IMRAD Structure: The Gold Standard for Scientific Articles in Health and Aging Journal

Guide for authors
Posted on 20-04-2025

In the world of scientific research, especially in the fields of Biomedical and Health - Aging, communicating results clearly, logically, and effectively is of paramount importance. The IMRAD structure has emerged as a widely accepted international standard, helping scientists present their work systematically and accessibly. This article by Health and Aging Journal will provide a comprehensive overview of IMRAD, from its basic concepts to detailed guidance on each component, aiming to support Vietnamese authors in developing high-quality scientific articles that meet international publication standards and those of the Journal.

According to surveys (e.g., Sollaci & Pereira, 2004), IMRAD began to be used in the 1940s and became the dominant structure in biomedical journals from the 1970s-1980s. This popularity is not coincidental. It reflects the very process of thinking and conducting scientific research: asking questions (Introduction), finding ways to answer them (Methods), presenting what was found (Results), and explaining the meaning (Discussion). Understanding and proficiently applying the IMRAD structure will not only make your writing more coherent and persuasive but also increase its chances of being accepted by reputable journals like Health and Aging Journal.

What is IMRAD? Deciphering the Core Structure

IMRAD is an acronym for the four main sections in the content of an original scientific paper:

  • Introduction: Why was the study conducted?

  • Methods: How was the study conducted?

  • Results: What did the study find?

  • And (often not written as a separate section)

  • Discussion: What do those findings mean?

However, it is important to emphasize that IMRAD is only the core "body" of the paper. A complete scientific article typically includes many more components, forming a cohesive structure from beginning to end:

  1. Title

  2. Author(s) & Affiliations

  3. Contact Information (of the corresponding/primary author)

  4. Abstract

  5. Keywords

  6. Introduction

  7. Methods

  8. Results

  9. Discussion

  10. Conclusion (can be merged into Discussion)

  11. Acknowledgements

  12. Conflicts of Interest (if any)

  13. References

  14. Appendices / Supplementary Materials (if any)

Clearly understanding the role and requirements of each section will help authors organize information logically, ensuring no important content is omitted.

Detailed Analysis of Components in a Scientific Article Structure

Below is detailed guidance on the content and writing style for each main component, helping authors optimize their articles when submitting to Health and Aging Journal.

Title

The title is the first "gateway" that attracts readers and search engines. It should be concise, precise, accurate, and contain the most important keywords of the research.

  • Requirements:

    • Concise: Many journals limit the word count (usually under 15-20 words) or character count. Avoid superfluous words.

    • Accurate description: Accurately reflects the content, scope, and main results (if appropriate) of the article.

    • Contains keywords: Helps readers and search engines easily identify the topic.

    • Engaging (but scientific): Evokes curiosity while maintaining a serious tone, avoiding sensationalism.

    • Avoid abbreviations and formulas: Except for extremely common and widely accepted abbreviations in the field.

    • Should not be in the form of a question.

    • Should highlight the main topic, not necessarily the final result. (According to Nair & Nair, 2014).

Abstract & Keywords

Abstract: Is a miniature version of the entire article, providing a quick overview of the research. This is often the most read section after the title.

  • Purpose: Helps readers decide whether to read the full article. Provides enough information for indexing and searching.

  • Structure: There are two main types:

    • Structured Abstract: Has clear subheadings (e.g., Objective, Methods, Results, Conclusion). This form is increasingly common and preferred by many Biomedical journals.

    • Unstructured Abstract: Written as a continuous paragraph.

  • Content: Must include the main elements:

    • Background/Objective: The research problem and main objective.

    • Methods: Study design, participants, main interventions, main measurement methods.

    • Results: The most important findings, including specific quantitative data and statistical significance levels (if any).

    • Conclusion: The main conclusion, meaning, and implications of the results.

  • Length: Usually strictly limited (e.g., 150-300 words). Health and Aging Journal limits it to 300 words.

  • Note: Only include information present in the article. Write this section last, once the article is complete.

Keywords: Are the main terms describing the content of the article, facilitating indexing and searching in databases.

  • Quantity: Usually 3 to 10 words.

  • Selection: Choose the most representative words/phrases for the topic, methods, and study participants. Standardized terms should be used (e.g., MeSH - Medical Subject Headings in medicine). Avoid overly general words. Refer to keywords in similar articles.

Introduction

This section answers the question "Why was this research conducted?". It provides context, identifies knowledge gaps, and clearly states the objectives, research questions, or hypotheses.

  • Purpose: To capture the reader's interest and persuade them of the importance and necessity of the research.

  • Logical structure (funnel-shaped):

    1. General context: Introduce the broader research field and the importance of the problem (public health, clinical...).

    2. Known knowledge: Briefly summarize previous relevant studies, what is already known about the topic.

    3. Knowledge gap (Gap): Point out what remains unknown, unclear, or contradictory in previous studies – this is the rationale for your research.

    4. Objectives/Questions/Hypotheses: Clearly state the main objectives of the study, specific research questions to be answered, or hypotheses to be tested. This is the most crucial part of the Introduction.

  • Length: Relatively concise (usually no more than 500 words or a few paragraphs), avoiding in-depth literature review as in a review article.

  • Note: Avoid repeating the Abstract. Fully cite sources for statements about background knowledge or previous research. Do not present results or conclusions in this section.

Methods

This section answers the question "How was the research conducted?". It must provide enough detail for the reader to understand clearly how the study was performed and, theoretically, be able to replicate it.

  • Purpose: To demonstrate the validity and reliability of the methodology, allowing for evaluation and replication of the study.

  • Required content (depending on research type):

    • Study design: Clearly state the type of design (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, case-control, cohort, randomized controlled trial - RCT, qualitative study...).

    • Setting and time: Location and period when the study was conducted.

    • Study participants: Clearly describe the target population, sampling method (e.g., random, convenience), inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and sample size calculation.

    • Intervention (if any): Describe in detail the intervention applied (e.g., type of drug, dosage, regimen, health education program...). For RCTs, describe the randomization and blinding procedures.

    • Variables and Measurements: Clearly define the main variables (independent, dependent, confounding variables), data collection methods, measurement instruments (e.g., questionnaires, lab tests, equipment), and information on the reliability and validity of the measurement tools (if available). If using an existing scale/questionnaire, clearly state its origin and cite it. If self-developed, describe the development process.

    • Statistical analysis: Clearly state the statistical methods used to describe data and test hypotheses (e.g., descriptive statistics, t-test, chi-square, ANOVA, logistic regression...), statistical software used (e.g., SPSS, R, Stata), and the level of statistical significance (usually p < 0.05).

    • Ethical considerations: Clearly state that the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB/IEC) for biomedical research and that informed consent was obtained from participants.

  • Presentation: Usually written in chronological order of execution. Use subheadings to separate smaller content sections (e.g., Study Design, Participants and Sampling Method, Data Collection, Data Analysis). Write in the past tense.

Results

This section answers the question "What did the research find?". It presents the main findings of the study objectively, clearly, without interpretation or discussion.

  • Purpose: To present data and analysis results truthfully and systematically.

  • Content:

    • Description of the study sample: Present the basic characteristics of the participants (often using tables).

    • Presentation of main results: Report findings that answer each research question/objective/hypothesis stated in the Introduction. Use a combination of narrative text, tables, and figures.

    • Quantitative data: Provide important statistical data (e.g., mean, standard deviation, percentages, 95% confidence intervals, p-values).

    • Consistency: Ensure that the presented results are consistent with the Methods section.

  • Presentation:

    • Logical: Present according to the order of research questions/objectives.

    • Clear, concise: Use simple, direct language. Avoid interpretation or comparison with other studies in this section.

    • Tables and Figures: Use tables to present detailed numerical data, figures to illustrate trends or relationships. Each table/figure must have a clear, self-explanatory title, be sequentially numbered, and have complete captions. Ensure no data is duplicated across both tables and figures. Each table/figure must be referenced in the text (e.g., "Results are presented in Table 1", "Figure 2 shows...").

    • Write in the past tense.

Discussion

This section interprets the meaning of the results, answering the question "What do those findings mean?". This section requires critical thinking and synthesis abilities, often considered the most challenging to write but also the one that most clearly reflects the author's competence.

  • Purpose: To interpret results, compare them with previous studies, highlight novel points, identify limitations, and propose future directions.

  • Suggested structure:

    1. Summary of key results: Briefly reiterate the most important findings of the study (do not repeat detailed data from the Results section).

    2. Interpretation of results: Explain the meaning of these results. Do they support the initial hypothesis? Were there any surprises? Why were these results obtained?

    3. Comparison with previous studies: Compare your results with other published works. Are your results similar or different? Why? This section demonstrates the author's extensive knowledge of the field.

    4. Strengths and novelties: Highlight the unique contributions and methodological strengths of the study.

    5. Limitations of the study: Honestly discuss weaknesses or limitations that may affect the results (e.g., small sample size, study design, potential biases...). This demonstrates the author's objectivity and understanding.

    6. Implications and applications: Discuss the significance of the results for clinical practice, health policy, or other practical applications in the field of health and aging.

    7. Future research directions: Propose future research questions or directions based on the results and limitations of the current study.

  • Note: Do not present conclusions or inferences not supported by data. Maintain a strong link between results and discussion. Avoid repeating too much information from the Introduction and Results sections.

Conclusion

This section summarizes the main message and final conclusion of the research.

  • Purpose: To provide a concise, clear answer to the main research question.

  • Content: Usually a short paragraph, highlighting the most important conclusion based on the study results. May reiterate key implications or main recommendations.

  • Note: Do not introduce new information. Do not repeat the Abstract or the Discussion section verbatim. Some journals allow the Conclusion to be merged at the end of the Discussion section. Check the guidelines of Health and Aging Journal.

Acknowledgements

A section to recognize the contributions of individuals or organizations that supported the research but do not qualify as authors (e.g., technical assistance, funding, manuscript feedback...).

  • Content: Clearly state the names of individuals/organizations and the specific form of support. Permission should be obtained from those named.

References

A complete and accurate list of all sources cited in the article.

  • Purpose: To credit other authors, allow readers to locate original sources of information, and increase transparency and credibility.

  • Formatting: Must consistently follow a specific citation style required by the journal (e.g., APA, Vancouver, AMA, MLA...). Health and Aging Journal will have its own specific citation formatting rules.

  • Note: Only list materials that have been cited in the text. Thoroughly check for consistency between the reference list and in-text citations. It is recommended to use reference management software (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) to ensure accuracy and consistency.

Role and Benefits of Adhering to the IMRAD Structure

Adopting the IMRAD structure offers several important benefits for both authors and the scientific community:

  1. Logical organization: Provides a clear framework, helping authors organize ideas and present research systematically and coherently.

  2. Increased clarity: Makes it easier for readers to follow the flow of the research, from the initial question to its results and implications.

  3. Efficiency for readers: Scientists, editors, and reviewers can quickly locate necessary information (e.g., only reading Methods to assess validity, or reading Results and Discussion to grasp key findings) without needing to read the entire paper from beginning to end (Burrough-Boenisch, 1999). This is especially useful when reviewing a large volume of literature.

  4. International standard: It is a universally recognized and widely used structure, making your article easily accepted and understood by the international scientific community.

  5. Enhanced rigor: The requirement to clearly present each section (especially Methods and Results) promotes transparency and reproducibility of the research.

  6. Time-saving: Although initial effort may be needed to become familiar with it, adhering to IMRAD will ultimately make the writing and revision process more efficient.

Notes and Common Variations

Although IMRAD is the standard structure, there are some points to note:

  • Variations: Some minor variations may exist, for example:

    • IRDAM: Reversing Results and Methods – less common.

    • IMRaD: Capitalizing the small 'a' to emphasize 'and' is not a separate section.

    • AIMRAD: Including Abstract in the acronym.

  • Flexibility (journal-dependent): Some journals may allow certain flexibility in arranging subsections within the Methods or Results sections, or permit merging Results and Discussion. For example, Plos ONE allows authors to customize the order of sections between Introduction and Conclusion.

  • Specific journal requirements: The most important thing is always to consult and strictly adhere to the Author Guidelines of the journal to which you intend to submit your paper (in this case, Health and Aging Journal). Each journal may have specific requirements regarding length, formatting, detailed structure, citation style...

  • Current situation in Vietnam: Research in the field of Education Science (Wu, 2011; Tran Van Cong et al.) indicates that the application of IMRAD, especially the Methods and Discussion sections, is sometimes incomplete or not in-depth enough. This underscores the importance of mastering and thoroughly applying this structure to enhance the quality and international standards of scientific publications from Vietnam in all fields, including Health and Aging.

Conclusion

The IMRAD structure is not just a formal convention but a reflection of the logical scientific research process. Mastering and proficiently applying this structure is an essential skill for any researcher wishing to publish their work effectively and professionally, especially in reputable scientific journals like Health and Aging Journal.

By adhering to IMRAD, authors can ensure their articles possess clarity, coherence, and all necessary information, making it easy for readers to access, evaluate, and utilize research results. Health and Aging Journal encourages authors to thoroughly consult this guide and the Journal's specific regulations to prepare the best manuscript, contributing to raising scientific quality and promoting the development of the health and aging field in Vietnam.

References

  1. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (1999). International reading strategies for IMRD articles. Written Communication, 16(3), 296-316.

  2. Day, R. A. (1989). How to write and publish a scientific paper (3rd ed.). Oryx Press.

  3. Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  4. Low, W. Y. (2009). Knowledge on writing a good scientific paper. Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 18(2).

  5. Mack, C. A. (2014). How to write a good scientific paper: structure and organization. Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13(4), 040101.

  6. Nair, P. R., & Nair, V. D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. In Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources (pp. 13-25). Springer, Cham.

  7. Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 364–371.

  8. Wcg, P. (2008). Basic structure and types of scientific papers. Singapore Med J, 49(7).

  9. Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345-1349.

  10. Trần Văn Công, Trần Thị Thu Anh, & Đinh Thị Kim Thoa. Cấu trúc IMRAD sử dụng trong các bài báo khoa học giáo dục. Kỷ yếu Hội thảo Quốc tế: Những xu thế mới trong giáo dục, 368-378.