5.3: How to Read a Research Article

Learning Objectives

1. Identify the major sections of an APA Style research report and the basic contents of each section.
2. Decide your strategy to read APA Style research reports.

In this section, we look at how to read an APA-style empirical research report, but we will start with a video by UBC iSchool (2013) in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) with suggestions on how to read any scientific article.

How to Read an Academic Paper

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): How to Read an Academic Paper by UBC iSchool, CC-BY via YouTube

But before you follow the video's suggestions, be aware that there are tons of different approaches to reading academic research. At the end of this sub-section, several more different approaches will be discussed. But before that, you'll need to know a little bit about how scientific articles are structured. The standard sections of an empirical research report provide a kind of outline. This information is based on the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2020), often referred to as APA Style manual. You can find more information at apastyle.apa.org or https://apastyle.apa.org/products/pu...al-7th-edition .

Sections of a Research Report

Here we consider each of these sections in detail, including what information it contains, and tips for reading and understanding each section. The following are the major sections in most quantitative research reports.

• Title page
• Abstract
• Main body, which includes:
  • Introduction
  • Methods, which includes sub-sections:
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Design
    • Procedure
  • Results
  • Discussion/Conclusion
• Reference page
• Appendices (optional); figures and tables can be in an appendix or in the paper around where they are discussed.

Qualitative research articles may have different sections. Check out the APA's (2025) Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) webpage to compare what's included in quantitative reports compared to qualitative reports (Table 1 in both articles is particularly useful). The APA (2025) JARS website also includes writing standards for reports that include studies that are both qualitative and quantitative (mixed methods), and a new JARS article related to writing about race and ethnicity.

Where is it?

You are encouraged to open one of the empirical articles that you found in your literature review, then find the section and sub-sections that you'll be reading about here.

Note that the requirements and formatting for APA Style manuscripts is different from what and how each journal publishes the manuscript.

Title Page

An APA Style research report begins with a title page, sometimes called the cover page. The title page contains the title, author names, and affiliations. Once published in a journal, this information will formatted to flow into the next sections of an academic research article. The title should clearly and concisely (in about 12 words or fewer) communicate the primary variables and research questions. The authors are listed in an order that reflects their contribution to the research. When multiple authors have made equal contributions to the research, they often list their names alphabetically or in a randomly determined order. Next, the authors' institutional affiliation (the university or other institution where the authors worked when they conducted the research) is listed.

Abstract

The abstract is a summary of the study. The abstract presents the research question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions. Because the abstract is usually limited to about 200 words, it can be a challenge to write a good one! The abstract is probably the first thing that you read after the title to determine if the article is related to your topic and worth spending the time reading.

Pro Tip: Re-read the abstract as you continue to work with the article to remind yourself of the IV, DV, and results.

Main Body

The main body of any research report includes the introduction section, a section on the study's methods, a section detailing the results, and a conclusion or discussion section. We'll go through each of these sections separately.

Introduction Section

The introduction is not labeled in APA Style manuscripts and may or not be labeled in the published journal article. But now you know that the first section is always the introduction. This section includes these three of important sub-sections:

• Opening: Introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting
• Summary of Previous Research: Discusses relevant previous research
• Closing: Re-states the purpose, perhaps now with explicit research hypotheses

These sub-sections are typically not identified by headings. However, the second sub-section (summarizing what you learned in your literature review) may have sub-headings to help lead the reader from the general topic to specific research findings.

The opening, which is usually about a paragraph in length, introduces the research question and explains why it is interesting. After capturing the reader’s attention, the opening should go on to introduce the research question and explain why it is interesting. Will the answer fill a gap in the literature? Will it provide a test of an important theory? Does it have practical implications? Giving readers a clear sense of what the research is about and why they should care about it will motivate them to continue reading the literature review—and will help them make sense of it. When reading these paragraphs, try to determine what the purpose of the research study is. This will help you understand some of the context for what comes next.

Immediately after the opening comes the literature review, which describes the results of relevant previous research on the topic. The literature review is not simply a list of past studies.This summary of previous research can be anywhere from several paragraphs to several pages in length. Beginning students often take a paragraph or two to summarize one research article, while experienced researchers will usually use each paragraph to summarize many research studies on one topic. You'll see that accomplished researchers use the literature review as a kind of argument for why the research question is worth addressing, and the best way to answer the research question. By the end of the literature review, readers should be convinced that the research question makes sense and that the present study is a logical next step in the ongoing research process.

Like any effective argument, the literature review must have some kind of structure. For example, it might begin by describing a phenomenon in a general way along with several studies that demonstrate it, then describing two or more competing theories of the phenomenon, and finally presenting a hypothesis to test one or more of the theories. Or it might describe one phenomenon, then describe another phenomenon that seems inconsistent with the first one, then propose a theory that resolves the inconsistency, and finally present a hypothesis to test that theory. In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation, and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation. If you can outline this structure, then you understand the background and argued need for the upcoming research study.

The last paragraph of the introduction section is the closing of the introduction. This paragraph usually includes two important elements. The first is a clear statement of the purpose of the research study, the main research question. or the research hypotheses. This statement tends to be more formal and precise than in the opening and is often expressed in terms of operational definitions of the key variables, so you can compare what is written here to what you you thought that the purpose was after the first paragraph. The second element in the closing paragraph is a brief overview of the method and some comment on its appropriateness. Here, for example, is how Darley and Latané (1968) concluded the introduction to their classic article on the bystander effect:

These considerations lead to the hypothesis that the more bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one bystander will intervene to provide aid. To test this proposition it would be necessary to create a situation in which a realistic “emergency” could plausibly occur. Each subject should also be blocked from communicating with others to prevent his getting information about their behavior during the emergency. Finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. The experiment reported below attempted to fulfill these conditions. (p. 378)

The brief overview of the methods is sometimes implied in research hypotheses. This happens when the research hypothesis includes how the IV will be created (or measured) and how the DV will be measured. In sum, the introduction leads smoothly into the next major section of the article—the method section.

Method

The method section is the description of how the study was conducted. A method section should be clear and detailed enough that other researchers could replicate the study by following your “recipe.” This means that it must describe all the important elements of the study—basic demographic characteristics of the participants, how they were recruited, whether they were randomly assigned to conditions, how the variables were manipulated or measured, how counterbalancing was accomplished, and so on. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was double-sided and completed using pencils.

The method section begins immediately after the introduction ends, and usually starts immediately with the sub-heading “Participants.” The participants subsection indicates how many participants there were, and should include information like the gender diversity, ethnic diversity, some indication of the participants' age, other demographics that may be relevant to the study. This sub-section also, and how they were recruited, including any incentives given for participation.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Three Ways of Organizing an APA Style Method Section

After the participants section, the structure can vary a bit. Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\) shows three common approaches. Before we dive into the three columns in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\), let's refresh on some basic terminology in Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

1. Without looking up the definition, can you describe what an operational definition is?
2. Without looking up the definition, can you describe what an IV, or independent variable, is?
3. Without looking up the definition, can you describe what a DV, or dependent variable, is?

Answer

1. An operational definition is "A description of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured;" was your description close?
2. An IV is "The variable that the experimenter manipulates, and believes is the cause of changes in the outcome variable;" was your description close?
3. A DV is "The measured variable that the experimenter think is the effect (the thing that the IV changes). This is the outcome variable, the thing that we're trying to improve;" was your description close?

In the first column in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)), the participants section is followed by a design and procedure subsection, which describes the rest of the method. The design of a study is its overall structure. Much of this textbook will discuss different types of designs. The design could also include a description of the variables, and how they were created or measured (operational definitions). The procedure is how the study was carried out, or a description of what the participants did (not what the researchers did). For example, the participants gave their informed consent, read a set of instructions, completed a block of four practice trials, completed a block of 20 test trials, completed two questionnaires, and were debriefed and excused. This first approach (the left column of Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)) This works well for methods that are relatively simple and can be described adequately in a few paragraphs, but is pretty rare.

In the second approach (middle column of Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)), the participants section is followed by separate design and procedure subsections. This works well when both the design and the procedure are relatively complicated and each requires multiple paragraphs. However, is is not ideal to clearly identify the measures ("Materials") that were used to assess the DV (and possibly the IV).

In the third basic way to organize a method section (right column of Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)), the participants sub-section is followed by a materials subsection before the design and procedure subsections. This works well to describe the materials used (like prompts) and the measures (like surveys). The heading of this subsection can be modified to reflect its content. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and so on. The materials subsection is also a good place to refer to the reliability and/or validity of the measures. This is where you would present test-retest correlations, Cronbach’s α, or other statistics to show that the measures are consistent across time and across items and that they accurately measure what they are intended to measure.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Using the third approach to a method section (right column of Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)):

1. Which sub-section would a description of an IV be?
2. Which sub-section would a description of the DV be?

Answer

1. This actually depends on what kind of study you have! If IV was created through manipulation by the researcher, then this would probably go in the Procedures sub-section. However, if the IV is more like a predictor varaible, then the researcher measures the IV rather than creates it. In this case, the measure would be described in the Materials section.
2. Measurement of the DV is usually in the Materials section.

As you are getting into the meat of the research study, this is where you might start getting confused. Before you put too much time into reading and re-reading any study if it is more complex than you are currently ready for. You'll need to understand:

• How the participants were recruited.
• What participants experienced, in what order. (This is the procedure.)
• What the IV was. (This is usually the groups that were compared, but could also be whatever was randomly assigned (manipulated) by the experimenter.)
• What the DV was. (This was what was measured.)

Pro Tip: As a beginning researcher, find another article if don’t understand the methods.

If you're not sure if you understand, try explaining the study to another student or a family member. You can also work with your professor, other professors in your department, or a tutor who is experienced with reading research studies.

Results

The results section is where the main results of the study are described, including the results of the statistical analyses. Students find the Result section to be very intimidating, so the next section of this textbook will go into interpreting the results of quantitative studies. But for now, you can review the structure of this section. Unlike in the Method section, there are no standard subsections. Instead, the results are (hopefully) organized logically for the reader.

Typically this section begins with certain preliminary issues. One is whether any participants or responses were excluded from the analyses and why. The rationale for excluding data should be described clearly so that other researchers can decide whether it is appropriate. A second preliminary issue is how multiple responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. While the operational definition of each measure is described in the Method section, the Result section also needs an operational definition for how variables were categorized (or not) for analysis. For example, if participants were asked to recall as many items as they could from study list of 20 words, did the analysis use a count of the number of words that were correctly recalled, the percentage of words correctly recalled, or perhaps the number correctly recalled minus the number incorrectly recalled? A final preliminary issue is whether the manipulation was successful. This is could be where you would report the results of any manipulation checks, although it also makes sense to include this information in the materials sub-section of the Method section.

The main information in the results section should then tackle the primary research questions, one at a time. Again, there should be a clear organization. One approach would be to answer the most general questions and then proceed to answer more specific ones. Another would be to answer the main question first and then to answer secondary ones. Regardless, Bem (2003) suggests the following basic structure for discussing each new result:

1. Remind the reader of the research question.
2. Give the answer to the research question in words.
3. Present the relevant statistics.
4. Qualify the answer if necessary.
5. Summarize the result.

Notice that only Step 3 necessarily involves numbers. The rest of the steps involve presenting the research question and the answer to it in words. In fact, the basic results should be clear even to a reader who skips over the numbers.

Pro Tip: For each research question, determine a one-sentence answer for each of Bem's (2003) five-stage structure of results.

If the findings raise additional questions that can be answered with the current data, then this structure can be followed again. However, student researchers are often overwhelmed by the statistical analysis, so it might be a good idea to interpret the results for only the main research hypotheses for now. Some journal reviewers may ask that any additional analyses are described in the main Results section, while other journals may ask for that in an appendix or an online-only supplementary section. These additional analyses may or may not be relevant for your purposes, so don't get bogged down on reading and understanding everything.

If you’re confused about information in the Results section, you can review the Discussion section to help understand what was found. However, the Discussion section is written more broadly to consider implications for the results, so the Discussion may generalize or avoid important results. The Discussion section is a good check for your understanding, but it is important to make up your own mind about what was found and what that implies based on the statistics results, not on what is written in the Discussion section.

Discussion

The discussion section is the last major section of the research report. Discussions usually consist of some combination of the following elements:

• Summary of the research results
• Limitations
• Implications of the research results
• Suggestions for future research

The discussion typically begins with a summary of the study that provides a clear answer to the research question. In a short report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. In a longer report with multiple studies, it might require a paragraph or even two. To qualify the results, articles often then add any problems with the study. Some of these problems may have been known before the study started, like if the researcher knew that their participant pool was limited. Some limitations could arise (or been discovered) during data collection; for example, a researcher might expect equal participation from their diverse population, but instead find that participants from only certain demographics are actually participating. But do not overdo it. All studies have limitations, and most readers will understand that a different sample or different measures might have produced different results. Unless there is good reason to think they would have, however, there is no reason to mention these routine issues. Instead, pick two or three limitations that seem like they could have influenced the results, explain how they could have influenced the results, and suggest ways to deal with them. Finally, researchers and reviewers may identify limitations once the study has been completed. Now is the time to discuss these issues and how they might have affected the results. If you came up with some limitations on your own while reading the Method section, it's good to check to see if the researchers thought the same thing.

The summary of what was found is often followed by a discussion of the implications of the research. These implications might more readily affect a relevant theory, or the research results could be applied to professionals in the field (practical implications). For theoretical implications, researchers might write about how the results provide support for any existing theory, or not. For practical implications, ther researcher might write about how the results be used, by whom, and to accomplish some real-world goal. After reading about the study's results and limitations, you can decide on your own how impactful the results actually are. This may lead you to question the author's perspective on the implications of their findings and overstated the result's impact, or you may decide that the authors understated how influencial their results might be.

The summary of the findings and a recognition of the study's limitations may lead naturally to the next research question and study on the topic, or this may be written after the implications. What new research questions has the results of study raised?

References

The Discussion section is the last section in the main body. The next section, References includes the full references, in APA Style, of everything that was cited in the entire article. The references are listed alphabetically on the page by the last name of the first author (even while the authors of each individual reference are listed in the order that they appear on the article). If you wanted to read another source that was cited in the article, this is where you'd go to find where to find that source.

Appendices

Appendices come after the references. An appendix is appropriate for material that would interrupt the flow of the research report if it were presented within any of the major sections, but is still important for understanding the study. Depending on the journal publisher, an appendix could be used to present tables, figures, lists of stimulus words, questionnaire items, detailed descriptions of special equipment or unusual statistical analyses, or picture or video screenshots. If you wanted more detail than what was provided in a specific sub-section of the main body, this is where the details would be.

Approaches to Reading Academic Research Articles

Now that you have an idea of the basic outline of most research articles, we'll discuss several approaches to reading a research article. The UCB iSchool (2013) video at the beginning of this section described taking three passes at the article. Another approach was detailed by Raff (2013) in her 11-step process. While 11 steps seems like more than three passes, you'll find that many of the suggestions are similar between UCB iSchool (2013) and Raff (2013) . Similar to Raff (2013) , some librarians suggest avoiding re-reading the abstract and instead focusing on the following four sections (in this order):

How Librarians Might Read Research Articles

1. Literature Review in the introduction section
2. Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion

As an instructor for research methods and an advisor for a research club, Dr. MO has to read a lot of research articles really quickly. Here's how she actually approaches new journal articles:

How Dr. MO Reads Research Articles

1. Abstract
2. Methods (sometimes she has to go back to the introduction section to pick up some terminology).
3. Tables and Figures in the Results; full Results if she doesn't understand the tables or figure (and the Discussion if she doesn't understand the full results)

Once she understands the basics of what happened and has read several studies on the topic and chose a few to dig in to, Dr. MO then does read the introduction section to understand the context and to see if there are other articles on the topic that she should read.

As you can see, there are many approaches to reading research articles! Now that you have some sense of the structure of research articles in the social sciences and know how others approach reading this type of technical writing, how do you think that you'll approach reading scientific journal articles? What might work best for you?

---

References

APA, (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th edition). American Psychological Association.

Bem, D. J. (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. R. Roediger III (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 377–383.

Raff. J. (2013, August 25). How to read and understand a scientific paper: A guide for non-scientists. Violent Metaphors: Throughs from the Intersection of Science, Pseudoscience, and Conflict. https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08...tific-paper-2/

UCB iSchool (2013, January 17). How to read an academic paper [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKxm2HF_-k0