How to Write a Research Paper: A Practical Guide From One Researcher

When people first think about research, they imagine experiments, simulations, fieldwork, time in the lab. But in reality, your work doesn’t exist for the scientific community until it is written clearly and shared. A messy paper can bury good research; a well-written paper can give even modest results a long life.

Major databases index millions of new articles every year, (according to recent data from the National Science Board, worldwide science and engineering publication output reached approximately 3.3 million articles in 2022 alone, highlighting the explosive growth and importance of disseminating research) and editors reject a large share not because the science is terrible, but because the paper is unclear, poorly structured, or doesn’t explain its contribution. If you learn how to write a solid paper, you are already ahead of many researchers.

I’ll walk you through the core parts of a standard scientific paper and explain, in simple terms, what editors, reviewers, and serious readers expect from each one.

The Main Parts of a Scientific Paper

Most journals follow some version of this structure:

1. Title
2. Abstract
3. Introduction
4. Methods
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Conclusion
8. References

The names may change slightly from journal to journal, but the logic is the same:

• What did you do?
• How did you do it?
• What did you find?
• What does it mean?

Let’s go through each part.

👉 Explore the IMRaD format in detail

1. The Title: One Line That Carries the Whole Paper

The title is the first filter. Many people will only ever read your title and nothing else. So it has to be:

• Clear
• Specific
• Honest about what you actually did

A weak title is vague:

Vague: “Study of Heat Effects on Bacteria”

A stronger title tells us what, how, and in what context:

Stronger: “Effects of Ambient Temperature and Visible Light Exposure on the Growth of Bacterial Species X”

When I choose a title, I usually ask three questions:

1. What process or method did you use? (e.g., laser welding, simulation, survey)
2. What material or population did you work on? (e.g., high-strength steel, university students, river water samples)
3. What was the main purpose or outcome? (e.g., mechanical behavior, stress reduction, contaminant levels)

A good title usually combines all three in one concise sentence.

Pro Tips:

If you want to check whether your title sounds “academic enough”, look up a few papers in Scopus or ScienceDirect using your main keywords and see how those authors phrase their titles. Don’t copy them—just observe patterns: length, level of detail, and word choice.

2. The Abstract: Your Paper in 200–250 Words

Many editors and researchers decide whether to read your paper only from the abstract. So think of the abstract as a compact story with five pieces:

1. Background / problem: One sentence – what is the general issue?
2. Aim: One sentence – what did you set out to do?
3. Methods: One or two sentences – how did you do it?
4. Key results: Two to three sentences – what did you find?
5. Conclusion / implication: One or two sentences – what does it mean?

Keep it:

• Around 150–250 words (unless the journal says otherwise)
• Free of references and citations
• Free of information that doesn’t appear in the main text
• As clear and neutral as possible

A simple way to write a first draft of an abstract:

• Take each section of your paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion).
• Pull out one essential sentence from each.
• Rewrite them to flow as a single paragraph.

Later you can refine the language, but this already gives you a logical skeleton.

3. Introduction: Why This Work Matters and What You Add

The introduction is where you show the reader why your study needed to be done and how it fits into existing knowledge.

A good introduction usually moves in three steps:

1. From broad to specific
   • Start with the broader field and the importance of the topic.
2. What has already been done
   • Summarize key previous work, not every single paper ever published.
3. The gap and your contribution
   • Explain what is missing or unclear and how your study addresses that gap.

When I read an introduction, I am silently asking:

• “What is the problem?”
• “What do we already know?”
• “What don’t we know?”
• “What will this paper add?”

If these questions are not answered clearly, the paper feels weak, no matter how good the experiments are.

A few practical suggestions:

• Imagine you are writing for someone with a similar education but who has not followed your exact sub-topic. You don’t need to teach basic science, but you also shouldn’t assume they’ve read every paper you have.
• Refer to recent literature, especially from the last 5–10 years, to show that you are aware of current work.
• If possible, cite a couple of articles from the same journal you are submitting to. It shows that your paper sits in their existing conversation.

The last paragraph of the introduction is crucial. It should:

• State the aim of the study
• Mention the approach used
• Highlight the novelty or specific contribution, without exaggeration

For example:

“In this study, we investigate … using … Our aim is to determine … Unlike previous work on X, we focus on Y, which has not yet been systematically examined.”

This is the part reviewers often read twice.

👉 Get tips on crafting a strong introduction

4. Methods: Enough Detail for Someone Else to Repeat Your Work

The Methods section answers the question:
“If I had your resources, could I repeat what you did and get similar results?”

Here you should describe:

• Materials, specimens, or participants (with relevant characteristics)
• Devices, instruments and their key settings
• Experimental design or protocol
• Data collection process
• Statistical or analytical methods

Avoid two extremes:

• Being so brief that others cannot replicate your work
• Being so long and narrative that the reader gets lost in unnecessary detail

A good rule: “Would another competent researcher in my field be able to reproduce this?”
If the honest answer is “probably not”, you need more detail.

5. Results: What You Found, Without Interpretation (Yet)

In the Results section, you show what happened. You do not yet explain why; that belongs to the Discussion.

Typical elements:

• Tables of measured values
• Figures, graphs, images
• Short paragraphs that direct the reader’s attention to the key patterns

For example:

“As shown in Figure 3, the tensile strength increased with heat input up to 1.5 kJ/mm and then decreased.”

This is a factual observation, not an interpretation.

Common mistakes:

• Mixing explanation and speculation into the Results (save that for later)
• Repeating every number from tables in the text
• Hiding important findings in crowded figures

Think of Results as the evidence room. You are showing the data that your later arguments will be based on.

6. Discussion: Making Sense of the Findings

The Discussion is where you move from data to meaning.

Here you should:

• Explain why the observed trends make sense (or why they are surprising)
• Compare your results with previous studies
• Discuss possible reasons for differences or discrepancies
• Explore the implications and limitations of your work

A useful internal structure:

1. Start with the most important finding
2. Discuss how it aligns with or contradicts previous research
3. Offer plausible explanations grounded in theory or prior evidence
4. Address limitations honestly (sample size, simplifications, measurement error, etc.)

Reviewers dislike two things in the Discussion:

• Overclaiming: presenting modest or preliminary results as if they were final “proof”
• Ignoring contradictions: pretending that conflicting literature or unexpected findings don’t exist

You don’t need to be defensive. It is perfectly acceptable (and intellectually honest) to write something like:

“Our findings differ from those of X et al. [12], who reported … A possible explanation is … However, further study is needed to confirm this.”

7. Conclusion: The Take-Home Message

The conclusion is not a place to introduce new data. It should give the reader a clear, concise answer to the question: “So what?”

In a few short paragraphs (often even one), you should:

• Summarize the main achievement of the study
• Highlight the key implications or applications
• Suggest logical directions for future research (without writing a full proposal)

For example:

“In summary, we showed that … This suggests that … Future work should examine … under conditions of …”

If someone reads only the title, abstract, and conclusion, they should still understand what was done and why it matters.

8. References: Showing That You Know the Field

Your reference list is not just a formality. It communicates several things about you as a researcher:

• How well you know the field
• Whether you rely on up-to-date sources
• Whether your work is connected to serious, peer-reviewed literature

As a simple baseline for a full research article:

• Aim for at least 20–25 references
• Make sure a good portion are from the last 5–10 years
• Use older references only when they are classic or foundational

Reviewers often glance quickly at the years in your reference list. If almost everything is before 2015, they may assume the topic is outdated or you haven’t engaged with recent work.

Also:

• Avoid adding references just to inflate the count.
• Make sure every citation in the text appears in the reference list and vice versa.
• Check the journal’s style (APA, IEEE, Vancouver, etc.) and follow it carefully.

Sloppy referencing is a red flag for reviewers: if you are careless here, they may worry you were careless elsewhere.

Closing Note

Writing a research paper is not separate from doing research; it is part of it.
You are not just reporting numbers—you are building an argument that your work is:

• Methodologically sound
• Intellectually honest
• Connected to what others have done
• Valuable for the next person who wants to work on the same problem

If you treat each section—title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references—as a precise tool rather than a formality, your papers will become clearer, easier to review, and far more likely to be accepted.