductions. So how to approach the writing?
In my writing courses I see people who are quite happy to get something workable, something “good enough” for the introduction – they write the introduction as a kind of place-holder – and then come back to it in subsequent edits to make it more convincing and attractive. But I also see people who can achieve a pretty good version of an introduction quite quickly, and they find that getting it “almost right” is necessary to set them up for the rest of the paper.
The thing is to find out what approach works for you.
You don’t want to end up stalled for days trying to get the most scintillating opening sentence possible. (You can always come back and rewrite!) Just remember that the most important thing to get sorted at the start is the road map, because that will help you write rest of the paper. And if you change you mind about the structure of the paper during the writing, you can always come back and adjust the introduction. Do keep saying to yourself “Nothing is carved in stone with a journal article until I send it off for publication!”
Share this:
About pat thomson
14 responses to writing the introduction to a journal article.
Pingback: writing the introduction to a journal article | the neuron club
Pingback: writing the introduction to a journal article | Saint Mary's University Writing Centre
thanks, i needed to see this right now. I have to edit an article and write a couple more new papers soon
There are two categories of journal and thesis writers: 1. Those who can’t write the introduction until they have almost finished the rest of the paper. These are people who work out what they need to say in the process of writing. The argument produces itself through writing. 2. Those who need to formulate an entire argument before starting to write. These people polish up the abstract and intro first.
I fall into the first category. I suspect we need to produce more drafts than those in category 2, but we tend to start writing earlier than category 2 people. In the case of theses category 2 types think through the entire thesis first and produce chapter sequentially. We messy category 1 types produce chapters and articles in the process of the research then often have a difficult time getting them all to work together to tell a coherent bigger story. Other approaches are valid – it’s a matter of temperament and personality….
I think these are the two ends of a writing continuum, certainly. Those who don’t plan usually write what I’m calling a place holder as the introduction, at some point, then they return to it. (There is quite a lot on the blog about the various approaches and in particular these two ends.) Type 2 do stillneed to know what an introduction does and how it goes…
I fall into the first category. I suspect we need to produce more drafts than those in category 2, but we tend to start writing earlier than category 2 people. In the case of theses category 2 types think through the entire thesis first and produce chapter sequentially. We messy category 1 types produce chapters and articles in the process of the research then often have a difficult time getting them all to work together to tell a coherent bigger story. Other approaches are valid – it’s a meter of temperament and personality….
Sent from my iPad
I’m glad I saw this. I’m editing a manuscript to submit, so this is a great reminder!
Reblogged this on Phambichha's Blog and commented: It is important to write an inviting introduction. Here are helpful tips from Patter
Reblogged this on The Academic Triangle and commented: This is a really good introduction into the world of academic publishing.
I was at a Meet-the-Editors session at a conference recently. The importance of the introduction was stressed by several editors. Reviewers spend the longest time reading this section – and you should spend the longest time crafting it was the message.
Pingback: paper not working? try the “what’s the problem?” approach | patter
Pingback: Wissenschaftliches Schreiben
Pingback: eek, it’s nearly 2018 | patter
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
- Search for:
Follow Blog via Email
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Email Address:
Follow me on Twitter
patter on facebook
Recent Posts
- story and academic writing – the question of pace
- Story structure 2 – research writing
- Story and research writing
- when your writing plan gets stuck
- Planning and writing
- the planning fallacy and the PhD
- five discussion chapter challenges
- making the case for your research
- useless ideas
- academic writing as conversation
- AI and all that jazz
- thinking about collaborations
SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET
Top posts & pages.
- writing a bio-note
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- story and academic writing - the question of pace
- five ways to structure a literature review
- what's a #phd 'contribution'?
- I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
- recycling your thesis text - is it self plagiarism?
- #LitReview - Getting to structure, part one
- concluding the journal article
- the literature review - how old are the sources?
- Entries feed
- Comments feed
- WordPress.com
- Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
- Follow Following
- Copy shortlink
- Report this content
- View post in Reader
- Manage subscriptions
- Collapse this bar
Pulmonology (previously Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia) is the official journal of the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology (Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia/SPP). The journal publishes 6 issues per year, mainly about respiratory system diseases in adults and clinical research. This work can range from peer-reviewed original articles to review articles, editorials, and opinion articles. The journal is printed in English, and is freely available in its web page as well as in Medline and other databases.
Indexed in:
Science Citation Index Expanded, Journal of Citation Reports; Index Medicus/MEDLINE; Scopus; EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years. © Clarivate Analytics, Journal Citation Reports 2021
CiteScore measures average citations received per document published.
SRJ is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and qualitative measure of the journal's impact.
SNIP measures contextual citation impact by wighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.
- Introduction
- Basics of the scientific method and study design
- Structure and content of the methods section
- Study design
- Ethical considerations
- Selection of participants – selection criteria and selection methods
- Data collection – variables, methods and instruments
- Data analysis
- Bibliography
The methods section is the most important part of a scientific paper because it provides the essential information that allows the reader to judge the validity of the results and conclusions of the study reported. Therefore, in this section the authors should provide a clear and precise description of how the study was performed and the rationale for the methodological choices and characteristics of the study design. This section should be written in a clear and concise manner, but should always present enough information so that: (1) the study could be replicated by other researchers, in order to evaluate the reproducibility of results (it should not be a step-by-step tutorial but should be a systematic and complete description of what was done), and (2) the readers are able to judge the validity of results and conclusions presented. This will typically be the first section to be written in a paper (although many times the last to be finalized after corrections and reviews of authors and reviewers), mainly because it should be already thought of and written as a part of the research protocol/proposal, prepared at the initial phase of the research work, and because it sets the stage for the results and conclusions presented in a paper. From a journalistic point of view this section should answer questions like “who”, “what”, “where”, “when”, “why” and “how”; and should do it having into account the difficult balance between completeness (sufficient details to allow replication and validity verification) and brevity (the impossibility of describing every technical detail and the need to strictly follow the guidelines/instructions for authors provided by journals and recommendations regarding word count limits). In this article, we describe and discuss some general recommendations that should help preparing the methods section of our manuscripts; and we propose a general structure and recommended content for this section. Because this section is so intimately related to the foundations of science, the scientific method and the study design, we begin by reviewing some general concepts and principles and then follow with the presentation of a proposal for its structure and content.
Although many authors and schools of thought have different definitions and understandings regarding this matter, it is fair and generally consensual to say that science is a systematic endeavor aiming at the acquisition, development and updating of knowledge; and knowledge could be defined as a set of models that aim to describe, understand, explain, control and eventually modify the real world. 1–4 The practice of science, generically named scientific research, aims to define questions and find answers that may contribute to the building of knowledge using the so called scientific method. The scientific method, particularly in the natural sciences, mainly relies on the empirical observation of the world, as objective and unbiased as possible, and the adequate use of processes as deduction, induction 1–3 and abduction, 4 in order to generate and test hypothesis and subsequently models that allow us to describe, explain and modify the real world. In general, scientific research questions look for the estimation of population parameters or the confirmation or discovery of relationships, eventually of a causal nature, among objects (physical matter, processes, interventions or concepts). In a quantitative research paradigm the objects are regarded as variables that researchers may measure and/or control, and a variable is simply defined as a characteristic that may vary among the subjects or units of observation under study. When estimating parameters or assessing relationships, that quantitatively translate the answer to the research question, researchers are interested in minimizing random errors and systematic errors. Random errors are associated with usual sources of variability, generally measurement and sampling variability, that may affect the estimation 5,6 ; and they directly affect the precision of the parameter estimates presented. Systematic errors or bias are associated with phenomena that may affect the validity of the estimation and conclusions. 5–9 Validity simply refers to the ability that a method or a study has to measure or estimate what it really intends to measure or estimate. Thus, validity refers to the credibility of the study design and results and the degree to which these results can be applied to the general population of interest. 5,6 Internal validity refers to the credibility of the study itself and is determined by the degree to which study conclusions correctly depict the truth in the study. 5,6 External validity refers to whether the results of a study can be generalized to a larger population of interest. 5,6
Random errors are controlled or dealt with mainly by an adequate choice of measurement methods and instruments, an adequate choice of sampling methods and sample size and an adequate use of statistical methods for data analysis and presentation. 5
Selection bias refers to systematic errors associated with the selection of study participants or units of observation. 5,6,12
Information bias refers to systematic errors associated with the measurement or classification of study variables (typically classified into three main groups: dependent variables – outcome or response variables; independent variables – predictive, exposure or intervention variables and confounding variables – confounders or extraneous factors) and the methods and instruments used for that purpose. 5,6
Confounding refers to a phenomenon where certain variables (confounding variables) that are associated simultaneously with the outcome and predictors under study interfere with the valid estimation of the true predictor's effect on the outcome. 5–8 Confounding is, of course, of particular importance in causal research. Sadly, the real world is much more complex than we would like, so simple, unambiguous, direct relationships between objects can be difficult to ascertain. Thus, in causal research, the validity of a study is judged by the degree to which its outcomes can be attributed to manipulation of independent variables and not to the effects of confounding variables. It is important to emphasize that confounding variables are hardly ever fully controlled; and in many instances the influence of those variables is not fully appreciated by researchers. Therefore, the study design must be defined so as to control as many extraneous factors as possible, so that any potential cause-and-effect relationship between two objects can be judged validly.
How much do we known about the topic under study?
Will there be an intervention? Will all subjects get it? Do we control who gets the intervention? Is it feasible to randomly assign subjects to the intervention?
How often and when will data be collected from subjects?
How can factors that may potentially interfere in the relationship between predictors and outcomes be minimized or controlled?
The answer to these questions comprises the justification for the study design selected and should be always succinctly explained. The different study designs and methodological characteristics will affect the validity of the study results. Thus, although a more thorough description of the various types of study designs is beyond the focus of this article, it is very important that researchers know the basics regarding study design and are able to adequately describe it. 5
In conclusion, the choice of the most appropriate study design and the adequate planning and implementation of the research methods are the foundations of good research work; and their main purpose is exactly to minimize random and systematic errors that may affect the answer to the research question. Thus, the methods section in a paper should essentially report in a concise but complete manner how well random and systematic errors were considered and controlled by researchers, so that the validity and precision of the estimates that quantitatively translate the answer to the research question may be judged by the readers.
In most journals the “Methods” section is designated as “Materials and Methods” or “Participants and Methods” emphasizing the two main areas that should be addressed. First, “Materials” refers to what was observed (e.g.: humans, animals, tissues, cells, etc.) and the interventions (e.g.: drugs, devices, etc.) and instruments (e.g.: measurement technologies) used in the study. Second, “Methods” refers to how subjects or objects were selected, manipulated or observed to answer the research question, how measurements were performed and how the data were analyzed. 13–15
Study design;
Selection of participants – selection criteria and selection methods;
Data collection – variables, methods and instruments and
Data analysis.
Each one of these subsections could have additional subheadings as appropriate. It should be stressed that the proposal that follows is deemed to be broad and general in scope, and should always be completed with some other specific indications in the context of the particular type of study reported. To master the writing of the methods section it is important (1) to look at many other examples of methods sections in articles with similar scopes and aims as ours and (2) to use some of the many reporting guidelines that are available for the most common study types 16,17 (e.g.: CONSORT for clinical trials 18 ; STROBE for observational studies 19 ; STARD for diagnostic research 20 ; PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analysis 21 ; etc.).
The writing of Methods section should be direct, precise and in the past tense. Complex sentence structures should be avoided, as well as descriptions of unimportant aspects or too much details. In general the description of procedures and measurements should be organized chronologically; and, in each subsection, content should be organized from the most to the least important. 13–15
The definition of the descriptive vs. analytical nature of the study. Descriptive studies aim to describe population parameters or associations (hypothesis generating studies) and analytical studies try to answer causal questions (hypothesis testing studies).
Reporting the comparative vs. non-comparative nature of the study (is there a group comparison?).
Reporting the interventional vs. non-interventional nature of the study (is there an intervention to be evaluated?).
Reporting the existence of control over the interventions or factors under study and the existence of randomization. These two criteria allow the classification of studies into three main groups: experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies. In experimental studies the researchers have direct control over the interventions or factors under study and allocate them to the subjects using a random process – randomization (e.g.: randomized controlled trials). In quasi-experimental studies researchers control the interventions or factors under study but they do not implement randomization procedures (e.g.: non-randomized clinical trials). In observational studies researchers are unable to directly control the interventions or factors under study and do not implement randomization procedures (e.g.: cohort studies, case–control studies, etc.).
Reporting the type of randomization procedures when those are implemented (e.g.: parallel groups vs. cross-over, balanced vs. unbalanced groups, complete vs. incomplete designs, factorial designs, etc.).
Reporting, in observational studies, if the participant selection was based on the predictor variables (cohort studies) or the outcomes (case–control studies) under assessment.
Reporting the cross-sectional vs. longitudinal nature of the study (having into account the existence of an assumed or factual follow-up period).
Reporting the prospective vs. retrospective nature of the study (having into account the point in time where the predictors are measured in relation to the outcomes or the point in time where recruitment of participants starts).
The different study designs and methodological characteristics will affect the validity of the study results. Thus, although a more thorough description of the various types of study designs is beyond the focus of this article, it is very important that researchers know the basics regarding study design and are able to adequately describe it. 5,6
A clear presentation of the ethical considerations is mandatory in all animal or human studies. Although it may not be a subsection by itself, as an alternative it could be a part of the subsection “Selection of participants”, this presentation is important and should take into account the international guidelines on good clinical and research practices. 22–25 In general, references regarding the informed consent obtained on human subjects and the approval of the research protocol by an ethical committee or an institutional review board should be presented. In Portugal, submission of the research protocol to the national data protection agency (Comissão Nacional de Protecção de Dados – CNPD) could also be necessary. 26 In the case of experimental studies on human subjects (clinical trials) the approval by a national ethical committee is legally mandatory. 27 If the study raises any additional specific ethical concern this should be adequately described (e.g.: studies on especially vulnerable subgroups). 28 Although not directly linked with the ethical considerations, it is important to stress that for experimental studies on human subjects (clinical trials) authors should give an appropriate reference to the registration of the study protocol on a clinical trials registration database. 29 Most journals today only accept for publication clinical trials previously registered.
The participants selected for inclusion in a study and the methods of selection will ultimately determine the limits that are placed on the generalizations that can be made regarding the study results. Judging the external validity of a study (i.e.: assessing to whom the study results may be applied) requires that a comprehensive description of the selection criteria and selection methods and descriptive data regarding the study sample be provided. 5
This subsection could begin with a brief presentation of the study setting, in order to contextualize the study presented. This should include the setting, location(s) and relevant dates of the study, indicating, for example, periods of recruitment, exposures or interventions, follow-up and data collection.
Specification criteria (selection criteria),
Methods for selection of participants (sampling) and
Recruitment process.
First, a full and thorough description of the criteria for selection of participants – inclusion and exclusion criteria – should be presented and its rationale explained. 5 Authors should clearly indicate the target population and the accessible population in the study.
A general description of the characteristics of participants is also important and could also be added, but this is a matter of discussion because many authors and journals believe this should be a part of the results section. For human subjects it is important to describe general demographic and clinical characteristics. For animal subjects it is important to adequately describe the species, weight, strain, sex, age and eventually details regarding special characteristics or living conditions.
In studies involving animal models or mechanical models, a detailed description must be provided regarding the preparations made prior to beginning the experimental protocol. In addition, all aspects of animal or tissue preparation required prior to initiation of the research protocol must be described in detail. With any animal preparation or mechanical model there must be enough detail provided so that the reader can duplicate it or evaluate its relevance.
Second, the methods for selection of participants should be carefully explained. This should include an account of how the subjects were identified and how they were sampled from the target population under study (sampling methods). 5 When selecting subjects from a target population, probabilistic sampling methods (random samples) are preferred because they more appropriately guarantee representativeness of the sample. When reporting probabilistic sampling methods authors should describe the sampling frame, the instruments used for the random selection process and, if appropriate, the use of complex sampling methods with stratification or clustering and weighting procedures. Although probabilistic methods are preferred, for practical reasons, non-probabilistic sampling methods (non-random samples) are much more common (e.g.: consecutive samples, convenience samples, systematic samples, etc.). Although non-random sampling methods do not guarantee the representativeness of the sample, they do not necessarily prevent us from validly answering the research question. It should be stressed that non-probabilistic sampling methods are in many instances appropriate. For example, most of randomized clinical trials do not select participants through a random sampling process, and they still are able to appropriately answer the causal question regarding efficacy of therapeutic interventions, relying on the random allocation of alternative interventions (randomization), even when the participants selection was non-random. When answering causal questions the crucial point is to be able to generate comparable study groups and make fair comparisons (equipoise) between groups and, at least in this case, representativeness of the sample, although also important, is regarded as secondary.
The third topic to be addressed in the “Selection of participants” subsection is the recruitment process. 5 Authors should describe in detail how recruitment was undertaken and particularly how effective it was. They should present a complete account of the subjects selected from the sampling frame, those that accepted and those that refused to participate, ideally with a summary of reasons for refusal and a brief characterization of the subjects refusing to participate. Methods implemented to reduce refusal rate should also be described.
In addition to the three main topics described above, in comparative studies it is also important to describe some particular methods of group allocation and/or participant selection that aim to improve their comparability. In experimental studies (randomized controlled trials) a thorough account of randomization procedures should be presented including 18 : methods used to generate the random allocation sequence, details on any restrictions to randomization (stratification or blocking), methods for allocation concealment and implementation details of the randomization process. In this type of studies this is often an independent subsection of the methods section. In observational studies (e.g.: cohort studies, case–control studies, etc.) authors should describe and give details regarding the implementation of methods such as stratification and matching, whenever those are used. 19
Finally, in longitudinal studies a full description should be presented of the follow-up procedures implemented, often as a separate subsection. This should include a description of the completeness and quality of participants follow-up (number and reasons for losses of follow-up, drop-outs, drop-ins, etc.) and, in comparative studies, methods implemented to guarantee equality of follow-up conditions, for example, blinding of researchers or healthcare professionals responsible for the follow-up and the adequate control of co-interventions. 5
The next step in the methods section is to describe the data collection process, including the variables measured and the methods and instruments used for their measurement. In a quantitative research paradigm the adequate and unbiased empirical observation and measurement of variables is the cornerstone of the scientific method; thus this subsection deserves careful and thorough consideration.
Variables are observable objects that are measured, manipulated, or controlled in a study. Variables can be concrete concepts, such as height, weight, and blood pressure, or abstract concepts, such as stress, coping or quality-of-life. Variables should be operationally defined by indicating how the variable will be observed and measured in the study. Abstract variables (constructs), such as quality-of-life or stress, should be defined both conceptually and operationally. The conceptual definition explains the theoretical meaning of the variable, while the operational definition specifies how it will be measured. For example, when measuring quality-of-life, researchers could present a brief conceptual definition of the construct, but should always add details regarding its operational definition, by indicating the model and instrument applied to measure quality-of-life, for example, by using the SF-36 health questionnaire.
Predictor (independent, exposure or intervention) variables,
Outcome (dependent) variables,
Confounding (extraneous) variables or
Interaction (effect modifier) variables.
When describing the variables in a study the authors do not need to give a full and complete description of all variables measured, however the main predictors and all outcome variables should be described with sufficient detail as to allow replication and assessment of the quality of the measurement or classification. For these variables a full account of their conceptual definition, operational definition, classification or diagnostic criteria applied (if appropriate), methods of measurement, instruments used and a brief description of the evidence regarding their validity and reproducibility should be presented. This detailed presentation should be extended to any other variable of particular importance for the study or with uncommon measurement procedures or instruments. 5
For those variables where it is deemed necessary, the description of the measurement methods and instruments should include the manufacturer and model, calibration procedures, evidence regarding the validity and reproducibility of instruments and how measurements were made. The instruments used to measure variables must be reliable and valid. Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it reports to measure. Reliability refers to the consistency with which an instrument measures a study variable. Internal consistency (e.g.: Cronbach's alpha), test–retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability are examples of methods used to assess the reliability of an instrument, particularly in the context of abstract concepts (constructs) measurement. These psychometric or clinimetric properties of instruments determine the overall study validity. It is important to select and describe instruments that have established reliability and validity in the population that the investigator plans to study (e.g.: older adults or children) and use instruments that are properly translated, adapted and validated for the study population. Although not formally prohibited, the use of instruments that were not previously submitted to an adequate translation, adaptation and validation process impose important limitations to the credibility and validity of the study results and its use should be always indicated.
Finally, particular methods to control bias associated with the measurement or classification of study variables should be described. For example, implementation of blinding procedures for participants and for researchers collecting data (especially outcomes measurement) should be indicated and explained.
In the last part of the methods section authors should describe with sufficient detail the statistical methods used for the study data analysis, including descriptive statistics and methods for statistical inference. 5 This presentation should have a close link to the aims of the study and should precisely establish what will be presented in the results section.
This subsection should include an initial general sentence regarding the descriptive statistics used, having into account the main types of variables analyzed (e.g.: means or medians, standard deviations or quantile ranges, absolute frequencies and proportions, etc.). Next, a brief description of inferential methods used should follow, including the indication of confidence intervals calculated, an account of the statistical hypothesis tests applied and the indication of any uni- or multi-variable regression or modeling procedures employed. A special note should be added regarding the use of confidence intervals as the best method to express the precision of parameter estimates presented in a study. Their presentation is increasingly deemed essential and they are more informative than the classical p -values of hypothesis testing.
Describing the specifics regarding methods used to account for confounding in observational studies (e.g.: multi-variable regression methods for effect measures adjustment, propensity scores, 30 causality modeling using directed acyclic graphs and structural models, 31–33 etc.).
Describing methods to examine subgroups, interactions and effect modification in experimental and observational studies. 34
Describing any interim analysis, stopping rules and adjustments that may be used, particularly in experimental studies. 18
Describing any particular adjustments made taking into account the sampling methods and weighting procedures used.
Describing methods used to account for missing data.
Describing methods used for sensitivity analysis.
Also important in this section is to describe the estimates and explanation of methods for the sample size and power determination. 5 The determination of the sample size before the beginning of the study is crucial to ensure the appropriate power of hypothesis testing and the precision of parameter estimates. In many instances, particularly in observational studies, a formal sample size calculation is not possible for practical reasons (for example, the study sample is assembled retrospectively or is already fixed before the beginning of the study). Even in these situations it is advisable to present results of a formal power analysis, in order to give an indication of the power of hypothesis tests and the magnitude of differences that researchers are able to detect in those settings. Some authors prefer to incorporate the paragraph regarding sample size determination as a part of the “Selection of participants” subsection.
Finally, an indication of the level of type I errors (alpha level) assumed in all statistical hypothesis testing (usually, a 5% alpha level is assumed) and an indication of the statistical software package used for analysis (with a reference) should be presented in this subsection.
The methods section is the most important part of a scientific paper because it provides the crucial information that allows the reader to judge the validity of the results and conclusions of the study reported. Therefore, in this section, the authors should provide a clear and precise description of how the study was performed and the rationale for the methodological choices and characteristics of the study design. A clear and precise account of how a study was performed, and the rationale for specific study methods are the crucial aspects of scientific writing. A proposal for the structure and content of the methods has been presented and explored giving a general guidance for the writing and assessment of the quality of this section and of the study reported. We hope that somehow this paper may comprise a useful tool for authors, reviewers and readers of scientific papers, and in particular those of the Portuguese Journal of Pulmonology (Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia) .
- Subscribe to our newsletter
- A Different Wave – Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic
- COVID-19 pneumonia and ROX index: Time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU. Author's reply
- Intermittent versus equivalent constant-load cycle training in COVID-19 patients
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital diagnosis of tuberculosis in non-HIV patients
- Send to a friend
- Export reference
- Instructions for authors
- Submit an article
- Ethics in publishing
- Articles in press
- Current Issue
- Supplements
- About the journal
- Editorial Board
- Advertising
- Most often read
- All metrics
- Open access
- Download PDF
Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?
- About the LSE Impact Blog
- Academic Podcasting
- Comments Policy
- Cookie Policy
- Our blog family
- Popular Posts
- Recent Posts
- Series: Rapid Response Publishing in Covid Times
- Subscribe to the Impact Blog via Email or RSS
- Write for us
- LSE comment
Pat Thomson
January 21st, 2016, writing the introduction to a journal article: say what the reader is going to encounter and why it is important..
8 comments | 13 shares
Estimated reading time: 10 minutes
So you want to write a journal article but are unsure about how to start it off? Well, here’s a few things to remember. The introduction to your journal article must create a good impression . Readers get a strong view of the rest of the paper from the first couple of paragraphs. If your work is engaging, concise and well structured, then readers are encouraged to go on. On the other hand, if the introduction is poorly structured, doesn’t get to the point, and is either boring or too clever by half, then the reader may well decide that those two or three paragraphs were enough. Quite enough.
At the end of the introduction, you want your reader to read on, and read on with interest, not with a sense of impending doom, or simply out of duty. The introduction therefore has to say what the reader is going to encounter in the paper, as well as why it is important. While in some scholarly traditions it is customary to let the reader find out the point of the paper at the very end – ta da – this is not how the English tradition usually works. English language journals want the rationale for the paper, and its argument, flagged up at the start.
Image credit: Classical figure in robes, riding an eagle and writing on a tablet (From The New York Public Library Public Domain)
The introduction can actually be thought of as a kind of mini-thesis statement, with the what, why and how of the argument spelled out in advance of the extended version. The introduction generally lays out a kind of road-map for the paper to come. It also lets the reader know broadly about the kinds of information and evidence that you will use to make your case in the paper.
Writing an introduction is difficult. You have to think about:
- the question, problem or puzzle that you will pose at the outset, as well as
- the answer, and
- how the argument that constitutes your answer is to be staged.
At the same time, you also have to think about how you can make this opening compelling. You have to ask yourself how you will place your chosen question, problem or puzzle in a context the reader will understand. You need to consider: How broad or narrow should the context be – how local, how international, how discipline specific? Should the problem, question or puzzle be located in policy, practice or the state of scholarly debate – the literatures?
Then you have to consider the ways in which you will get the reader’s attention via a gripping opening sentence and/or the use of a provocation – an anecdote, snippet of empirical data, media headline, scenario, quotation or the like. And you must write this opener with authority – confidently and persuasively.
Writing a good introduction typically means “straightforward” writing. Not too many citations to trip the reader up. No extraordinarily long sentences with multiple ideas separated by commas and semicolons. Not too much passive voice and heavy use of nominalisation, so that the reader feels as if they are swallowing a particularly stodgy bowl of cold, day-old tapioca.
Journal article introductions – presentation from Pat Thomson
All of this? Questions, context, arguments, sequence and style as well? This is a big ask. An introduction has a lot of work to do in few words. It is little wonder that people often stall on introductions. So how to approach the writing?
In my writing courses I see people who are quite happy to get something workable, something “good enough” for the introduction – they write the introduction as a kind of place-holder – and then come back to it in subsequent edits to make it more convincing and attractive. But I also see people who can achieve a pretty good version of an introduction quite quickly, and they find that getting it “almost right” is necessary to set them up for the rest of the paper.
The thing is to find out what approach works for you.
You don’t want to end up stalled for days trying to get the most scintillating opening sentence possible. (You can always come back and rewrite!) Just remember that the most important thing to get sorted at the start is the road map, because that will help you write rest of the paper. And if you change your mind about the structure of the paper during the writing, you can always come back and adjust the introduction. Do keep saying to yourself “Nothing is carved in stone with a journal article until I send it off for publication!”
This article was originally published at Pat Thomson’s personal blog, Patter , and is republished here with permission.
Note: This article gives the views of the author(s), and not the position of the LSE Impact blog, nor of the London School of Economics.
About the author:
Pat Thomson is Professor of Education at the University of Nottingham. Her current research focuses on creativity, the arts and change in schools and communities, and postgraduate writing pedagogies. She is currently devoting more time to exploring, reading and thinking about imaginative and inclusive pedagogies which sit at the heart of change. She blogs about her research at Patter .
About the author
Pat Thomson is Professor of Education at the University of Nottingham. Her current research focuses on creativity, the arts and change in schools and communities, and postgraduate writing pedagogies. She blogs about her research at Patter.
- Pingback: Pitching Papers as if You Worked in Nashville | Howard Aldrich
- Pingback: Writing the introduction to a journal article: Say what the reader is going to encounter and why it is important. – Veille juridique
And resist the urge to bloviate about the obvious, such as the global public health significance of depression when your data have a much more modest scope and focus.
- Pingback: How (not!) to write a literature review… – Lyndsey Jenkins
- Pingback: Some Resources for Writers | Dr Geoff Kushnick
Writing a good introduction typically means “straightforward” writing and generally lays out a kind of road-map for the paper to come. Where did you get this information?
- Pingback: Redação científica deveria ser um assunto sério no Brasil |
Good post. I really loved the way you have explained things here. Keep up the good work. Cheers!
Leave a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Related Posts
The new metrics cannot be ignored – we need to implement centralised impact management systems to understand what these numbers mean
March 5th, 2013.
Standing on the shoulders of Chinese (Scientific) Giants – Evidence for a citation discount for Chinese Researchers
March 29th, 2023.
How will the emerging generation of scholars transform scholarly communication?
June 5th, 2019, the open access button: it’s time we capture individual moments of paywall injustice and turn them into positive change., september 2nd, 2013.
Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books
Journal Article: Introduction
When to write the introduction.
- Introduction
Your paper’s introduction is an opportunity to provide readers with the background necessary to understand your paper : the status of knowledge in your field, the question motivating your work and its significance, how you sought to answer that question (methods), and your main findings. A well-written introduction will broaden your readership by making your findings accessible to a larger audience.
Introduction Formula
Clarity is achieved by providing information in a predictable order. Successful introductions are therefore composed of 4 ordered components which are referred to as the “introduction formula”.
- General Background. Introduce the general area of science in which your project takes place, highlighting the status of our understanding of that system.
- Specific Background. Narrow down to the sub-area that your paper will be addressing, and again highlight the extent of our understanding in this sub-area.
Tip: Give your readers the technical details they need to understand the system –nothing more. Your purpose is not to showcase the breadth of your knowledge but instead to give readers all the tools they need to understand your results and their significance.
- Knowledge Gap. After discussing what we know, articulate what we do not know, specifically focusing on the question that has motivated your work. The prior two components should serve as a set-up for this question. That is, the question motivating your work should be a logical next step given what you’ve described in the general and specific background.
- “Here we show…” Very briefly summarize your methods and findings. Note that you may end this section with a sentence or two on the implications/novelty of your results, although this is not essential given that you will more thoroughly address these points in the discussion section.
This content was adapted from from an article originally created by the MIT Biological Engineering Communication Lab .
Resources and Annotated Examples
Annotated example 1.
Introduction from an article published in Science Translational Medicine . 4 MB
Annotated Example 2
Introduction from an article published in Cell . 2 MB
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The introduction of a paper is critically important. The logic of an introduction thus typically flows something like this. Some leading journals now encourage a summary sentence at the end of the introduction
At the end of the introduction, you want your reader to read on, and read on with interest, not with a sense of impending doom, or simply out of duty
The methods section is the most important part of a scientific paper because it provides the essential information that allows the reader to judge the validity of the results and conclusions of the study reported
Writing a good introduction typically means “straightforward” writing and generally lays out a kind of road-map for the paper to come. The introduction to your journal article must create a good impression
A well-written introduction will broaden your readership by making your findings accessible to a larger audience. This content was adapted from from an article originally created by the MIT Biological Engineering Communication Lab
by W Warsidi · 2017 — The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), Page 30-55. Research Article Introductions in Thai: Genre Analysis of