Writing 117-01 (Winek, Spring 2024)

Evaluating sources is an important step of the research process. The evidence you choose to use for your research should accurately support what you are trying to argue and it should lend credibility to your work. If you cherry pick your sources, or find quotes that "kind of" fit in your paper, that can have the opposite effect.

Use the advice on this page to help guide you as you choose the best sources to help you answer your research question.

Check out this short video (2:34) from Western University on How to Read a Scholarly Article.

Check out this short video (5:30) from the University of Minnesota for tips on reading scientific articles. 

Reports of research studies usually follow the IMRaD format. IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, [and] Discussion) is a mnemonic for the major components of a scientific paper. These elements are included in the overall structure outlined below.

Structure of a Research Paper: IMRaD Format

I. The Title Page

• Title: Tells the reader what to expect in the paper.
• Author(s): Most papers are written by one or two primary authors. The remaining authors have reviewed the work and/or aided in study design or data analysis (International Committee of Medical Editors, 1997). Check the Instructions to Authors for the target journal for specifics about authorship.
• Keywords [according to the journal]
• Corresponding Author: Full name and affiliation for the primary contact author for persons who have questions about the research.
• Financial & Equipment Support [if needed]: Specific information about organizations, agencies, or companies that supported the research.
• Conflicts of Interest [if needed]: List and explain any conflicts of interest.

II. Abstract: “Structured abstract” has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper.

III. Introduction: The “why did you do the study”; setting the scene or laying the foundation or background for the paper.

IV. Methods: The “how did you do the study.”
Describe the --

• Context and setting of the study
• Specify the study design
• Population (patients, etc. if applicable)
• Sampling strategy
• Intervention (if applicable)
• Identify the main study variables
• Data collection instruments and procedures
• Outline analysis methods

V. Results: The “what did you find” --

• Report on data collection and/or recruitment
• Participants (demographic, clinical condition, etc.)
• Present key findings with respect to the central research question
• Secondary findings (secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, etc.)

VI. Discussion: Place for interpreting the results

• Main findings of the study
• Discuss the main results with reference to previous research
• Policy and practice implications of the results
• Strengths and limitations of the study

VII. Conclusions: [occasionally optional or not required]. Do not reiterate the data or discussion. Can state hunches, inferences or speculations. Offer perspectives for future work.

VIII. Acknowledgements: Names people who contributed to the work, but did not contribute sufficiently to earn authorship. You must have permission from any individuals mentioned in the acknowledgements sections. 

IX. References: Complete citations for any articles or other materials referenced in the text of the article.

References

• IMRD Cheatsheet (Carnegie Mellon) pdf.
• Adewasi, D. (2021 June 14). What Is IMRaD? IMRaD Format in Simple Terms!. Scientific-editing.info. 
• Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D. (2014). Organization of a Research Paper: The IMRAD Format. In: Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03101-9_2
• 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 : JMLA, 92(3), 364–367.
• Cuschieri, S., Grech, V., & Savona-Ventura, C. (2019). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Structuring a scientific paper. Early human development, 128, 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.09.011

Check out this short (3:22) video from the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries to learn about evaluating sources for credibility.

View this image larger

Long description of "Evaluating Information - 6 Question Words" for web accessibility

When evaluating sources of information for accuracy and credibility, there are many aspects of the source that you can consider.  One source that might not fit your research question could still be useful to someone else, so it's not helpful to think about "good" or "bad" sources. Most importantly, if a resource is from a trustworthy author or organization and helps you answer your research question, then you have identified a useful source. Please contact your instructor or a librarian if you would like more help!