Writing Research Papers
Shape a clear argument. Show the evidence behind it. Guide readers from a worthwhile question to a contribution they can understand and assess.
What you will learn
- Identify a contribution and turn it into an outline.
- Write the main sections of an empirical paper and adapt the structure to other article types.
- Build a precise title, informative abstract, and coherent paragraphs.
- Handle sources responsibly, revise a manuscript, and prepare it for submission.
Plan: Work through Sections 1–3 with a research question and your notes.
Draft: Use Sections 4–9 to develop the evidence, interpretation, and language.
Revise: Complete Sections 10–12 with a draft, then use the readings in Section 13.
Begin with a contribution readers can recognise
A research paper develops a question or argument through evidence and reasoning. It gives readers enough detail to follow the work, examine its basis, and understand what it adds.
Your contribution may take several forms: a finding, an explanation, a careful replication, a new measure, a synthesis of research, a historical interpretation, or a conceptual distinction. Name the contribution in a sentence. Then ask what evidence and reasoning would make that sentence defensible.
A topic points to an area: “students and news verification”. A research question directs inquiry: “Which verification practices do participating students report using?” A contribution states what the completed work enables readers to understand. During planning, write an intended contribution; revise it once the evidence is available.
Imagine a one-time web survey with 180 volunteer undergraduates from three Kolkata colleges. Every respondent in this teaching dataset reported sharing at least one unfamiliar news story during the previous 30 days and supplied complete answers to the two items used here.
Of these respondents, 108 reported checking the original publisher at least once; 45 reported consulting a fact-checking website at least once. Respondents could select both practices.
A focused contribution: The paper distinguishes two reported verification practices and describes their prevalence among the participating students. The example will help you connect a question, a result, and a carefully bounded conclusion.
All participants, procedures, and numbers in this running example are invented for teaching. The model passages describe this fictional study.
Write for readers with different needs
An editor considers fit and contribution. A reviewer examines the reasoning, methods, and evidence. A scholar may build on your work; a practitioner may ask what it changes in practice. Help each reader by defining essential terms, explaining consequential decisions, and keeping the main question visible.
In the lecture, Dr. USP draws on Mensh and Kording (2017) to emphasise a central contribution, a logical progression, and the reader’s experience. Use these principles as prompts while you draft.
Choose a structure, then map the argument
An outline makes the paper’s logic visible before you invest time in polished sentences. Put each main claim beside the evidence and reasoning it needs.
Begin with your question, the central contribution, and the material you can use. Group related points. Arrange them so that each section prepares the reader for the next. Give each proposed paragraph a short working heading and record the source, table, extract, or analysis that will support it.
Use IMRaD as a map for empirical reporting
IMRaD stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. These parts answer four connected questions: why this study, how it was carried out, what it found, and what the findings mean.
Let the article type guide the architecture
On a small screen, swipe across the table.
| Paper type | What holds it together | A possible structure |
|---|---|---|
| Quantitative empirical | A question answered through measurements and analysis. | Introduction; methods; results; discussion. |
| Qualitative empirical | An interpretive argument grounded in the research material. | Context and question; methodology; thematic or case-based findings; discussion. Findings and interpretation may be integrated. |
| Conceptual or theoretical | A problem, distinction, model, or proposition developed through argument. | Problem; concepts and assumptions; argument; comparison with alternatives; implications and scope. |
| Systematic or scoping review | An explicit approach to locating, selecting, and synthesising studies. | Question; review methods; selection and synthesis results; discussion, following the relevant reporting guidance. |
| Historical or critical inquiry | An interpretation supported by sources and a clear analytic approach. | Problem and context; source base and approach; analytical sections; synthesis and conclusion. |
Turn an outline into a working tool
- Name the question: keep its wording stable while you organise the evidence.
- List the main points: decide what each section must establish.
- Attach support: place the relevant analyses, sources, or extracts beneath each point.
- Check the connections: identify missing steps and material that belongs elsewhere.
- Explain the route aloud: ask a colleague to tell you where the argument becomes difficult to follow.
Build an introduction that earns the question
The introduction gives readers a reason to care about the study and a clear account of the question it addresses. It places your work inside a conversation that the paper will advance.
A useful pattern is to establish the research area, identify a consequential problem within it, and explain what the present paper does. These moves appear in Swales’s Create a Research Space (CARS) model, outlined in the University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank.
Establish the area
Introduce the issue, explain its significance, and identify relevant concepts and findings.
Identify the problem
Show an unresolved question, tension, limitation, or opportunity that matters to the argument.
State the response
Present the purpose, research questions or hypotheses, approach, and expected contribution.
Synthesise the literature around issues
Group studies by the questions they address, the explanations they offer, or the methods through which they reach their findings. Compare what the studies establish. Explain where findings converge, where they diverge, and what might account for those differences.
An evidence matrix can help. For each source, record the question, setting, concepts, method, principal finding, and relevance to your paper. Keep your evaluation beside the source notes so that the review develops an argument.
List form: “Study A examined trust. Study B examined sharing. Study C examined verification.”
Analytical plan: Compare how the studies define verification. Separate confidence in judging a story from reported checking practices. Then examine whether differences in measures help explain differences in findings.
A, B, and C are placeholders for an exercise. Replace them with sources you have read and cite the specific claims they support.
A new setting can make an important contribution when you explain why it matters. Language, institutions, media systems, or patterns of access may challenge an existing explanation or reveal a condition that previous studies could not examine. Make that connection explicit.
Make the methods visible and assessable
The methods section explains the route from the research question to the evidence. Describe what you did, why the important decisions suited the study, and how the material was analysed.
Report the design, setting and dates, participants or source material, recruitment or selection, measures, procedures, and analysis. Explain relevant ethics review, consent, researcher roles, and data protection. Describe the procedure actually followed, including consequential departures from the original plan.
For a survey or experiment
Explain recruitment and eligibility, the instrument or intervention, assignment where applicable, sample-size reasoning, exclusions, missing data, and analysis. Describe how constructs were measured and how uncertainty was assessed.
For qualitative inquiry
Explain the approach, setting, access, participant or material selection, researcher position, data generation, analytic process, and the practices used to support methodological integrity. Show how interpretations developed.
The APA Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) provide separate guidance for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. Select guidance suited to the design and the journal. In mixed methods reporting, make the point and purpose of integration explicit.
Explain decisions through their consequences
Move beyond naming a method. If you selected colleges purposively, explain the selection criteria and their relevance. If you constructed a scale, describe its content and the evidence supporting the interpretation of its scores. If you coded documents, state the units, categories, coding process, and checks appropriate to the approach.
“We conducted a cross-sectional web survey with 180 volunteer undergraduates from three Kolkata colleges. The two items asked whether respondents had checked the original publisher and consulted a fact-checking website at least once during the previous 30 days. Respondents could select both practices.”
To complete this methods section: add the recruitment route, fieldwork dates, eligibility process, item wording, ethics and consent arrangements, data checks, and analysis procedure. These details would come from the actual study records.
For conceptual work, explain the concepts, assumptions, literature-selection logic where relevant, and the steps through which the argument develops. For a review, make its search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures visible at the level required by that review type.
Present results in a purposeful sequence
A results section makes the evidence accessible. Organise it around the research questions, hypotheses, themes, cases, or analytical steps that structure the paper.
Begin by orienting readers to the material analysed and any relevant exclusions. Then present each main finding with the support required to assess it. Include results that complicate the argument or differ from expectations. Keep exploratory analyses distinguishable from those planned in advance.
A worked quantitative example
On a small screen, swipe across the table.
| Practice during the previous 30 days | Respondents reporting it at least once | Percentage of 180 respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Checked the original publisher | 108 | 60% |
| Consulted a fact-checking website | 45 | 25% |
Teaching data: invented, unweighted counts. All 180 example respondents answered both items. The practices could overlap, so these percentages describe separate items.
Reveal the calculation and a results sentence
108 ÷ 180 × 100 = 60%; 45 ÷ 180 × 100 = 25%. The difference is 35 percentage points.
“Among the 180 respondents, 108 (60%) reported checking the original publisher at least once during the previous 30 days, compared with 45 (25%) who reported consulting a fact-checking website.”
This sentence reports the evidence without adding a cause or a population-wide estimate.
Match the presentation to the analysis
For quantitative findings, report the relevant denominators, estimates, and measures of uncertainty. Where inferential tests are used, include the information required by the journal and explain the model and assumptions in the methods. Distinguish effect size, uncertainty, and statistical significance.
For qualitative findings, develop each theme or interpretation through evidence and analysis. Introduce an extract, explain what it reveals, and connect it with the claim. Include variations or challenging cases when they matter to the interpretation; explain translation and quotation practices where relevant.
Tables help readers inspect exact values. Figures can reveal a pattern, relationship, or process. Give each a self-contained title or caption, define symbols, and identify the source. Use the prose to direct attention to the pattern that answers the question.
Develop a discussion that answers “so what?”
The discussion explains how the findings answer the research question and what that answer contributes to the field. It connects the evidence with concepts, earlier work, alternative explanations, and practical implications.
- Answer the question: state the principal finding in a form that matches the design.
- Interpret it: explain what the finding may mean and what supports that interpretation.
- Engage the literature: show where the result extends, qualifies, or challenges previous work.
- Examine alternatives: consider other plausible accounts and the evidence needed to distinguish them.
- Define the scope: explain the consequences of the study’s limitations.
- Develop the implication: identify a justified contribution, application, or next question.
“The two practices were reported at different rates within the participating group. This distinction gives the study a more specific description of verification than a single item about ‘checking news’ would provide. The findings suggest a useful question for further inquiry: how do students choose among verification routes?”
Possible explanations include familiarity, convenience, or awareness of specialist services. Investigating these explanations would require additional evidence about the respondents’ reasons and circumstances.
Explain limitations through their effects
Identify a limitation, show which inference it affects, and explain how another study could address it. This approach gives the reader information they can use.
| Feature of the example | Consequence for interpretation | A useful next step |
|---|---|---|
| Volunteer recruitment at three colleges | The results describe participating respondents; selection may relate to verification interest. | Develop recruitment suited to a clearly defined population and examine participation. |
| Self-reported practices | Recall and presentation of one’s behaviour may affect answers. | Compare reports with a suitable behavioural task or other evidence. |
| One period of collection | The study gives limited information about change over time. | Use repeated observations where the question concerns change. |
A conclusion draws the argument together. State the answer, its contribution, and the most consequential implication. When the journal uses a separate conclusion, keep it focused on what the paper has established.
Write a precise title and an informative abstract
The title, abstract, and keywords help readers discover the work and decide whether it addresses their needs. Build them from the completed argument and check them together.
Give the title a clear job
State the central topic and the scope that readers need to recognise. Add the design, setting, or conceptual relationship when it helps. A colon can connect a main topic with a specific focus. Choose wording that matches the evidence.
Social Media and Students
Reported News Verification Practices: A Survey of Volunteer Undergraduates at Three Kolkata Colleges
The revised title identifies the practice, the form of evidence, and the setting. A causal word such as “effect” belongs in a title when the design and analysis support that claim. A question title can work when it states the paper’s central question clearly.
Give the abstract the whole argument in miniature
An empirical abstract commonly includes the problem or purpose, the design and material, the main results, and the conclusion. Prioritise the information that lets a reader understand what was done and what was learned. Check the target journal’s length, headings, and other requirements.
News verification includes several practices that may be reported at different rates. This study described two such practices among volunteer undergraduates at three Kolkata colleges. A cross-sectional web survey obtained complete responses from 180 students who reported sharing at least one unfamiliar news story during the previous 30 days. Separate items asked whether respondents had checked the original publisher or consulted a fact-checking website at least once during that period. Multiple practices could be selected. Checking the original publisher was reported by 108 respondents (60%), while consulting a fact-checking website was reported by 45 (25%). The findings distinguish two forms of reported verification within the participating group. Volunteer recruitment and self-report measures bound the interpretation. Further work could examine how students choose between verification routes and how their reports relate to observed practices.
Read its sequence: The first sentence introduces the issue. The next sentences identify the purpose, design, respondents, and measures. The numerical sentences report the findings. The final sentences state the contribution, scope, and next question.
For a conceptual paper, an abstract can state the problem, theoretical approach, principal argument or model, and implications. For a review, identify the review type and summarise its methods and synthesis at the level the journal requires.
Select keywords that describe the work
Combine meaningful terms for the topic, concepts, and method or setting. For the example, possible keywords are news verification; undergraduate students; self-reported practices; cross-sectional survey; Kolkata. Follow the journal’s number and vocabulary requirements.
Write clear sentences around a connected argument
A readable paragraph develops a recognisable point. It gives the reader enough evidence and explanation to see why that point belongs in the paper.
Use this as a planning aid. Some paragraphs define a concept, others compare evidence or explain a procedure. Let their shape follow the task. Place the connection where the reader needs it, especially when the argument shifts from evidence to interpretation.
Let verbs show the action
An examination of the responses was undertaken by the researchers for the identification of differences between the two reported practices.
We compared how often respondents reported the two practices.
The revision names the actor and the action. Active constructions often make responsibility clearer; passive constructions can help when the procedure or object deserves the emphasis. Choose the form that guides the reader through the specific sentence.
Define necessary technical terms, then use them consistently. Replace vague references with precise ones: “this difference”, “that interpretation”, or “these respondents”. Vary sentence length so that a short sentence can carry an important point and a longer sentence can explain its conditions.
Use qualification to state the strength of the claim
Choose verbs through the evidence: “reported”, “was associated with”, “suggests”, “is consistent with”, or “supports”. Explain what the evidence establishes and where interpretation begins. A carefully stated claim can be both confident and limited in scope.
The Academic Phrasebank offers examples organised around writing functions. Use it to recognise moves such as defining, comparing, or interpreting, then build a sentence that expresses your own argument.
Use sources accurately and take responsibility for the text
Responsible writing lets readers distinguish the ideas you borrow, the evidence you generate, and the argument you develop. Keep that distinction visible through accurate attribution and careful records.
Record source details and page or section locations while reading. Mark copied words as quotations immediately in your notes. Keep your comments separate. This simple habit prevents uncertainty about where a phrase or idea originated when you return to the draft.
Quote, paraphrase, and synthesise with a purpose
Use a quotation when its exact wording matters and provide the locator required by the citation style. Paraphrase an idea through your own sentence structure and wording while preserving its meaning. Synthesise when the argument needs to draw together several sources. Attribute all three forms appropriately.
The APA paraphrasing guidance explains author–date citation for paraphrases and the value of locators when they help readers find the passage. Purdue OWL provides a practical paraphrasing exercise.
Narrative form: Mensh and Kording (2017) recommend organising a paper around a central contribution.
Parenthetical form: A central contribution can guide the organisation of a paper (Mensh & Kording, 2017).
Both forms point to the full reference in the reading list. The surrounding discussion must still explain how the idea helps your argument.
Choose literature for relevance and evidential value. Foundational work may supply an essential concept; recent work may reveal a new debate or development. Read the source you cite and check that it supports the particular claim. Verify metadata and links after using a reference manager.
Document collaboration and any AI assistance
Agree on author contributions and order early, revisit the agreement as work develops, and follow the journal’s authorship rules. Obtain all authors’ approval of the final submission. Record funding, conflicts of interest, permissions, and relevant data or materials arrangements accurately.
For AI-assisted work, check the target journal’s current rules for the exact use proposed. Keep a record of the tool and task, verify outputs against the underlying evidence, and disclose use where required. Cite the original sources you have checked. Protect confidential material according to consent and institutional requirements. Sage’s policy illustrates how publishers distinguish permitted assistance, disclosure requirements, and prohibited uses.
Revise the argument before polishing the sentences
Revision gives you a chance to read the paper as a reader. Work from its overall logic towards the detail of its language and presentation.
A workable first draft gives revision something concrete to improve. During drafting, mark unresolved points with clear notes and return to them deliberately. Set aside focused sessions for drafting, reflection, feedback, and revision. Kallestinova (2011) discusses outlining, drafting, and staged revision.
Pass 1 · Argument and structure
- State the question and answer in one sentence each.
- Check how each section advances the contribution.
- Locate unsupported claims or missing logical steps.
- Align the methods, results, and interpretation.
Pass 2 · Paragraphs and language
- Give each paragraph a clear purpose.
- Improve transitions and define terms.
- Replace vague phrases with specific actors and actions.
- Check grammar, punctuation, and consistency.
Make a reverse outline
After drafting, write a short description of what each paragraph actually does. Read those descriptions in sequence. Reorder, combine, develop, or remove paragraphs until the route through the argument becomes clear.
Ask a colleague to identify the paper’s question and contribution in their own words. Then ask where they needed more explanation and which claim they found least supported. Give them a defined task; their response will be easier to act on.
Finish with an accuracy pass
Check numbers against the analysis outputs and source material. Reconcile the abstract, text, tables, and figures. Verify denominators, labels, quotations, references, and supplementary files. Confirm that every placeholder has been resolved and that the final version follows the journal’s instructions.
Select a suitable journal and prepare the submission
Journal selection connects your paper with the scholarly conversation it can best advance. Read the aims, article types, instructions, and recent papers before adapting the manuscript.
Compare candidate journals through scope, audience, methodological fit, article length, review arrangements, publication model, fees, and access options. Examine their ethics, data-sharing, preprint, and copyright policies. Confirm indexing claims through the relevant service when that information matters to your decision.
The Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist helps authors investigate publisher identity, review processes, preservation, fees, and policies. Read the journal’s current instructions directly and check any applicable institutional requirements.
Prepare a complete submission package
- Manuscript: article type, length, headings, tables, figures, references, and supplements.
- Author information: names, affiliations, contact details, contributions, and identifiers where requested.
- Declarations: ethics, consent, funding, conflicts, data availability, permissions, and AI use as applicable.
- Review files: separate identifying information when the journal uses an anonymised review process.
- Cover letter: a concise explanation of the question, contribution, and journal fit, plus required declarations.
Dear Editor,
We submit “[manuscript title]” for consideration as a [article type]. The paper examines [question] using [approach]. Its contribution is [specific contribution], which connects with the journal’s interest in [relevant scope]. [Add the declarations the journal requests, using accurate statements.]
Yours sincerely,
[Corresponding author]
Understand the review route
Use the explanation to assess fit or revise the paper.
Possible outcomes include revision, rejection, or acceptance.
Revise the manuscript and submit a reasoned response. Further review or a new decision may follow.
For a revision, address comments individually. Explain what changed and where. If you disagree, explain the issue respectfully and support your position. Resolve conflicting advice through a clear account to the editor.
| Comment | Response | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Clarify whether the two practices could overlap. | We added the multiple-response instruction to the methods and the table note. We also revised the results sentence to state each item separately. | Methods, paragraph 3; Table 1 note; Results, paragraph 1. |
Submit to one journal at a time unless an explicitly permitted arrangement applies. Keep a record of versions, decisions, and correspondence. On acceptance, inspect proofs carefully and report any errors through the journal’s process.
Use the lecture as a writing workshop
Watch Dr. USP’s lecture with your working outline beside you. Pause at each stage and produce a small piece of writing that advances your own paper.
Open the lecture on YouTube. The links below open approximate starting points based on the supplied transcript.
Check your understanding
Answer each prompt in your own words, then open the suggested response.
1. How does a contribution differ from a topic?
A topic identifies an area of inquiry. A contribution explains what the paper adds within that area through its evidence or reasoning. “News verification” names a topic; distinguishing two reported practices in a defined participant group states the contribution of the teaching example.
2. What would strengthen “No one has studied this in Kolkata”?
Explain what the setting allows you to examine and why that matters to the existing conversation. Identify the relevant language, institutional, conceptual, or methodological issue, and show how the research question follows from the literature you have reviewed.
3. What belongs in the discussion after presenting 60% and 25%?
Explain how the difference answers the question, why distinguishing the practices matters, and which interpretations the evidence supports. Relate the finding to relevant literature. Identify the limits of volunteer recruitment and self-report, then propose a justified next question.
4. How should a conceptual paper explain its approach?
Identify the problem, define the concepts, state the assumptions, explain how the argument develops, and engage plausible alternatives. Where the selection of literature shapes the argument, describe that selection. Use the article structure and expectations of the target journal.
5. What should you do with a similarity report?
Inspect the matched passages and original sources. Check quotation, paraphrase, attribution, and the applicable policy. Revise any problematic use of material and verify the source trail. Judge the text through its actual use of sources.
6. How can you respond when you disagree with a reviewer?
Identify the concern, explain your reasoning, and provide support. Clarify the manuscript if the comment reveals an ambiguity. Tell the editor exactly what changed or why you retained a particular approach.
Your workshop output: a paper development pack
Bring together these six items:
- A research question and a one-sentence contribution.
- An outline with claims and supporting material.
- An introduction that establishes the problem and response.
- One methods paragraph, one evidence passage, and one discussion paragraph.
- A title, an abstract, and proposed keywords.
- A revision plan and a journal-fit note.
Ask a peer to read the pack and reconstruct your argument. Use the points where they hesitate to guide the next revision.
Glossary and further reading
Return to these terms and resources as you develop a manuscript. Use the journal’s current instructions alongside the guidance relevant to your design.
- Contribution
- The finding, argument, method, synthesis, or interpretation the paper adds to a scholarly conversation.
- Warrant
- The reasoning that connects evidence with a claim.
- IMRaD
- Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion: a common architecture for empirical papers.
- CARS
- Create a Research Space: a model of introductory moves associated with John Swales.
- Reverse outline
- A description of what each paragraph in a completed draft actually does.
- Reporting standard
- Guidance about the information a report should provide for a particular design or research tradition.
- Desk rejection
- An editorial decision to decline a manuscript before external peer review.
- Response letter
- An organised account of how an author has addressed editorial and reviewer comments.
- Pandey, U. S. How to write research papers by USP [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKhcR8nEhIThe lecture and supplied transcript form the teaching base for this chapter. - Mensh, B., & Kording, K. (2017). Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(9), e1005619.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619A reading on central contribution, organisation, and the reader’s experience. - Kallestinova, E. D. (2011). How to write your first research paper. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 84(3), 181–190.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3178846/Practical guidance on outlining, drafting, and revision, also discussed in the lecture. - University of Manchester. Academic Phrasebank: Introducing work.
https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/introducing-work/Introductory moves, including an account of Swales’s CARS model; the site also groups language examples by writing function. - American Psychological Association. Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS).
https://apastyle.apa.org/jarsReporting guidance for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. - American Psychological Association. Paraphrases.
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/paraphrasingHow to attribute paraphrases and keep the source of an idea clear. - Purdue Online Writing Lab. Paraphrase: Write it in your own words.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/paraphrasing.htmlA guided exercise in paraphrasing and checking meaning. - Turnitin. Does Turnitin check for plagiarism and what is a good Similarity score?
Turnitin’s explanation of similarity scoresGuidance on interpreting matches and reviewing their context. - Think. Check. Submit. Journals.
https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/A checklist for investigating a journal and publisher before submission. - Sage. Artificial intelligence policy.
https://www.sagepub.com/journals/publication-ethics-policies/artificial-intelligence-policyA publisher’s current guidance on assistance, disclosure, and uses of AI in scholarly publishing. Check the policy of your target journal.
Strengthen the methods behind the manuscript
Return to Research Methodology to connect the question with the design. For a paper built around media texts, use Content Analysis to examine how selection, categories, and interpretation enter the report.