how do you write an original research article

• Main Library
• Digital Fabrication Lab
• Data Visualization Lab
• Business Learning Center
• Klai Juba Wald Architectural Studies Library
• NDSU Nursing at Sanford Health Library
• Research Assistance
• Special Collections
• Digital Collections
• Collection Development Policy
• Course Reserves
• Request Library Instruction
• Main Library Services
• Alumni & Community
• Academic Support Services in the Library
• Libraries Resources for Employees
• Book Equipment or Study Rooms
• Librarians by Academic Subject
• Germans from Russia Heritage Collection
• NDSU Archives
• Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan 2022-2024
• Staff Directory
• Floor Plans
• The Libraries Magazine
• Accommodations for People with Disabilities
• Annual Report
• Donate to the Libraries
• Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
• Faculty Senate Library Committee
• Undergraduate Research Award

What is an original research article?

An original research article is a report of research activity that is written by the researchers who conducted the research or experiment. Original research articles may also be referred to as: “primary research articles” or “primary scientific literature.” In science courses, instructors may also refer to these as “peer-reviewed articles” or “refereed articles.”

Original research articles in the sciences have a specific purpose, follow a scientific article format, are peer reviewed, and published in academic journals.

Identifying Original Research: What to Look For

An "original research article" is an article that is reporting original research about new data or theories that have not been previously published. That might be the results of new experiments, or newly derived models or simulations. The article will include a detailed description of the methods used to produce them, so that other researchers can verify them. This description is often found in a section called "methods" or "materials and methods" or similar. Similarly, the results will generally be described in great detail, often in a section called "results."

Since the original research article is reporting the results of new research, the authors should be the scientists who conducted that research. They will have expertise in the field, and will usually be employed by a university or research lab.

In comparison, a newspaper or magazine article (such as in  The New York Times  or  National Geographic ) will usually be written by a journalist reporting on the actions of someone else.

An original research article will be written by and for scientists who study related topics. As such, the article should use precise, technical language to ensure that other researchers have an exact understanding of what was done, how to do it, and why it matters. There will be plentiful citations to previous work, helping place the research article in a broader context. The article will be published in an academic journal, follow a scientific format, and undergo peer-review.

Original research articles in the sciences follow the scientific format. ( This tutorial from North Carolina State University illustrates some of the key features of this format.)

Look for signs of this format in the subject headings or subsections of the article. You should see the following:

Scientific research that is published in academic journals undergoes a process called "peer review."

The peer review process goes like this:

• A researcher writes a paper and sends it in to an academic journal, where it is read by an editor
• The editor then sends the article to other scientists who study similar topics, who can best evaluate the article
• The scientists/reviewers examine the article's research methodology, reasoning, originality, and sginificance
• The scientists/reviewers then make suggestions and comments to impove the paper
• The original author is then given these suggestions and comments, and makes changes as needed
• This process repeats until everyone is satisfied and the article can be published within the academic journal

For more details about this process see the Peer Reviewed Publications guide.

This journal article  is an example. It was published in the journal  Royal Society Open Science  in 2015. Clicking on the button that says "Review History" will show the comments by the editors, reviewers and the author as it went through the peer review process. The "About Us" menu provides details about this journal; "About the journal" under that tab includes the statement that the journal is peer reviewed.

Review articles

There are a variety of article types published in academic, peer-reviewed journals, but the two most common are original research articles and review articles . They can look very similar, but have different purposes and structures.

Like original research articles, review articles are aimed at scientists and undergo peer-review. Review articles often even have “abstract,” “introduction,” and “reference” sections. However, they will not (generally) have a “methods” or “results” section because they are not reporting new data or theories. Instead, they review the current state of knowledge on a topic.

Press releases, newspaper or magazine articles

These won't be in a formal scientific format or be peer reviewed. The author will usually be a journalist, and the audience will be the general public. Since most readers are not interested in the precise details of the research, the language will usually be nontechnical and broad. Citations will be rare or nonexistent.

Tips for Finding Original research Articles

Search for articles in one of the library databases recommend for your subject area . If you are using Google, try searching in Google Scholar instead and you will get results that are more likely to be original research articles than what will come up in a regular Google search!

For tips on using library databases to find articles, see our Library DIY guides .

Tips for Finding the Source of a News Report about Science

If you've seen or heard a report about a new scientific finding or claim, these tips can help you find the original source:

• Often, the report will mention where the original research was published; look for sentences like "In an article published yesterday in the journal  Nature ..." You can use this to find the issue of the journal where the research was published, and look at the table of contents to find the original article.
• The report will often name the researchers involved. You can search relevant databases for their name and the topic of the report to find the original research that way.
• Sometimes you may have to go through multiple articles to find the original source. For example, a video or blog post may be based on a newspaper article, which in turn is reporting on a scientific discovery published in another journal; be sure to find the original research article.
• Don't be afraid to ask a librarian for help!

Search The Site

Find Your Librarian  

Phone:  Circulation:  (701) 231-8888 Reference:  (701) 231-8888 Administration:  (701) 231-8753

Email:  Administration InterLibrary Loan (ILL)

• Online Services
• Phone/Email Directory
• Registration And Records
• Government Information
• Library DIY
• Subject and Course Guides
• Special Topics
• Collection Highlights
• Digital Horizons
• NDSU Repository (IR)
• Libraries Hours
• News & Events

• Enroll & Pay
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Degree Programs

Original Research

An original research paper should present a unique argument of your own. In other words, the claim of the paper should be debatable and should be your (the researcher’s) own original idea. Typically an original research paper builds on the existing research on a topic, addresses a specific question, presents the findings according to a standard structure (described below), and suggests questions for further research and investigation. Though writers in any discipline may conduct original research, scientists and social scientists in particular are interested in controlled investigation and inquiry. Their research often consists of direct and indirect observation in the laboratory or in the field. Many scientists write papers to investigate a hypothesis (a statement to be tested).

Although the precise order of research elements may vary somewhat according to the specific task, most include the following elements:

• Table of contents
• List of illustrations
• Body of the report
• References cited

Check your assignment for guidance on which formatting style is required. The Complete Discipline Listing Guide (Purdue OWL)  provides information on the most common style guide for each discipline, but be sure to check with your instructor.

The title of your work is important. It draws the reader to your text. A common practice for titles is to use a two-phrase title where the first phrase is a broad reference to the topic to catch the reader’s attention. This phrase is followed by a more direct and specific explanation of your project. For example:

“Lions, Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!: The Effects of Large Predators on Livestock Yields.”

The first phrase draws the reader in – it is creative and interesting. The second part of the title tells the reader the specific focus of the research.

In addition, data base retrieval systems often work with  keywords  extracted from the title or from a list the author supplies. When possible, incorporate them into the title. Select these words with consideration of how prospective readers might attempt to access your document. For more information on creating keywords, refer to this  Springer research publication guide.

See the KU Writing Center Writing Guide on Abstracts for detailed information about creating an abstract.

Table of Contents

The table of contents provides the reader with the outline and location of specific aspects of your document. Listings in the table of contents typically match the headings in the paper. Normally, authors number any pages before the table of contents as well as the lists of illustrations/tables/figures using lower-case roman numerals. As such, the table of contents will use lower-case roman numbers to identify the elements of the paper prior to the body of the report, appendix, and reference page. Additionally, because authors will normally use Arabic numerals (e.g., 1, 2, 3) to number the pages of the body of the research paper (starting with the introduction), the table of contents will use Arabic numerals to identify the main sections of the body of the paper (the introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and appendices).

Here is an example of a table of contents:

ABSTRACT..................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...........................v

LIST OF TABLES.........................................vii

INTRODUCTION..........................................1

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................6

METHODS....................................................9

RESULTS....................................................10

DISCUSSION..............................................16

CONCLUSION............................................18

REFERENCES............................................20

APPENDIX................................................. 23

More information on creating a table of contents can be found in the Table of Contents Guide (SHSU)  from the Newton Gresham Library at Sam Houston State University.

List of Illustrations

Authors typically include a list of the illustrations in the paper with longer documents. List the number (e.g., Illustration 4), title, and page number of each illustration under headings such as "List of Illustrations" or "List of Tables.”

Body of the Report

The tone of a report based on original research will be objective and formal, and the writing should be concise and direct. The structure will likely consist of these standard sections:  introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion . Typically, authors identify these sections with headings and may use subheadings to identify specific themes within these sections (such as themes within the literature under the literature review section).

Introduction

Given what the field says about this topic, here is my contribution to this line of inquiry.

The introduction often consists of the rational for the project. What is the phenomenon or event that inspired you to write about this topic? What is the relevance of the topic and why is it important to study it now? Your introduction should also give some general background on the topic – but this should not be a literature review. This is the place to give your readers and necessary background information on the history, current circumstances, or other qualities of your topic generally. In other words, what information will a layperson need to know in order to get a decent understanding of the purpose and results of your paper? Finally, offer a “road map” to your reader where you explain the general order of the remainder of your paper. In the road map, do not just list the sections of the paper that will follow. You should refer to the main points of each section, including the main arguments in the literature review, a few details about your methods, several main points from your results/analysis, the most important takeaways from your discussion section, and the most significant conclusion or topic for further research.   

Literature Review

This is what other researchers have published about this topic.

In the literature review, you will define and clarify the state of the topic by citing key literature that has laid the groundwork for this investigation. This review of the literature will identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies between previous investigations and this one, and suggest the next step in the investigation chain, which will be your hypothesis. You should write the literature review in the  present tense  because it is ongoing information.

Methods (Procedures)

This is how I collected and analyzed the information.

This section recounts the procedures of the study. You will write this in  past tense  because you have already completed the study. It must include what is necessary to replicate and validate the hypothesis. What details must the reader know in order to replicate this study? What were your purposes in this study? The challenge in this section is to understand the possible readers well enough to include what is necessary without going into detail on “common-knowledge” procedures. Be sure that you are specific enough about your research procedure that someone in your field could easily replicate your study. Finally, make sure not to report any findings in this section.

This is what I found out from my research.

This section reports the findings from your research. Because this section is about research that is completed, you should write it primarily in the  past tense . The form and level of detail of the results depends on the hypothesis and goals of this report, and the needs of your audience. Authors of research papers often use visuals in the results section, but the visuals should enhance, rather than serve as a substitute, for the narrative of your results. Develop a narrative based on the thesis of the paper and the themes in your results and use visuals to communicate key findings that address your hypothesis or help to answer your research question. Include any unusual findings that will clarify the data. It is a good idea to use subheadings to group the results section into themes to help the reader understand the main points or findings of the research. 

This is what the findings mean in this situation and in terms of the literature more broadly.

This section is your opportunity to explain the importance and implications of your research. What is the significance of this research in terms of the hypothesis? In terms of other studies? What are possible implications for any academic theories you utilized in the study? Are there any policy implications or suggestions that result from the study? Incorporate key studies introduced in the review of literature into your discussion along with your own data from the results section. The discussion section should put your research in conversation with previous research – now you are showing directly how your data complements or contradicts other researchers’ data and what the wider implications of your findings are for academia and society in general. What questions for future research do these findings suggest? Because it is ongoing information, you should write the discussion in the  present tense . Sometimes the results and discussion are combined; if so, be certain to give fair weight to both.

These are the key findings gained from this research.

Summarize the key findings of your research effort in this brief final section. This section should not introduce new information. You can also address any limitations from your research design and suggest further areas of research or possible projects you would complete with a new and improved research design.

References/Works Cited

See KU Writing Center  writing guides  to learn more about different citation styles like APA, MLA, and Chicago.  Make an appointment  at the KU Writing Center for more help. Be sure to format the paper and references based on the citation style that your professor requires or based on the requirements of the academic journal or conference where you hope to submit the paper.

The appendix includes attachments that are pertinent to the main document but are too detailed to be included in the main text. These materials should be titled and labeled (for example Appendix A: Questionnaire). You should refer to the appendix in the text with in-text references so the reader understands additional useful information is available elsewhere in the document. Examples of documents to include in the appendix include regression tables, tables of text analysis data, and interview questions.

Updated June 2022  

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Arab J Urol
• v.12(1); 2014 Mar

How to write a medical original article: Advice from an Editor

To provide guidelines for potential authors on how to increase the chances of their manuscript being accepted, with a review focusing on writing an original medical article.

This review reflects the personal experience of the present author, who has extensive experience as an author, reviewer and editor.

To write an original article successfully, there are three essential requirements, the ‘basic triad’ of an original article. These are subjects worth reporting, knowledge of the basic structure of an article, and knowledge of the essential mechanics of good writing. This review details each of the three items.

Conclusions

Writing, like every other art, cannot be learned wholly from books or lectures, but can be learned largely by experience. The best training is to start the task and persevere. The act of writing, like surgical techniques, must be learned the hard way, by practice and perseverance. Anyone can start writing but only a good writer can finish the task.

Introduction

Much has been done to improve medical writing. Editors reject ill-prepared manuscripts and attempt to improve those accepted. Referees provide a detailed criticism of the content of papers submitted, so that a journal retains its high standards in the face of the volume of work presented to it.

However, many authors find difficulty in placing a piece of writing which has taken much time and trouble to prepare, and might contain work of importance. Doctors spend a great deal of time with ‘pen in hand’. What they need is someone to help them to express themselves clearly. The aim of the present review is to provide guidelines for potential authors on how to increase the chances of a manuscript being accepted. In this review I focus only on the writing of original articles for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

To write an original article successfully, there are three essential requirements, the ‘basic triad’ of an original article, including a subject worth reporting, knowledge of the basic structure of a peer-reviewed article, and knowledge of the essentials of good writing.

The subject

There should be a subject worthy of reporting, and that must be an addition to the existing literature. The author should read the previous relevant reports carefully and ensure that he or she is not repeating what has been done successfully before. Do not waste your time in writing a paper which will never be published.

The basic structure of an article

An original article contains the following items: A title page, an Abstract, Introduction, Patients (or materials) and methods, Results, Discussion, Summary or conclusion, the References, Tables, Figures, legends to Figures and any acknowledgements. A quick checklist of the main items is provided to the author in Box 1 and, to help potential authors to understand the demands of the journal, the criteria used by the reviewer are shown in Box 2.

The author’s check list.

• Short review
• Shortcomings of the existing reports
• Aim of the study

Scope of the study

Patients (or materials) and methods.

• Full description of patients/materials
• Full description of methods
• Study design
• Statistical analysis

Ethical considerations

• Presentation of data
• Correlation of data
• Introduction to discussion

Discussion of the results

• Advantages of the study
• Limitations of the study
• Recommendations of authors

The reviewer’s checklist.

• Are the objectives clear?
• Is the importance of the study adequately emphasised?
• Is the subject matter of the study new?
• Is previous work on the subject adequately cited?
• Patients (materials) and methods
• Is the study population detailed adequately?
• Are the methods described well enough to reproduce the experiment?
• Is the study design clear?
• Are statistical methods included?
• Are ethical considerations provided?
• Can the reader assess the results based on the data provided?
• Is the information straightforward and not confusing?
• Are there adequate controls?
• Are statistical methods appropriate?
• Do the authors comment adequately on all their results?
• Have the authors explained why and how their study differs from others already published?
• Do the authors discuss the potential problems and limitations with their study?
• Are the authors’ conclusions supported by the results?

The title page

The title page contains the title, list of authors, institutions, a running title, keywords, a word count, a correspondence address and a second title page.

The title should be informative, specific, comprehensive and accurate, stating exactly what the article is about. It should convey maximum information in a minimum of words. It should express the main issue of the study and preferably the type of study. The title should state the subject, never the conclusion. It should be considered and reassessed frequently, and when the paper is finished the final title is the last sentence to be written.

The authors

To be included as an author, the person must have contributed something worthwhile, such as creative thinking, performing diagnostic or therapeutic techniques that are essential to the study, collecting data, or writing the paper. The Vancouver protocol is internationally recognised as the standard for determining the authorship on publications. This protocol was first described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and is now applied across all disciplines in the world’s top universities. The Vancouver protocol states that, to be credited as an author, each and every author in a publication must have been involved in: The conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. It is not enough to have completed just one or two of these tasks, and a legitimate author would need to be involved in all three to be acknowledged as an author.

There are some guidelines which determine who should be the first author. For multiple authors with various contributions, the first author is the one who has done the most work. For multiple authors with equal contributions, give the advantage to the junior author, so the junior is first, the senior the last. For two authors, in the first publication give the advantage to the junior and in the second publication, redress the balance. A thesis is essentially a personal project, and therefore for papers derived from it the name of the candidate should be the first and the most senior person the last.

Be very careful to use only one name with the same spelling for the family, initial and middle names in all publications. For example, ‘Shokeir AA’ is different from ‘Shokeir A’. Using the same name with the same spelling will help in retrieving your publications from the Medline database easily in one pass.

Institutions

The affiliations should be listed in the title page only. In the first draft before the review process, do not provide the affiliations or information within the main text that can then be used to identify the names of the authors. This is important to avoid bias by the referees. After a successful review the name of the institutions and affiliations can be added.

Running title, keywords, word count and correspondence address

The title page should contain a short running title and a few keywords (usually six) to facilitate database searches. Most journals require a limited length (2000–3000 words) for the original article. The title page should contain a full address of a corresponding author who will be responsible for contact with the editors.

Second title page

There should be a second title page that contains the title only, with no author names or institutions, and this is used in the review process to ensure that reviewers are unaware of the origin of authors and institutions.

This is the first text to appear and should be last to be written. It contains the most important ideas of the article. It must be structured into four paragraphs, i.e., objectives, patients (or materials) and methods, results, and conclusions. The abstract is limited to 200–300 words by most journals. The abstract should not include undefined abbreviations or references to papers in the main text.

All the conclusions at the end of the abstract should be supported by the results of the study. A common mistake is to write a conclusion based on previous studies and not supported by the present results. The conclusions should satisfy the objectives of the study.

The introduction outlines the subject but does not develop it. The aim of the introduction is to gain the reader’s attention by giving sufficient information to outline the problem or matter of the article. The introduction must be short, easy to read and to the point. Some referees and editors consider the introduction as the most important part of the paper, because it sets the tone and quality of the entire paper. How a writer begins will determine whether the reader bothers to continue, and how it ends will determine whether the reader is satisfied or unconvinced.

Fundamentals

The Introduction consists of four fundamental parts, i.e., a short review of the main subject of the study, the shortcomings of previous studies, the aim of the study and the scope of the study.

The short review

The introduction must start with a short review that outlines the core of the subject. The review should be concise, interesting and informative. Long historical reviews are dull. The review varies in length from one sentence to several paragraphs, and it should be supported by the major and more recent references. Nevertheless, do not use too many references, as these are more suitable for the later discussion.

Shortcomings of the existing studies

The author should convince the reader of the importance of the study by giving reasons for investigating this particular subject. This could be achieved by addressing the problems, limitations and shortcomings of previous studies.

The aim of the study

The study should answer a timely and important question, the rationale of the study must be strong and very clear, and the results should be an addition to the existing knowledge.

At the end of the introduction there must be a short paragraph setting out the scope of the study, providing a quick overview of the organisation of the study that follows.

Evaluating the introduction

To evaluate the introduction, the reviewer will ask the following questions:

• • Are the objectives clear?
• • Is the importance of the study adequately emphasised?
• • Is the subject matter of the study new?
• • Is previous work on the subject adequately cited?

The section of patients (or materials) and methods consists of five fundamental parts, with a full description of the materials, of the methods, of the design of the study, and the statistical methods used and ethical considerations.

Patients or materials

The patients or materials of the study must be fully described, e.g., if patients are involved then the demographic characteristics of the patients and all information relevant to the study must be detailed.

All the methods used must be described, e.g., the surgical technique, radiological technique, or drugs used (preparation, dose, route of administration, timing, etc.) [1] . Only new methods need to be described in detail. For a common previously published method, use only a reference, but for an uncommon previously reported method give a short summary in addition to the reference. Any manufacturer’s details must be mentioned. It is important to consider that all the methods mentioned in this section should be entirely relevant to satisfying the objectives of the study; do not detail any irrelevant methods that might have been part of the study. Remember that the results of all methods mentioned in this section must be provided in the results section.

Design of the study

A separate paragraph must provide a full description of the design of the study. If controlled, describe the control, and if randomised, provide the type and method of randomisation [2–4] .

Statistical methods

A separate paragraph of the section of methods should describe the statistical methods used. For uncommonly used statistical methods it is advisable to provide a reference, but it is not necessary to detail software sources or packages if the methods used are standard.

This part should include any informed consent required, ethical approval by a committee, the funding source, a conflict of interest statement, and a statement about compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki for animal studies (if applicable).

Evaluation of the methods section

To evaluate this section the reviewer will ask the following questions:

• • Is the study population described in adequate detail?
• • Are the methods described well enough to reproduce the experiment?
• • Is the study design clear?
• • Are statistical methods included?
• • Are ethical considerations provided?

The section of the results contains two fundamental parts, i.e., the presentation of data and analysis of the results.

The results of all methods used must be provided in a respective and systematic manner. Present the results as text, tables or graphs, but do not repeat the same data in more than one. The reader is entitled to have the data presented in a logical order, which might not have been the order in which the work was done. Do not write any result for a method not mentioned in ‘Materials and methods’. Results must be written in a clear unequivocal and unambiguous manner [5,6] . Avoid using indistinct terms, e.g., most, some, probably, etc., if there are clear numerical data to support the proportion. Only relevant results (related to the aim of the study) should be mentioned. Do not distract the attention of the reader by irrelevant results.

Analysis of the results

The statistical analysis should be used to obtain an objective proof or otherwise of the hypothesis set out in the Introduction. In comparative studies, each comparison should be provided with its specific statistical evaluation. In science the object is a precise measurement. Galileo said ‘ Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not ’. In biological sciences, all measurements are inexact. The only way to describe this variability is to use statistics intelligently.

Evaluation of the results

To evaluate the Results section the reviewer will ask the following questions:

• • Can the reader assess the results based on the data provided?
• • Is the information straightforward and not confusing?
• • Are there adequate controls?
• • Are the statistical methods appropriate?

The discussion

The section of the Discussion consists of five fundamental parts, i.e., an introduction to the discussion, discussion of the results, new findings provided by the study, the limitations of the study, and any recommendations relevant to practice.

It is preferable to start the discussion with a short paragraph summarising the important findings from the results section.

Each result obtained must be adequately discussed and compared with similar previous studies in a respective, logical and clear manner. If the results of the study differ from previous ones, an explanation must be given. Each issue must be discussed in only one place, avoiding any repetition of ideas. Do not return to discuss a previously discussed issue. Avoid opinion bias. All important previous studies must be highlighted regardless of their results (whether with or against the present results).

Advantages and disadvantages of the study

A separate paragraph should describe the advantages and any new findings provided by your study, followed by another detailing the disadvantages, limitations and shortcomings, and how these could be avoided in future studies.

Recommendations by the authors

Authors should provide recommendations based on the results of their study.

Evaluation of the discussion

To evaluate the discussion the reviewer will ask the following questions:

• • Do the authors comment adequately on all their results?
• • Have the authors explained why and how their study differs from others already published?
• • Do the authors discuss the potential problems and limitations of their study?
• • Are the authors’ conclusions supported by the results?

The summary

The summary could be written as a separate section or as the last paragraph of the Discussion. It should stress the most relevant findings of the study. It is the ‘take-home message’ and a digest of the whole study. It is not a repetition of the abstract, but an extended conclusion. It justifies and explains the conclusion of the study.

The references

The most common styles of references are the alphabetical (Harvard) and the Vancouver system. The Harvard system is commonly used in a thesis, while most medical journals use the Vancouver system. In the Harvard system the reference in the text is written as the name of the author(s) followed by the year of publication, e.g., (Shokeir, 2005), while in the reference section the references are arranged alphabetically rather than a numerical list. In the Vancouver system the references are arranged numerically in the reference section according to their order of appearance in the text, and expressed in the text as numbers.

General advice

Each journal has its own style of references (house-style) explained in ‘Instructions to authors’. Read the instructions and examine a recent copy of the journal. All references should be written in the same style with the same arrangement. Recent references are better than older ones, and book references are of the least significance. The integrity of the references is the responsibility of the author only (neither the referee nor the journal). Some journals have a maximum number of references for an original article that should not be exceeded. If you have a choice between citing a recent reference published in the chosen journal or another journal, cite from the chosen journal, as it helps the impact factor of the chosen journal and pleases the editor.

Evaluation of the references

Most referees check some references at random. References are a very sensitive indicator of the whole article. If the author is lax with references, he or she might have been careless with the entire paper.

Objectives and characters

The objectives of the table are to detail the content without reading the text, and to provide comprehensible results at a glance. A good table is a single unit of communication, i.e., completely informative and completely intelligible to others. It should supply the maximum of information with the minimum of words. Tables should provide additional information not present in the text, to avoid redundancy.

How to design a good table

To design a clear table the data should be arranged in the correct order, omitting unimportant values and eliminating unnecessary words. Tables should be carefully designed to avoid any repetition of headings and to be simple, clear, not confusing, and easy to follow. Tables must be condensed, avoiding the splitting of similar data, so that all possible relevant information is presented together in one table.

Tables comparing groups should contain their specific statistical analysis. If abbreviations are used, they should be explained in a footnote, unless they are already defined in the text and list of abbreviations. Tables are usually provided after the references, each on a separate page, with a number and title. Be sure that the correct number of the table appears in the correct place in the text. If you have to choose between presenting the same data as a table or a graph, ask ‘what is more important to the reader?’ If a general trend is more important, present the data as a figure, but if exact values are more important, use a table.

Illustrations and figures

The objective of the illustration or figure is not only to grasp the message easily, but also to hold it longer. A common phrase is ‘one picture is worth a thousand words’. The purpose of the illustration or figure is not to beautify the paper, but to convey clear information (introduce, explain or summarise).

Designing a good illustration or figure

Because simplicity is the keynote of all arts, a good illustration must be simple. Avoid sophistication and secondary details. Although there are several well-known graphics packages, they are seldom designed for scientific graphs, and tend to produce figures more suitable for business presentations. Avoid using the unnecessary features common in these packages, like three-dimensional bars or pie charts. There is advice how to present the results in a peer-reviewed journal [7] .

There should be no repetition and no contradiction to the information mentioned in the text or tables. Consider that potentially good reproduction on photocopying by not using light colours like yellow, light green or light orange.

Be sure that the correct number of the figure appears in the correct place in the text. For conventional airmail submission, the back of each figure should be identified by its number and its top, to avoid publishing the figure in an incorrect configuration.

Legends to figures

The legends for all the figures are provided on a separate page, usually after the tables. Do not write the legend above or below the figure (as a graphic). Legends should be complementary to the text, not repetitive. Do not distract the reader too long from the text by writing an overlong legend.

Acknowledgements

Persons who are not included among authors and who helped at any stage of the study, starting from searching a subject and ending by submission of the manuscript, must be acknowledged in a separate section at the end of the manuscript. The most senior author defines who should be an author and who should be acknowledged.

The mechanics of writing

The structure of the sentence.

Each sentence should convey just one idea. To be a good writer you have to read well-written papers. The keys to successful writing are simplicity and clarity. Avoid the cardinal sins of writing which are:

• • Lack of clarity.
• • Repetition.
• • Wordiness (using more words than needed).
• • Pretentious writing (claiming great merit or importance).
• • Use of jargon (words or expressions developed for use within a particular group of people).

The structure of the paragraph

The paragraph usually starts by a topic sentence that opens the paragraph, followed by the information, data, ideas and finally a concluding sentence that closes the paragraph (if appropriate).

The sequence of writing

Who will write.

When there are several authors, one only must write the paper. Too many writers produce a patchwork of different styles. Authorship, like so many acquired skills, must start early in life. The junior should write and the senior should revise.

Preparing to write

• • Choose something worthwhile to report.
• • Search the literature and read journals.
• • Collect data.
• • Write a provisional title.
• • Look at the proposed journal.

First version

In the first version write the maximum information you have in the following sequence:

• • Patients (or materials) and methods.
• • Results (text, provisional tables and figures).
• • Discussion.
• • Introduction.

Second version

Arrange the ideas in their correct sequence. Carefully revise the tables and figures. Examine the whole paper and ask three questions:

• • Is the item necessary?
• • Is it in the correct section?
• • Are all necessary items included?

Third version

Discriminate between what is of primary and what is of secondary importance, and ask the following questions:

• • What can be shortened?
• • What can be simplified?
• • What can be summarised all together?
• • What can be omitted?

Fourth version

• • Finalise the references.
• • Write the abstract and summary.
• • Choose a final title.

Final version

Revise and test the style, as every statement must be tested to be expressive, simple and concise. Be sure of the meaning of every word in the paper [5,6] .

Revise the spelling, grammar and syntax. Check the verb tense. The introduction, discussion and conclusions are written in the present tense, while methods and results are written in the past tense.

Ask the co-authors to check the manuscript. Ask a consultant with reviewer experience to read it independently, because when you finally revise the paper it is very easy to read what you think you said, not what you did say.

Common reasons for rejection

Despite all this hard work, the paper might still be rejected. The common reasons for rejection are:

• • The article is not relevant to the journal.
• • The paper is not styled for the journal.
• • It was a poorly designed trial.
• • The article was badly written.
• • The conclusions are unjustified.
• • There was reviewer/editor bias.

The next step

Do not be discouraged. Use the reviewers’ comments to write a better paper. Finally, it is important to state that writing, like every other art, cannot be learned wholly from books or lectures, but can be learned only by experience. The best training is to start the task and persevere. The act of writing, like surgical techniques, must be learned the hard way, by practice and perseverance. Anyone can start writing but only a good writer can finish the task.

Conflict of interest

Source of funding.

Peer review under responsibility of Arab Association of Urology.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on March 27, 2023.

The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your topic and get the reader interested
• Provide background or summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Detail your specific research problem and problem statement
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: introduce your topic, step 2: describe the background, step 3: establish your research problem, step 4: specify your objective(s), step 5: map out your paper, research paper introduction examples, frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.

The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.

The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.

For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:

A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:

Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.

In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.

Argumentative paper: Background information

After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.

Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .

Empirical paper: Describing previous research

For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.

This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.

Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.

The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.

Argumentative paper: Emphasize importance

In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.

Empirical paper: Relate to the literature

In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:

• What research gap is your work intended to fill?
• What limitations in previous work does it address?
• What contribution to knowledge does it make?

You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.

Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.

The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).

Argumentative paper: Thesis statement

The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.

Empirical paper: Research question and hypothesis

The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.

Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.

A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.

• This study set out to answer the following question: What effects does daily use of Instagram have on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls?
• We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls.

If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.

For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:

The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.

In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.

If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.

• This paper will first discuss several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then will go on to …
• This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to …

Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

• Argumentative paper
• Empirical paper

Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.

The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

• A hook to catch the reader’s interest
• Relevant background on the topic
• Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

• A thesis statement or research question
• Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, March 27). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 17, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles

• First Online: 02 March 2024

Cite this chapter

• Kimberly M. Rathbun 5  

Manuscripts are used to communicate the findings of your work with other researchers. Writing your first manuscript can be a challenge. Journals provide guidelines to authors which should be followed closely. The three major types of articles (original research, case reports, and review articles) all generally follow the IMRAD format with slight variations in content. With planning and thought, manuscript writing does not have to be a daunting task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Suggested Readings

Alsaywid BS, Abdulhaq NM. Guideline on writing a case report. Urol Ann. 2019;11(2):126–31.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cohen H. How to write a patient case report. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(19):1888–92.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooper ID. How to write an original research paper (and get it published). J Med Lib Assoc. 2015;103:67–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gemayel R. How to write a scientific paper. FEBS J. 2016;283(21):3882–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:626–7.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.ICMJE.org . Accessed 23 Aug 2022.

Liumbruno GM, Velati C, Pasqualetti P, Franchini M. How to write a scientific manuscript for publication. Blood Transfus. 2013;11:217–26.

McCarthy LH, Reilly KE. How to write a case report. Fam Med. 2000;32(3):190–5.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, McKenzie JE. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160.

The Biosemantics Group. Journal/author name estimator. https://jane.biosemantics.org/ . Accessed 24 Aug 2022.

Weinstein R. How to write a manuscript for peer review. J Clin Apher. 2020;35(4):358–66.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Emergency Medicine, AU/UGA Medical Partnership, Athens, GA, USA

Kimberly M. Rathbun

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly M. Rathbun .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Emergency Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Robert P. Olympia

Elizabeth Barrall Werley

Jeffrey S. Lubin

MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

Kahyun Yoon-Flannery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Rathbun, K.M. (2023). Scientific Manuscript Writing: Original Research, Case Reports, Review Articles. In: Olympia, R.P., Werley, E.B., Lubin, J.S., Yoon-Flannery, K. (eds) An Emergency Physician’s Path. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47873-4_80

Published : 02 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-47872-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-47873-4

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

12 Conducting Primary (Original) Research

Overview of primary research.

Much like how different academic fields have different Discourse Communities , how research is defined varies widely from field to field, and, as you progress through your college career, your coursework will teach you much more about what it means to be a researcher within your field. For example, engineers, who focus on applying scientific knowledge to develop designs, processes, and objects, conduct research using simulations, mathematical models, and a variety of tests to see how well their designs work. Sociologists conduct research using surveys, interviews, observations, and statistical analyses to better understand people, societies, and cultures. Graphic designers conduct research through locating images for reference for their artwork and engaging in background research on clients and companies to best serve their needs. Historians conduct research by examining archival materials—newspapers, journals, letters, and other surviving texts—and through conducting oral history interviews. Research is not limited to what has already been written or found at the library, also known as secondary research. Primary research is research that is collected firsthand rather than found in a book, database, or journal.

Primary research is often based on the principles of the scientific method, a theory of investigation first developed by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century in his book Philosophy of the Scientific Method . Although the application of the scientific method varies from field to field, the general principles of the scientific method allow researchers to learn more about the world through observable phenomena. Using the scientific method, researchers develop questions or hypotheses and then collect data on events, objects, or people that is measurable, observable, and replicable. The ultimate goal in conducting primary research is to learn about something new that can be confirmed by others and to eliminate our own biases in the process.

This section explores some common ways of conducting primary research:

• Surveys . Asking participants about their opinions and behaviors through a short questionnaire.
• Interviews . Asking participants questions in a one-on-one or small group setting.
• Observations . Observing and measuring the world around you, including observations of people and other measurable events.

How do you choose between a survey, an interview, or an observation? It depends on what kind of information you are looking for. You should use surveys if you want to learn about a general trend in people’s opinions, experiences, and behavior. Surveys are particularly useful to find small amounts of information from a wider selection of people in the hopes of making a general claim. Interviews are best used when you want to learn detailed information from a few specific people. Interviews are also particularly useful if you want to interview experts about their opinions. Observations are useful for gathering data about actual human behavior by recording it as it occurs. In sum, then, use surveys to learn general patterns from many people, interviews to gain details from a few people, and observations to determine how people behave or act.

Of course, there are other ways of conducting primary research that may be more common in your particular field of study:

• Case Study. In-depth analysis of a person or group of people over a period of time.
• Focus Group . Planned small-group discussions around a particular topic.
• Data/Text Analysis. Analysis of an existing collection of data or texts.
• Clinical Trials.  Study of a medical approach, device, or treatment.

Use a survey to collect general information from a large group of people. Surveys tend to be more quantitative than qualitative. This page discusses the benefits of surveys, the limitations, the types, and the “3 C’s”  when creating surveys.

A survey is one of the more efficient ways of getting a large amount of data in a relatively short amount of time. If your research question is “What do [insert demographic] think/know about [insert idea, subject, event]?” then probably a survey is a great place to start. With the right questions and sample, you can get a good idea on how people of a certain population perceive the subject/idea you are researching.

Limitations

Any research method you choose will have limitations. A common limitation to surveys is the lack of “follow-up” questions. For example, if you have 50 students take your survey and it’s completely anonymous, it will be extremely difficult to follow-up with the subjects and ask more questions. On a related note, most surveys are multiple choice and/or short answer, so the subject only has so much “space” to express their opinions/thoughts on the matter. If you are wanting more in-depth opinions/thoughts on a subject, you will need to either format your survey to allow for that or do an interview instead.

Another limitation to consider is that your data will be self-reported, meaning that you have to rely on your subjects’ answers. Several factors could influence your subjects’ responses, either consciously or subconsciously, that may not be completely honest. Common reasons for unreliable data include your subjects wanting to portray themselves in a more positive light, your subjects may assume the “point” of the study and thus want the point to go their way even if their answers are not entirely honest, your subjects are embarrassed to reveal specifics about their life, or your subjects may not be aware of their own biases on certain subjects.

Question Types

Here are a few types of questions you can use:

Multiple-Choice Questions . This is a common type of question on surveys. Ask a question and/or give a statement, and then the respondent has to choose from a list of answers. If the answer is based on opinion or preference (e.g., favorite types of music), it is best to give an “Other” answer option and a fill in the blank space.

Matrix Questions . Along with multiple choice questions, there are matrix questions that use Likert-type scales. These are common in many social and applied science disciplines. Usually, the researcher gives one or more statements or questions (e.g., “I enjoy listening to Beethoven,” “I enjoy listening to Mozart,” etc.) and then the answers are in a Likert-type scale (e.g., Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree).

Short Answers.  This is where qualitative and quantitative methods mix. The researcher gives either a closed-ended question (e.g., “Did you enjoy Star Wars ?”) or an open-ended question (e.g. “Did you enjoy Star Wars ? Why or why not?”) If the survey is on a piece of paper, the respondent has a finite space to answer. If the survey is online, most online surveys let the researcher choose the character limit for the text box response.

3-Cs: Clear, Consistent, & Concise

You want the survey and the responses to the survey to be clear, consistent, and concise. This is not only important for logistics (e.g., the subjects understanding the question, having clear data, etc.), but it is also important from an ethical standpoint. Whom you send the survey to, what types of questions you ask, and what kinds of answer-choices you give can skew your data one way or another, and knowingly doing this can be seen as unethical.

Be as clear and straightforward as possible for your subjects. Clarity is not only helpful for your respondents but is also helpful for you as well in understanding your data. Below are examples of unclear questions.

Double-Barreled Questions. Avoid combination questions. The respondent may have a certain opinion for one part of the question, but a completely different opinion for the other. It is best to separate these, then, into two questions.

• Unclear: The food & service was great. Agree or Disagree?
• Clarified: The food was great. Agree or Disagree? The service was great. Agree or Disagree?

Double Negative Questions . While researchers may easily understand the questions they are asking, a double-negative question can be confusing for respondents. Try to avoid negative statements as much as possible.

• Unclear: I am not happy when my food is not hot. Agree or Disagree.
• Clarified: I am annoyed when my food is cold. Agree or Disagree.

Biased/Leading Questions/Answers. In this case, sometimes it might be too “clear” what the researcher wants. You must be aware of your own biases and make sure that you are not leading your respondent. When leading questions are put into surveys or interviews, the researcher, at best, is viewed as presumptuous; at worst, purposely misleading.

• Unclear: Why do you love this restaurant? Fun/Friendly/Delicious
• Clarified: What do you like about this restaurant? Fun/Friendly/Delicious/Other/Do not like this restaurant/No opinion

Ambiguous Terms. Be specific in your terms, both in the question and answer options. Choices such as “seldom,” “rarely,” “some of the time,” etc. can be interpreted differently depending on the subject.

• Unclear: Pick the answer that best describes how often you come here: Always/More than often/Often/Most of the time/Sometimes/Seldom/Rarely/Never.
• Clarified: Pick the answer that best describes how often you come here: Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Every few months/Once a Year/First time/Other.

Be Consistent.

Consistency not only helps your subjects understand the questions/answers but also will help you as a researcher when looking at your data and finding patterns.

Consistent Terms. While having clear terms, you need to also have consistent terms throughout.

Inconsistent Example:

Q#1 Have you injured your kneecap before? Q#2 If so, when did you hurt your patella?

Consistent Example:

Q#1 Have you injured your patella (kneecap) before? Q#2 If so, when did you hurt your patella?

Consistent Order of Answer Choices.  Along with consistent terms, the order of the answers need to be consistent as well.

Q#1 Parking on campus is convenient. Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree Q#2 Parking downtown is convenient. Strongly Disagree/Disagree/Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Agree/Strongly Agree

Q#1 Parking on campus is convenient. Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree Q#2 Parking downtown is convenient. Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither Agree Nor Disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree

Be Concise.

From your questions to the survey as a whole, the more concise you can be, the clearer your survey will be to your respondents—which means you may even get more responses. Remember that your subjects are doing you a favor by taking time out of their day to take your survey.

Unnecessary/Irrelevant Questions. For example, if you want to know what students think about parking on campus, asking them what their major is might be unnecessary. Be direct and to the point. What do you want to know, what do you want to know from your subjects, and what questions help you get those answers?

Text-Heavy Questions. Sometimes giving subjects a hypothetical scenario might be needed, but if you have 10 questions that are more than a paragraph each, your subjects may “check-out.”

Survey Fatigue. This is a known phenomena where the subject becomes tired/bored (i.e. fatigued) with questions. Respondents will either not finish the quiz or will mark answers without even reading the questions.

Repetition. Don’t ask your subjects “Do you park on campus?” and then “How often do you park on campus?; only ask “How often do you park on campus?” with the answer option of “I don’t park on campus.” Respondents may get frustrated if they feel they’ve already answered the question.

Lengthy Surveys. Each survey/research question is different, so there is no “magic” number for how many questions your survey should have. However, if you are just asking the “general public” about an issue, shorter will more than likely be better. A 5-question survey about parking on campus will likely yield more data (and probably more applicable data) than a 30-question survey.

Interviews, or question-and-answer sessions with one or more people, are an excellent way to gather in-depth information from a person or group of people for your primary research project. In contrast to surveys, which gather data from a large sample group of people, interviews can offer you the chance to gather more detailed information from one person or a small group of people. This page presents information on how to conduct a successful interview, including writing good questions, choosing the right people to interview, selecting an interviewing method, recording your interview, choosing an interview location, and transcribing your interview.

What to Ask

A good interview starts with good, clear, and unbiased questions. Generally, for an interview, you will want 5-8 open-ended questions that invite your respondents to explore your topic with some depth. Questions that start with “how” or “why” almost always allow for that kind of exploration, and “what” questions that do not have simple one-word or one-phrase responses can work quite well, too. The structure or organization of these questions matters, which means you want to keep questions around similar topics together so that your participants can answer your questions more easily and thoughtfully. Depending on your interview set-up, you might want to use a semi-structured interview approach, in which you ask follow-up or clarification questions based on a respondent’s answers.

Whom to Interview

One of the keys to a successful interview is choosing the right person to interview. Think about whom you would like to interview and whom you might know. Do not be afraid to ask people you do not know for interviews. When asking, simply tell them what the interview will be about, what the interview is for, and how much time it will take.

How to Interview

When interviewing, you have a choice of conducting a traditional, face-to-face interview or an interview using technology. Face-to-face interviews have the strength that you can ask follow-up questions and use non-verbal communication to your advantage. Individuals are able to say much more in a face-to-face interview than in an email, so you will get more information from a face-to-face interview. However, technology provides a host of possibilities when it comes to interviewing people at a distance. You may conduct your interview over the phone, through email, or even virtually through a video-chat program like FaceTime or Skype. You may also use a text or instant messaging program to interview your participant(s), which allows you to ask follow-up questions during the interview and which transcribes the interview for you.

Reducing Bias

One way of eliminating bias in your research is to record your interviews rather than rely on your memory and notes. Before you record any interview, however, be sure that you have permission to record from your participant(s). Recording interviews allows you to directly quote the individual and re-read the interview when you are analyzing and writing. Most computers and cell phones come with recording equipment built in. Taking notes during the interview, however, is a must: this requires you to pay attention, highlight the most important pieces of information, and form new follow-up or clarification questions for your participants.

Once your interview is over, you will need to transcribe your interview to prepare it for analysis. This means creating a written record that is exactly what was said—i.e., typing up your interview(s). If you have conducted an email or chat interview, you will already have a transcription.

Ask about One Thing at a Time

A poorly written question can contain multiple questions, which can confuse participants or lead them to answer only part of the question you are asking. This is called a “double-barreled question.”

• Double-Barreled Question: What kinds of problems are being faced in the field today and where do you see the search for solutions to these problems going?
• Revised Question 1: What kinds of problems are being faced in the field today?
• Revised Question 2: Where do you see the search for solutions to these problems going?

Avoid Leading Questions

A leading question is one where you prompt the participant to respond in a particular way, which can create bias in the answers given.

• Leading question: The economy is clearly in a crisis, wouldn’t you agree?
• Revised question: Do you believe the economy is currently in a crisis? Why or why not?

Open Versus Closed Questions

Closed questions, or questions that have yes/no or other limited responses, should be used in surveys. However, avoid these kinds of questions in interviews because they discourage the interviewee from providing in-depth information. In the revised question example above, “Do you believe the economy currently is in a crisis?” could be answered with a simple yes or no, which could keep a participant from talking more about the issue, but the “why or why not?” portion of the question asks the participant to elaborate.

Ask Questions Related to Your Topic

It may seem obvious, but you want to make sure that each question you ask is connected to your research topic/question. Whether you are conducting a survey or an interview, you do not want to waste your or your participants’ time. You want to avoid asking too few questions that do not allow you to gather information and data about your topic, but you also want to avoid asking too many unrelated questions that encourage your participants to abandon the interview before it is finished.

Observations

Observations have lead to some of the most important scientific discoveries in human history. Charles Darwin used observations of the animal and marine life at the Galapagos Islands to help him formulate his theory of evolution that he describes in On the Origin of Species . Today, social scientists, natural scientists, engineers, computer scientists, educational researchers, and many others use observations as a primary research method.

Observations can be conducted on nearly any subject matter, and your research question will determine the kinds of observations you can do. You could observe traffic or parking patterns on campus to get a sense of what improvements could be made. You could observe clouds, plants, or other natural phenomena. If you choose to observe people, you will have several additional considerations, including the manner in which you will both observe them and gain their consent.

Types of Observations

You will likely use unobtrusive observation . In unobtrusive observation, you do not interact with participants but rather simply record their behavior. Although in most circumstances people must volunteer to be participants in research, in some cases it is acceptable not to let participants know you are observing them. In places that people perceive as public, such as a campus food court or a shopping mall, people do not expect privacy, and so it is generally acceptable to observe behavior without participant consent. If it is not practical to get participants’ consent and if your data is anonymous, unobtrusive observations do not violate people’s privacy in public spaces. In places that people perceive as private, which can include a church, home, classroom, or a conversation in a public space, participant consent should be sought.

Participant observation  is a method used frequently within ethnographic research in sociology and anthropology. In this kind of observation, a researcher may interact with participants and become part of their community.

Length of Observations

Observations, particularly when conducting ethnographic research, are often conducted over extensive periods of time, in some cases for several years. However, sometimes a research project, such as that completed for a class, does not permit for such extensive data collection. You may only have a few days or even hours to conduct observations, in which case it is important to acknowledge the limited time frame of your data collection in your final report on your research.

Unbiased Observations

The ethical concern of being unbiased is important in recording your observations, which you will do in what is referred to as “field notes.” You need to be aware of the difference between an observation (recording exactly what you perceive through your senses) and an interpretation (making assumptions and judgments about what you see). When you observe, you should focus first on only the events that are directly observable. Consider the following two example field note entries:

• The student sitting in the dining hall enjoys his greasy, oil-soaked pizza. He is clearly oblivious to the calorie content and damage it may do to his body.
• The student sits in the dining hall. As he eats his piece of pizza, which drips oil, he says to a friend, “This pizza is good.”

The first entry is biased and demonstrates judgment about the event. First, the observer makes assumptions about the internal state of the student when she writes “enjoys” and “clearly oblivious to the calorie content.” From an observer’s standpoint, there is no way of ascertaining what the student may or may not know about pizza’s nutritional value nor how much the student enjoys the pizza. The second entry provides only the details and facts that are observable.

To avoid bias in your observations, you will want to use an observation protocol . For example, you can use something called a double-entry notebook . This is an approach to recording field notes that encourages you to separate your observations (the facts) from your feelings and judgments about the facts. You simply draw a vertical line down your notebook pages and record your unbiased observations on the left side and your feelings about those events on the right. Some researchers also opt to include a third category in their notebooks for reflection, which enables them to identify why they may have reached the interpretation about the events that they did; for example, a researcher may have experienced something in the past that shaped their perception of an event. You could also use an observation or tallying log , a pre-made table or some other chart that you create before you begin the observation, to help you quickly indicate when certain behaviors or interactions are performed by the people you are observing.

LICENSES AND ATTRIBUTIONS

• Methods of Primary Research. By: Lumen Learning. Located at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-writ250/chapter/methods-of-primary-research/ .  License: CC BY: Attribution
• Surveys. By: Lumen Learning. Located at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-writ250/chapter/surveys/ .  License: CC BY: Attribution
• Interviews. By: Lumen Learning. Located at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-writ250/chapter/interviews/.  License: CC BY: Attribution
• Observations. By: Lumen Learning. Located at: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/olemiss-writ250/chapter/observations/ .  License: CC BY: Attribution

Writing in Genres Copyright © 2023 by Stephanie Frame is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Original Research

How can i tell if the article is original research.

• Glossary of Terms
• What are Peer Reviewed/Refereed Articles?

Chat With Us Text Us (904) 507-4122   Email Us Schedule a Research Consultation

Visit us on social media!

What is Original Research?

Original research is considered a primary source.

An article is considered original research if...

• it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
• the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• the researchers detail their research methods.
• the results of the research are reported.
• the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications.

There is no one way to easily tell if an article is a research article like there is for peer-reviewed articles in the Ulrich's database. The only way to be sure is to read the article to verify that it is written by the researchers and that they have explained all of their findings, in addition to listing their methodologies, results, and any conclusions based on the evidence collected. 

All that being said, there are a few key indicators that will help you to quickly decide whether or not your article is based on original research. 

• Literature Review or Background
• Conclusions
• Read through the abstract (summary) before you attempt to find the full-text PDF. The abstract of the article usually contains those subdivision headings where each of the key sections are summarized individually. 
• Use the checkbox with CINAHL's advanced search to only see articles that have been tagged as research articles.   
• Next: Glossary of Terms >>
• Last Updated: Feb 7, 2022 11:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/originalresearch

How to write an original article an overview for beginners

A guide to preparing case reports for the Journal of Medical Case Reports

Power relations in educational, scientific communication: a critical examination of learning style discourse

Only around half of the abstracts at scientific conferences are turned into complete works. This text is a step-by-step guide to putting together a scientific study of an article. The Vancouver statement should be used to determine authorship criteria. The first stage is to describe the materials and procedures, including the statistical analysis (about 1,000 words), which should be completed during the investigation. The second stage represents the results without interpreting them (about 350 words); graphics are preferable to tables. The discussion (approximately 1,000-1,350 words) begins with a summary of the most significant findings, followed by a defence of the model used. A well-written original article explains what was done, why it was done, how it was done, the outcome of the work, and its relevance. Many papers fail to report their findings adequately.

Introduction

For researchers in any area, exposing the results of a study in an article for publishing in a scientific journal is a regular practice. Those who want to build a scientific career have traditionally been judged and known based on the effect of their study. However, they are not acknowledged as researchers until their findings are published. As a result, the goal of scientific research is to produce novel publications.

Evidence synthesis

Before starting writing

The literature search is the first step before writing and before beginning any original research manuscript writing activity. Prior evidence should be gathered, studied, and reflected upon as the beginning point and firm foundation for any publishing. If this stage is avoided, it is possible to make the error of completing a task that has already been finalized, resulting in a loss of time and resources. Similarly, before considering writing, a reflection and self-criticism exercise is required to determine whether future publishing should occur. To do so, you must first ask yourself a set of questions: Have I completed any new or exciting projects? Is the work relevant to contemporary events? Is there any concrete evidence? If the response to each question is ‘yes’, one may consider writing the article.

At this stage, the author should decide whether to write an original part , report a clinical case or series of cases, write a letter to the editor, or anything else. Each one has a clear goal in mind, and each one’s development takes a different path.

After the journal has been selected, it is critical to read the author’s guide, generally found on the journal’s website. It determines the article’s design and organization, the bibliographical style, the maximum amount of words, and the format of figures and tables, among other things. The article must satisfy all of the standards’ requirements. It is more probable that the article will be accepted if reviewers and editors do not waste time fixing these issues.

Preparation of the article

According to general principles, large portions should be prepared while producing an original piece. The first enables indexing and focusing on the topic and makes the content more valuable and appealing. The title, authors and affiliations, abstract, and keywords are all included in this section. The primary material, the original research paper writing itself, is covered in the second section, generally divided into the following areas: introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD). Acknowledgements, references, and supplemental information or annexes are included in the concluding section.

The home page must include: – The title: a good title resentment the reader’s interest and draws them into the content. However, its primary purpose is to summarise the manuscript’s substance correctly, and it should be as brief as feasible while explaining the study’s design. The title should include all of the details that make the article’s electronic retrieval sensitive and particular.

To offer a picture of the substance and scope of the essay, the essential concepts and outcomes should be laid out. Because it is the only portion that many readers will read and the only part utilized in bibliographic search engines, it is critical to explain the most significant aspects of the work succinctly and explicitly. It’s finest to write the abstract after you’ve completed writing the text because that’s when you’ll know which points to emphasize.

They should be carefully chosen to increase the article’s visibility and make it easier to find using automated search tools. The terminology provided in the National Library of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) should be utilized.

The introduction should set the quality for the work, revealing the nature and importance of the problem that prompted the study. It is impaired into three sections that answer the following questions: What is the issue? What is the problem’s significance, and what questions remain unanswered? What is the answer to the question that your work addresses? The hypothesis, as well as the work’s aims, should be explained in this section. The introduction should be straightforward and succinct, with just the absolute minimum of references.

This section explains how the study was carried out and should be comprehensive enough for another author to replicate it in whole or in part. It is written in the past and should only include information known at the research’s design , but the Results section should include all information gathered from the study.

You should absolutely and entirely include the study’s findings. Comments on the significance of the results should be saved for the Discussion section.

The importance of the work’s significance and relevance should be highlighted in this section. Don’t repeat what’s already been said in the Introduction and Results in areas. It is generally helpful to begin the conversation by quickly stating the study’s primary findings and then thinking out plausible interpretations for these findings and comparing them with other relevant research findings.

In general, the National Library of Medicine’s requirements should be followed, but it’s also essential to check the rules for writers of each publication to confirm the bibliography’s structure and style. The quotations are listed in the order in which they appear in the text. Only include references that add value to your content, and aim to keep them under five years old. Quote actual articles rather than review ones wherever feasible, and make sure the quote matches the original research article part you wish to mention.

Conclusions

It takes patience and, most importantly, practise to write an essay. The principles and suggestions listed above can help to speed up the procedure and avoid inflated errors. Nonetheless, it is necessary to conduct a thorough study before the scientific original research article has a unique part. If the performed research is substandard or contains methodological problems, no matter how well written, an original paper will not be published in a high-impact factor journal.

About Pubrica

Pubrica has worked as a medical writer in the earlier. Clinical Research, Pharmacology, Public Health, Regulatory Writing , Clinical Report Forms (Crf), Biostatistics, Psychology, Life Science, Dentistry, Radiology, Dermatology, Diabetology, Gynecology, Cardiology, Biochemistry, Forensics, Surgery, Neurology, Psychiatry, Genomics, Medical Device, Pharmaceutical, Nutraceutical, Fmcg Companies, Hospitals, Universities, Pubrica’s team of medical professionals offer unique medical writing

1. Wenzel, V., M. W. Dünser, and K. H. Lindner. “How do I write an original article? An introduction for beginners.” Der Anaesthesist 56.8 (2007): 828-836.

2. Arrom, L. Mateu, et al. “How to write an original article.” Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition) 42.9 (2018): 545-550.

pubrica-academy

Related posts.

What are the suggestions given by peer reviewers in the introduction section of the original research article?

Is there a difference between the theoretical framework and conceptual framework of the study? 

Give an Example of Studies that used the QUADAS-2 tool? 

Comments are closed.

How to write an original article

Affiliations.

• 1 Servicio de Urología, Fundació Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Servicio de Urología, Fundació Puigvert, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.
• PMID: 29779648
• DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011

Context: A correctly drafted original article gives information on what was done, why it was done, how it was done, the result of what was done, and the significance of what was done. Many articles fail to report their results effectively.

Objective: To describe the characteristics of an original article and to give practical recommendations to prevent the most common errors in our environment.

Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic search of the terms "how to write a scientific article", "structure of the original article" and "publishing an article" in the databases PubMed and SCOPUS. We analysed the structure of an original article and the characteristics of its parts and prepared advice on the publication of an article.

Evidence synthesis: The journal's guidelines for authors should be read. It is usual for the original article to follow the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. The introduction states briefly why the study was performed. The methods' section should give a detailed explanation of how the study was performed. The results should be clearly presented, with the help of tables, without repeating information. The discussion explains the relevance of the results and contrasts them with those of other authors. Any limitations and a conclusion supported by the results must be included.

Conclusions: Writing an original article correctly requires practice and it must be supported by a good research work in order to be published.

Keywords: Escribir un artículo; Estructura del artículo original; Publicar un artículo; Publishing an article; Structure of the original article; Writing an article.

Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Guidelines as Topic
• Publishing / standards*
• Writing / standards*

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Amanda Hoover

Students Are Likely Writing Millions of Papers With AI

Students have submitted more than 22 million papers that may have used generative AI in the past year, new data released by plagiarism detection company Turnitin shows.

A year ago, Turnitin rolled out an AI writing detection tool that was trained on its trove of papers written by students as well as other AI-generated texts. Since then, more than 200 million papers have been reviewed by the detector, predominantly written by high school and college students. Turnitin found that 11 percent may contain AI-written language in 20 percent of its content, with 3 percent of the total papers reviewed getting flagged for having 80 percent or more AI writing. (Turnitin is owned by Advance, which also owns Condé Nast, publisher of WIRED.) Turnitin says its detector has a false positive rate of less than 1 percent when analyzing full documents.

ChatGPT’s launch was met with knee-jerk fears that the English class essay would die . The chatbot can synthesize information and distill it near-instantly—but that doesn’t mean it always gets it right. Generative AI has been known to hallucinate , creating its own facts and citing academic references that don’t actually exist. Generative AI chatbots have also been caught spitting out biased text on gender and race . Despite those flaws, students have used chatbots for research, organizing ideas, and as a ghostwriter . Traces of chatbots have even been found in peer-reviewed, published academic writing .

Teachers understandably want to hold students accountable for using generative AI without permission or disclosure. But that requires a reliable way to prove AI was used in a given assignment. Instructors have tried at times to find their own solutions to detecting AI in writing, using messy, untested methods to enforce rules , and distressing students. Further complicating the issue, some teachers are even using generative AI in their grading processes.

Detecting the use of gen AI is tricky. It’s not as easy as flagging plagiarism, because generated text is still original text. Plus, there’s nuance to how students use gen AI; some may ask chatbots to write their papers for them in large chunks or in full, while others may use the tools as an aid or a brainstorm partner.

Students also aren't tempted by only ChatGPT and similar large language models. So-called word spinners are another type of AI software that rewrites text, and may make it less obvious to a teacher that work was plagiarized or generated by AI. Turnitin’s AI detector has also been updated to detect word spinners, says Annie Chechitelli, the company’s chief product officer. It can also flag work that was rewritten by services like spell checker Grammarly, which now has its own generative AI tool . As familiar software increasingly adds generative AI components, what students can and can’t use becomes more muddled.

Detection tools themselves have a risk of bias. English language learners may be more likely to set them off; a 2023 study found a 61.3 percent false positive rate when evaluating Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) exams with seven different AI detectors. The study did not examine Turnitin’s version. The company says it has trained its detector on writing from English language learners as well as native English speakers. A study published in October found that Turnitin was among the most accurate of 16 AI language detectors in a test that had the tool examine undergraduate papers and AI-generated papers.

Julian Chokkattu

Eric Geller

Caroline Haskins

Schools that use Turnitin had access to the AI detection software for a free pilot period, which ended at the start of this year. Chechitelli says a majority of the service’s clients have opted to purchase the AI detection. But the risks of false positives and bias against English learners have led some universities to ditch the tools for now. Montclair State University in New Jersey announced in November that it would pause use of Turnitin’s AI detector. Vanderbilt University and Northwestern University did the same last summer.

“This is hard. I understand why people want a tool,” says Emily Isaacs, executive director of the Office of Faculty Excellence at Montclair State. But Isaacs says the university is concerned about potentially biased results from AI detectors, as well as the fact that the tools can’t provide confirmation the way they can with plagiarism. Plus, Montclair State doesn’t want to put a blanket ban on AI, which will have some place in academia. With time and more trust in the tools, the policies could change. “It’s not a forever decision, it’s a now decision,” Isaacs says.

Chechitelli says the Turnitin tool shouldn’t be the only consideration in passing or failing a student. Instead, it’s a chance for teachers to start conversations with students that touch on all of the nuance in using generative AI. “People don’t really know where that line should be,” she says.

You Might Also Like …

In your inbox: The best and weirdest stories from WIRED’s archive

Jeffrey Epstein’s island visitors exposed by data broker

8 Google employees invented modern AI. Here’s the inside story

The crypto fraud kingpin who almost got away

It's shadow time! How to view the solar eclipse, online and in person

Steven Levy

Will Knight

Lauren Goode

Matt Burgess

Benj Edwards, Ars Technica