Scientific article Guide

How to Choose a Structure for Your Scientific Article?

(Structuring Your Research According to Established Scientific Article Formats)

Dear Authors,

The format of a scientific article requires authors to demonstrate a commitment to following established guidelines for the presentation of their text, including its structuring. These guidelines are designed to ensure clarity, consistency, and effective communication of scientific findings. We understand that adhering to these established formatting rules may require some preparatory work from the author. However, compliance with these rules is critically important for effective peer review and the subsequent dissemination of research results.

It is important to emphasize: Our goal is not to alter the essence of your scientific inquiry, but rather to help it be presented in the most advantageous and accepted form. The structure we propose is not an end in itself, but a tool. By applying it, you do not erase your unique work; on the contrary, you enhance its significance by integrating it into the academic context.

These guidelines allow for the preservation and amplification of your original authorial content, presenting it in a format accepted by the academic community. Thus, together, we create a platform for deep and relevant scientific dialogue.

Please note: Adherence to the proposed structural guidelines is a mandatory requirement for the further consideration of your manuscript. We are confident that this will be a significant step towards enhancing the impact of your research.

---

A. Initial Information: IMRAD and the «Classical» (Theoretical, Review) Article

The IMRAD format and the «Classical» (theoretical, review) article operate within the same conceptual field (scientific communication), and their elements functionally correlate but are not identical. The choice between the classical structure and IMRAD does not depend on the quality of your research, but on its type and the dialogue you are having with the scientific community.

---

Format of the «Classical» Scientific Article

— Logic: Often deductive, moving from general theory to a specific case.

— Driver: The problem/topic and its place in the history of thought. Knowledge is legitimized through its connection to tradition.

— Purpose: To state and substantiate the author’s position (thesis) within an existing field of discussion. To prove the significance and novelty of one’s viewpoint.

— Role of the Author: The author is a full participant in the discussion, a successor to the tradition. Their personal contribution is an intellectual move on the chessboard of ideas.

— Structural Core: The Main Body (thesis and argumentation). This is a detailed authorial discourse, where data is just one type of argument alongside logical constructions, criticism of sources, etc.

Structure of the «Classical» (Theoretical, Review) Article:

[α] Abstract and Keywords / Thesis Summary (Abstract & Keywords)

I. Justification of the Topic;

II. Literature Analysis (Review of Existing Research);

III. Methodology (Materials and Methods);

IV. Main Body (Thesis and Argumentation);

V. Conclusion (Conclusions);

VI. Notes and Appendices to the Article ([Ref] References/Appendices).

---

IMRAD Format

The IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format represents a reduction of the «Classical» theoretical article, which emphasizes protocol and data at the expense of historical-philosophical context. The IMRAD format is an adaptation of extended research to the requirements of peer-reviewed journals – it is a useful but narrowly specialized tool for experimental reports.

Structure of the IMRAD Format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion):

[α] Abstract and Keywords / Thesis Summary (Abstract & Keywords)

[β] Introduction

[γ] Methods

[δ] Results

[ε] Discussion

[Ref] References/Appendices

Attention!

Abstract and Keywords / Thesis Summary (Abstract & Keywords) – This is a common superstructure for any scientific text, regardless of its internal structure. The abstract is the entry point and the guide. Its purpose is to answer, within 150-300 words, the questions: ABOUT WHAT? HOW? WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION? – regardless of whether the content is a theoretical treatise or an experimental report. In any peer-reviewed journal, collection, or dissertation, the abstract will be the first thing the reader sees after the title and authors. A good abstract is a micro-model of the entire article.

Within it, the logic is already visible:

The problem (I/II (or) → β), the approach (III (or) → γ), the main thesis/finding (IV (or) → δ), the significance (V (or) → ε)

Abstract and Keywords (Abstract & Keywords) → FURTHER LOGIC OF THE TEXT (Chosen depending on the type of work) (either) (or) → «Classical Article» (or) → IMRAD Format

---

B. Starter Pack for a Scientific Article Author

1. Planning Document (first step before writing): Before writing the article itself, create a separate file and answer these pre-prepared questions. This is the skeleton of your future protocol.

a. My central thesis (one sentence): «In this paper, I demonstrate/prove that…»

b. The main gap/contradiction I am addressing: «Existing works [A] and [B] do not account for… / explain X but cannot explain Y…»

c. My key pieces of evidence (3-5 bullet points): 1) Analysis of [specific material] shows that… 2) Results of the experiment/simulation demonstrate that… 3) Comparison with [something] reveals a difference…

d. My main limitation: «My work is valid under the condition that… / does not consider the aspect of…»

2. Desk Cheat Sheet (a highly concise algorithm for each paragraph): Write this on a sticky note and keep it in front of you while writing: STATE THE THESIS → PROVIDE THE RATIONALE → SHOW THE EVIDENCE → EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS → STATE THE LIMITATIONS

a. THESIS (Assertion): «There is a significant gap/contradiction in the understanding of [your topic].»

b. RATIONALE: Reference the context (the importance of the topic for science/practice, as in your points 1-3).

c. EVIDENCE: Not the data itself, but a demonstration of the gap. A concise, targeted analysis of key works from your future literature review that shows: «Here is what has been done (A and B), and here is what has been overlooked (C).»

d. INTERPRETATION: «Thus, the lack of research in area C limits the development of theory X and practice Y.»

e. LIMITATION (Focus): «This paper does not claim to provide a comprehensive solution to the entire problem but aims to fill the specific gap C.»

3. Practical Ritual «Reviewer Check» (after writing each section): Read your text and, using a colored highlighter (or mentally), look for and mark:

• Yellow — statements without justification («The method is effective»).
• Red — statements without evidence («This is confirmed by the data» — but where specifically?).
• Blue — data without interpretation («Figure 1 shows an increase» — and what does this mean for the thesis?).

Final recommendation for authors (a two-layer template):

1) LAYER 1 (Strategic): Build your article according to a clear structure: Justification of the gap → Analysis of what has been done → Explanation of how you studied it → Presentation and discussion of your results → Final conclusions.

2) LAYER 2 (Tactical, «protocol»): While filling each section, write it as a series of micro-arguments using the scheme: «We assert that… (THESIS). This is logical because… (RATIONALE). We tested it in such-and-such way and here is what we obtained… (EVIDENCE). This means that… (INTERPRETATION). However, it is important to remember that… (LIMITATION).»