View source for IMRAD

{{short description|Document format for reporting studies in the scientific literature}}
In scientific writing, '''IMRAD''' or '''IMRaD''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɪ|m|r|æ|d}}) ('''Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion''')<ref>{{Cite book|title=Scientific Writing and Communication in Agriculture and Natural Resources|last=P. K. R. Nair and V. D. Nair|publisher=Springer|year=2014|pages=13}}</ref> is a common organizational structure (a document format). IMRaD is the most prominent norm for the structure of a [[Scientific journal|scientific journal]] article of the original research type.<ref name="pmid_15243643">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sollaci LB, Pereira MG | title = The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey | journal = Journal of the Medical Library Association | volume = 92 | issue = 3 | pages = 364–7 | date = July 2004 | pmid = 15243643 | pmc = 442179 }}</ref>

==Overview==
[[File:Wineglass model for IMRaD structure..png|thumb|Fig.1: Wineglass model for IMRaD structure. The above scheme shows how to line up the information in IMRaD writing. It has two characteristics: the first is its top-bottom symmetric shape; the second is its change of width, meaning the top is wide, and it narrows towards the middle, and then widens again as it goes down toward the bottom. The first characteristic, the top-bottom symmetric shape, represents the symmetry of the story development. The second one, the change of width, represents the change in generality of the viewpoint.]]
Original research articles are typically structured in this basic order<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://www.routledge.com/Scientific-And-Medical-Communication-A-Guide-For-Effective-Practice/Mogull/p/book/9781138842557|title=Scientific And Medical Communication: A Guide For Effective Practice|last=Mogull|first=Scott A. | name-list-style = vanc |publisher=Routledge|year=2017|isbn=9781138842557|location=New York}}</ref><ref name=hira>{{cite book | first = Hilary | last = Glasman-deal | name-list-style = vanc | year = 2009 |title=Science research writing for non-native speakers of English |publisher=Imperial College Press |isbn=978-1-84816-310-2}}</ref><ref name=George>{{cite book | veditors= Hall GM | date = December 2012 |title=How to write a paper |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell, BMJ Books |isbn=978-0-470-67220-4 |edition=5th}}</ref>
*Introduction – Why was the study undertaken? What was the [[Research question|research question]], the tested [[Hypothesis|hypothesis]] or the purpose of the research?
*Methods – When, where, and how was the study done? What materials were used or who was included in the study groups (patients, etc.)?
*Results – What answer was found to the research question; what did the study find? Was the tested hypothesis true?
*Discussion – What might the answer imply and why does it matter? How does it fit in with what other researchers have found? What are the perspectives for future research?

The plot and the flow of the story of the IMRaD style of writing are explained by a 'wine glass model'<ref name=hira/> or hourglass model.<ref name=":0" />

Writing, compliant with IMRaD format (IMRaD writing) typically first presents "(a) the subject that positions the study from the wide perspective", "(b) outline of the study", develops through "(c) study method", and  "(d) the results", and concludes with "(e) outline and conclusion of the fruit of each topics", and "(f) the meaning of the study from the wide and general point of view".<ref name=hira/>  Here, (a) and (b) are mentioned in the section of the "Introduction", (c) and (d) are mentioned in the section of the "Method" and "Result" respectively, and (e) and (f) are mentioned in the section of the "Discussion" or "Conclusion".

In this sense, to explain how to line up the information in IMRaD writing, the 'wine glass model' (see the pattern diagram shown in Fig.1) will be helpful (see pp 2–3 of the Hilary Glasman-deal <ref name=hira/>). As mentioned in abovementioned textbook,<ref name=hira/> the scheme of 'wine glass model' has two characteristics. The first one is "top-bottom symmetric shape", and the second one is "changing width" i.e. "the top is wide and it narrows towards the middle, and then widens again as it goes down toward the bottom". 
 
The First one, "top-bottom symmetric shape", represents the symmetry of the story development. Note the shape of the top trapezoid (representing the structure of Introduction) and the shape of the trapezoid at the bottom are reversed. This is expressing that the same subject introduced in Introduction will be taken up again in suitable formation for the section of Discussion/Conclusion in these section in the reversed order. (See the relationship between abovementioned  (a), (b) and (e), (f).)

The Second one, "the change of the width" of the schema shown in Fig.1, represents the change of generality of the view point. As along the flow of the story development, when the viewpoints are more general, the width of the diagram is expressed wider, and when they are more specialized and focused, the width is expressed narrower.

===As the standard format of academic journals===
The IMRAD format has been adopted by a steadily increasing number of [[Academic journal|academic journal]]s since the first half of the 20th century. The IMRAD structure has come to dominate academic writing in the sciences, most notably in empirical biomedicine.<ref name="pmid_15243643"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Day |first=RA |title=The Origins of the Scientific Paper: The IMRAD Format |journal=American Medical Writers Association Journal |year=1989 |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=16–18 |url=http://www.amwa.org/default/publications/journal/scanned/v04.2.pdf |access-date=2011-06-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927083129/http://www.amwa.org/default/publications/journal/scanned/v04.2.pdf |archive-date=September 27, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Szklo|first=Moyses | name-list-style = vanc |title=Quality of scientific articles|journal=Revista de Saúde Pública|year=2006|volume=40|pages=30–35|doi=10.1590/s0034-89102006000400005|pmid=16924300 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The structure of most [[Medicine:Public health journal|public health journal]] articles reflects this trend. Although the IMRAD structure originates in the empirical sciences, it now also regularly appears in academic journals across a wide range of [[Discipline (academia)|disciplines]]. Many scientific journals now not only prefer this structure but also use the IMRAD acronym as an instructional device in the instructions to their authors, recommending the use of the four terms as main headings. For example, it is explicitly recommended in the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (previously called the ''Vancouver guidelines''): <blockquote>
The text of observational and experimental articles is usually (but not necessarily) divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. This so-called "IMRAD" structure is not an arbitrary publication format but rather a direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery. Long articles may need subheadings within some sections (especially Results and Discussion) to clarify their content. Other types of articles, such as case reports, reviews, and editorials, probably need to be formatted differently.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf |title=Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication - IV.A.1.a. General Principles |publisher=International Committee of Medical Journal Editors |access-date=2010-03-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100706184319/http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf |archive-date=July 6, 2010 }}</ref></blockquote>
The IMRAD structure is also recommended for empirical studies in the 6th edition of the publication manual of the [[Organization:American Psychological Association|American Psychological Association]] (APA style).<ref>{{cite book|author=American Psychological Association|publisher=American Psychological Association|edition=6th|year=2010|title=Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association|isbn=978-1-4338-0562-2}}</ref> The APA publication manual is widely used by journals in the [[Social:Social science|social]], [[Social:Educational research|educational]] and behavioral sciences.<ref name=Tampere>{{cite web|url=http://www.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/RESEARCH/imrad.html|title=The IMRAD Research Paper Format|publisher=Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere|access-date=2008-10-22|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081025070226/http://www.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/RESEARCH/imrad.html|archive-date=2008-10-25}}</ref>

==Benefits==
The IMRAD structure has proved successful because it facilitates literature review, allowing readers to navigate articles more quickly to locate material relevant to their purpose.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Burrough-Boenisch|first=J|title=International Reading Strategies for IMRD Articles|journal=Written Communication|year=1999|volume=16|issue=3|pages=296–316|doi=10.1177/0741088399016003002|s2cid=145686459|doi-access=}}</ref> But the neat order of IMRAD rarely corresponds to the actual sequence of events or ideas of the research presented; the IMRAD structure effectively supports a reordering that eliminates unnecessary detail, and allows the reader to assess a well-ordered and noise-free presentation of the relevant and significant information. It allows the most relevant information to be presented clearly and logically to the readership, by summarizing the research process in an ideal sequence and without unnecessary detail.

==Caveats==
The idealised sequence of the IMRAD structure has on occasion been criticised for being too rigid and simplistic. In a radio talk in 1964 the Nobel laureate [[Biography:Peter Medawar|Peter Medawar]] criticised this text structure for not giving a realistic representation of the thought processes of the writing scientist: "… the scientific paper may be a fraud because it misrepresents the processes of thought that accompanied or gave rise to the work that is described in the paper".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Medawar|first=P|title=Is the scientific paper fraudulent?|journal=The Saturday Review|year=1964|issue=August 1|pages=42–43}}</ref> Medawar's criticism was discussed at the XIXth General Assembly of the [[Organization:World Medical Association|World Medical Association]] in 1965.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Brain|first=L|title=Structure of the scientific paper|journal=Br Med J|volume=2|year=1965|issue=5466|pages=868–869|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.5466.868 |pmid=5827805|pmc=1846354}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Report of Editors' Conference |journal=BMJ |date=9 October 1965 |volume=2 |issue=5466 |pages=870–872 |doi=10.1136/bmj.2.5466.870 |pmid=20790709 |pmc=1846363 }}</ref> While respondents may argue that it is too much to ask from such a simple instructional device to carry the burden of representing the entire process of scientific discovery, Medawar's caveat expressed his belief that many students and faculty throughout academia treat the structure as a simple panacea. Medawar and others have given testimony both to the importance and to the limitations of the device.

==Abstract considerations==
In addition to the scientific article itself a brief [[Abstract (summary)|abstract]] is usually required for publication. The abstract should, however, be composed to function as an autonomous text, even if some authors and readers may think of it as an almost integral part of the article. The increasing importance of well-formed autonomous abstracts may well be a consequence of the increasing use of searchable digital abstract archives, where a well-formed abstract will dramatically increase the probability for an article to be found by its optimal readership.<ref>{{cite web|title=Structured Abstract Initiative |url=http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/resources/html/about/sa_initiative.html |publisher=Education Resources Information Center |access-date=2011-06-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608181554/http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/resources/html/about/sa_initiative.html |archive-date=June 8, 2011 }}</ref> Consequently, there is a strong recent trend toward developing formal requirements for abstracts, most often structured on the IMRAD pattern, and often with strict additional specifications of topical content items that should be considered for inclusion in the abstract.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ripple AM, Mork JG, Knecht LS, Humphreys BL | title = A retrospective cohort study of structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1992-2006 | journal = Journal of the Medical Library Association | volume = 99 | issue = 2 | pages = 160–3 | date = April 2011 | pmid = 21464855 | pmc = 3066587 | doi = 10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.009 }}</ref> Such abstracts are often referred to as "structured abstracts".<ref>{{cite web|title=Structured Abstracts|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/structured_abstracts.html|author=U.S. National Library of Medicine|date=2011-06-16}}</ref> The growing importance of abstracts in the era of computerized literature search and information overload has led some users to modify the IMRAD acronym to AIMRAD, in order to give due emphasis to the abstract.

==Heading style variations==
Usually, the IMRAD article sections use the IMRAD words as headings. A few variations can occur, as follows: 
* Many journals have a convention of omitting the "Introduction" heading, based on the idea that the reader who begins reading an article does not need to be told that the beginning of the text is the introduction. This print-era proscription is fading since the advent of the Web era, when having an explicit "Introduction" heading helps with navigation via document maps and collapsible/expandable [[Table of contents|TOC]] trees. (The same considerations are true regarding the presence or proscription of an explicit "Abstract" heading.)
* In some journals, the "Methods" heading may vary, being "Methods and materials", "Materials and methods", or similar phrases. Some journals mandate that exactly the same wording for this heading be used for all articles without exception; other journals reasonably accept whatever each submitted manuscript contains, as long as it is one of these sensible variants.
* The "Discussion" section may subsume any "Summary", "Conclusion", or "Conclusions" section, in which case there may or may not be any explicit "Summary", "Conclusion", or "Conclusions" subheading; or the "Summary"/"Conclusion"/"Conclusions" section may be a separate section, using an explicit heading on the same heading hierarchy level as the "Discussion" heading. Which of these variants to use as the default is a matter of each journal's chosen style, as is the question of whether the default style must be forced onto every article or whether sensible inter-article flexibility will be allowed. The journals which use the "Conclusion" or "Conclusions" along with a statement about the "Aim" or "Objective" of the study in the "Introduction" is following the newly proposed acronym "IaMRDC" which stands for "Introduction with aim, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mondal|first1=Himel|last2=Mondal|first2=Shaikat|last3=Saha|first3=Koushik|date=2019|title=What to Write in Each Segment of an Original Article?|journal=Indian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery|language=en|volume=6|issue=3|pages=221|doi=10.4103/ijves.ijves_38_19|issn=0972-0820|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Other elements that are typical although not part of the acronym==
* Disclosure statements (''see main article at [[Conflicts of interest in academic publishing|conflicts of interest in academic publishing]]'')
** Reader's theme that is the point of this element's existence: "Why should I (the reader) trust or believe what you (the author) say? Are you just making money off of saying it?"
** Appear either in opening footnotes or a section of the article body
** Subtypes of disclosure:
*** Disclosure of funding (grants to the project)
*** Disclosure of conflict of interest (grants to individuals, jobs/salaries, stock or stock options)
* Clinical relevance statement 
** Reader's theme that is the point of this element's existence: "Why should I (the reader) spend my time reading what you say? How is it relevant to my clinical practice? Basic research is nice, other people's cases are nice, but my time is triaged, so make your case for 'why bother'"
** Appear either as a display element (sidebar) or a section of the article body
** Format: short, a few sentences or bullet points
* Ethical compliance statement 
** Reader's theme that is the point of this element's existence: "Why should I believe that your study methods were ethical?"
** "We complied with the Declaration of Helsinki."
** "We got our study design approved by our local [[Social:Institutional review board|institutional review board]] before proceeding."
** "We got our study design approved by our local ethics committee before proceeding."
** "We treated our animals in accordance with our local [[Organization:Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee|Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee]]."
* Diversity, equity, and inclusion statement<ref name="Cell-Press-DEI-FAQ">{{Citation |author=Cell Press |year=2021 |title=Cell Press inclusion and diversity statement FAQ |publisher=Cell Press |url=https://www.cell.com/inclusion-diversity-statement-faqs |access-date=2021-01-27 |postscript=.}}</ref> 
** Reader's theme that is the point of this element's existence: "Why should I believe that your study methods consciously included people?" (for example, avoided inadvertently underrepresenting some people—participants or researchers—by race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or other factors) 
** "We worked to ensure that people of color and transgender people were not underrepresented among the study population." 
** "One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as living with a disability." 
** "One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as transgender."

==Additional standardization (reporting guidelines)==
<!-- Reporting standards in the scientific literature redirects here. This section needs to be spun off to a separate article titled "Reporting standards in the scientific literature", but I am not sure how soon I can devote time to building v1.0 of such an article. -->

In the late 20th century and early 21st, the scientific communities found that the communicative value of journal articles was still much less than it could be if [[Best practice|best practice]]s were developed, promoted, and enforced. Thus reporting guidelines (guidelines for how best to report information) arose. The general theme has been to create [[Software:Template (word processing)|templates]] and [[Medicine:Checklist|checklist]]s with the message to the user being, "your article is not complete until you have done all of these things." In the 1970s, the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) released the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (Uniform Requirements or URM). Other such [[Technical standard|standards]], mostly developed in the 1990s through 2010s, are listed below. The academic medicine community is working hard on trying to raise compliance with good reporting standards, but there is still much to be done;<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Couzin-Frankel|first=Jennifer|date=2018-09-19|title='Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?|journal=Science|language=en|doi=10.1126/science.aav4758|s2cid=115360831|issn=0036-8075}}</ref> for example, a 2016 review of instructions for authors in 27 emergency medicine journals found insufficient mention of reporting standards,<ref name="pmid_27881175">{{cite journal | vauthors = Sims MT, Henning NM, Wayant CC, Vassar M | title = Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors" | journal = Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine | volume = 24 | issue = 1 | pages = 137 | date = November 2016 | pmid = 27881175 | pmc = 5121955 | doi = 10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3 | doi-access = free }}</ref> and a 2018 study found that even when journals' instructions for authors mention reporting standards, there is a difference between a mention or [[Web badge|badge]] and enforcing the requirements that the mention or badge represents.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Leung V, Rousseau-Blass F, Beauchamp G, Pang DS | title = ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 13 | issue = 5 | pages = e0197882 | date = 2018-05-24 | pmid = 29795636 | pmc = 5967836 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0197882 | bibcode = 2018PLoSO..1397882L | doi-access = free }}</ref>

The advent of a need for best practices in [[Data sharing|data sharing]] has expanded the scope of these efforts beyond merely the pages of the journal article itself. In fact, from the most rigorous versions of the [[Medicine:Evidence-based medicine|evidence-based]] perspective, the distance to go is still quite formidable.<ref name="pmid_29595127">{{cite journal | vauthors = Jefferson T, Jørgensen L | title = Redefining the 'E' in EBM | journal = BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine | volume = 23 | issue = 2 | pages = 46–47 | date = April 2018 | pmid = 29595127 | doi = 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110918 | doi-access = free }}</ref> [[Organization:FORCE11|FORCE11]] is an international coalition that has been developing standards for how to share research data sets properly and most effectively. 

Most researchers cannot be familiar with all of the many reporting standards that now exist, but it is enough to know which ones must be followed in one's own work, and to know where to look for details when needed. Several organizations provide help with this task of checking one's own compliance with the latest standards: 
* The [[EQUATOR Network]]
* The BioSharing collaboration ([https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org])

Several important webpages on this topic are: 
* NLM's list at [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/research_report_guide.html Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives: By Organization] 
* The EQUATOR Network's list at [http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/using-guidelines-in-journals/reporting-guidelines-and-journals-fact-fiction/ Reporting guidelines and journals: fact & fiction]
* TRANSPOSE [https://transpose-publishing.github.io (Transparency in Scholarly Publishing for Open Scholarship Evolution)], "a grassroots initiative to build a crowdsourced database of journal policies," allowing faster and easier lookup and comparison, and potentially spurring harmonization

Relatedly, SHERPA provides compliance-checking tools, and [[AllTrials]] provides a rallying point, for efforts to enforce [[Open data|openness]] and completeness of [[Engineering:Clinical trial|clinical trial]] reporting. These efforts stand against [[Publication bias|publication bias]] and against [[Social:Corporatocracy|excessive corporate influence]] on [[Scientific integrity|scientific integrity]].

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Reporting standards in the scientific literature
|-
! scope="col" style="width: 10%;" | Short name 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Longer name 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Best link 
! scope="col" style="width: 20%;" | Organization that fostered it 
! scope="col" style="width: 30%;" | Goals/Notes 
|-
| AMSTAR || (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) || [http://amstar.ca/ amstar.ca] || [http://amstar.ca/contact_us.php AMSTAR team] || Provides a tool to test the quality of [[Systematic review|systematic review]]s 
|-
| ARRIVE || (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) || [http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines] || [https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ NC3Rs] || Seeks to improve the reporting of [[Biology:Animal testing|research using animals]] (maximizing information published and minimizing unnecessary studies)
|-
| CARE || (Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development) || [http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/care/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/care] || [http://www.care-statement.org/ CARE Group] || Seeks completeness, transparency, and data analysis in case reports and data from the point of care
|-
| CHEERS || (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) || [https://www.ispor.org/Health-Economic-Evaluation-Publication-CHEERS-Guidelines.asp www.ispor.org/Health-Economic-Evaluation-Publication-CHEERS-Guidelines.asp] || [https://www.ispor.org/ ISPOR] || Seeks value in health care
|-
| CONSORT || ([[Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials]]) || [http://www.consort-statement.org/ www.consort-statement.org] || [http://www.consort-statement.org/ CONSORT Group] || Provides a minimum set of recommendations for reporting [[Randomized experiment|randomized trial]]s
|-
| COREQ || (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) || [http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/] || University of Sydney || Seeks quality in reporting of [[Qualitative research|qualitative research]] by providing a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups 
|-
| EASE guidelines || (EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English || [http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines-authors-and-translators/ www.ease.org.uk/publications/author-guidelines-authors-and-translators/] || EASE || Seeks quality reporting of all [[Scientific literature|scientific literature]] 
|-
| Empirical Standards || ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research || [https://acmsigsoft.github.io/EmpiricalStandards/ https://acmsigsoft.github.io/EmpiricalStandards/] || [https://www.sigsoft.org/ ACM SIGSOFT] || Provides methodology-specific research and reporting guidelines, checklists and reviewing systems 
|-
| ENTREQ || (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) || [https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/entreq/ www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/entreq/] || Various universities || Provides a framework for reporting the synthesis of [[Qualitative research|qualitative health research]] 
|-
| FAIR || (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) || [https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18] || Various organizations || High-level goals, allowing for various ways to achieve them; specifies "what" is wanted and "why", allowing the "how" to be determined by the researcher 
|-
| ICMJE || ([[Organization:ICMJE recommendations|Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals]]; formerly known as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals) || [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ www.icmje.org/recommendations] || [http://www.icmje.org/ ICMJE] || Seeks quality in medical journal articles
|-
| JARS || Journal Article Reporting Standards || [http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf] || [[Organization:American Psychological Association|American Psychological Association]] || Seeks quality in psychological research reporting; published in the appendix of the ''APA Publication Manual'' 
|-
| MARS || Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards || [http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf www.apastyle.org/manual/related/JARS-MARS.pdf] || [[Organization:American Psychological Association|American Psychological Association]] || Seeks quality in psychological research reporting; published in the appendix of the ''APA Publication Manual'' 
|-
| MI || [[Minimum Information Standards|Minimum Information standards]] || [https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org] || Various organizations || A family of standards for bioscience reporting, developed by the various relevant specialty organizations and collated by the BioSharing portal ([https://archive.today/20130414073140/http://biosharing.org/ biosharing.org]) (formerly collated by the MIBBI portal [Minimum Information about a Biomedical or Biological Investigation])
|-
| MOOSE || (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) || [http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192614 jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/192614] || MOOSE group (various organizations) || Seeks quality in [[Meta-analysis|meta-analysis]] of [[Observational study|observational studies]] in [[Social:Epidemiology|epidemiology]] 
|-
| NOS || ([[Newcastle–Ottawa scale]]) || [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp] || University of Newcastle, Australia and University of Ottawa || Assesses quality of nonrandomized studies included in a systematic review and/or meta-analysis 
|-
| PRISMA || (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) || [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ www.prisma-statement.org] || [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ PRSIMA group] || Seeks quality in [[Systematic review|systematic review]]s and [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]], especially in the medical literature, but applicable to most [[Scientific literature|scientific literature]]; PRISMA supersedes [[QUOROM flow chart|QUOROM]] 
|-
| REMARK || (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies) || [https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji237 doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji237] || [[Organization:National Cancer Institute|NCI]] and EORTC|| Seeks quality in reporting of tumor marker research 
|-
| RR || (registered reports) || [https://cos.io/rr cos.io/rr] || [[Organization:Center for Open Science|Center for Open Science]] || Applies the principles of [[Preregistration (science)|preregistration]] with the aim to improve both the quality of science being done and the quality of its reporting in journals. Aims to improve the [[Philosophy:Incentivisation|incentivization]] of scientists by removing [[Social:Perverse incentive|perverse incentive]]s that encourage [[Publication bias|publication bias]] and inappropriate/excessive forms of [[Post hoc analysis|post hoc analysis]]; it involves two peer review steps: one before results reporting (to review methodology alone) and another after results reporting. 
|-
| SAMPL || (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) || [http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SAMPL-Guidelines-3-13-13.pdf] || Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University || Seeks quality in [[Statistics|statistics]] in the biomedical literature 
|-
| SPIRIT || (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) || [http://www.spirit-statement.org/ www.spirit-statement.org] || [http://www.spirit-statement.org/about-spirit/the-people-of-spirit/ SPIRIT Group] (various organizations) || Seeks quality in clinical trial [[Protocol (science)|protocols]] by defining an [[Medicine:Evidence-based medicine|evidence-based]] set of items to address in every protocol 
|-
| SQUIRE || (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) || [http://www.squire-statement.org/ www.squire-statement.org] || [http://www.squire-statement.org/ SQUIRE team] (various organizations) || Provides a framework for reporting new knowledge about how to improve healthcare; intended for reports that describe system level work to improve the [[Medicine:Health care quality|health care quality]], [[Patient safety|patient safety]], and value in health care 
|-
| SRQR || (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations) || [https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388] || Various medical schools || Provides standards for reporting [[Qualitative research|qualitative research]] 
|-
| STAR || Structured, Transparent, Accessible Reporting || [https://www.cell.com/star-authors-guide www.cell.com/star-authors-guide] || Cell Press || Improved reporting of [[Methodology|methods]] to aid [[Reproducibility|reproducibility]] and researcher workflow<ref name="pmid_27565332">{{cite journal | vauthors = Marcus E | title = A STAR Is Born | journal = Cell | volume = 166 | issue = 5 | pages = 1059–1060 | date = August 2016 | pmid = 27565332 | doi = 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.021 | doi-access = free }}</ref> 
|-
| STARD || (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) || [http://www.stard-statement.org/ www.stard-statement.org] || STARD Group (various organizations) || [[Medicine:Medical diagnosis|Diagnostic]] accuracy 
|-
| STROBE || (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) || [https://www.strobe-statement.org/ www.strobe-statement.org] || STROBE Group (various organizations) || Seeks quality in reporting of [[Observational study|observational studies]] in [[Social:Epidemiology|epidemiology]] 
|-
| TOP || (Transparency and Openness Promotion) || [https://cos.io/top/ cos.io/top/] || ([[Organization:Center for Open Science|Center for Open Science]]) || Codifies 8 modular standards, for each of which a journal's editorial policy can pledge to meet a certain level of stringency (Disclose, Require, or Verify)
|-
| TREND || (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) || [https://www.cdc.gov/trendstatement/ www.cdc.gov/trendstatement] || TREND Group (various organizations) || Seeks to improve the reporting standards of nonrandomized evaluations of [[Philosophy:Applied behavior analysis|behavioral]] and public health interventions
|-
| TRIPOD || (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) || [https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697 doi.org/10.7326/M14-0697] || Centre for Statistics in Medicine (Oxford University) and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (University Medical Center Utrecht) || Provides a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, [[Test validity|validating]], or updating a [[Predictive modelling|prediction model]], whether for [[Medicine:Medical diagnosis|diagnostic]] or [[Medicine:Prognosis|prognostic]] purposes 
|-
| URM / ICMJE || ([[Organization:ICMJE recommendations|Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals]]; formerly known as the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals) || [http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ www.icmje.org/recommendations] || [http://www.icmje.org/ ICMJE] || Seeks quality in medical journal articles 
|}

== See also ==
* [[Medicine:Case report|Case report]] 
* [[Medicine:Case series|Case series]]
* Eight-legged essay
* Five paragraph essay
* [[Social:IRAC|IRAC]]
* [[Journal Article Tag Suite]] (JATS)
* [[Literature review]]
* Meta-analyses
* Schaffer paragraph

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Scientific documents]]
[[Category:Technical communication]]
[[Category:Academic terminology]]

{{Sourceattribution|IMRAD}}