You have completed the analysis, organised your findings and started preparing your paper. Yet the opening paragraphs are taking longer than expected. How much background should you include? Which studies deserve a mention? How do you explain why your research was needed without overstating its importance?
The introduction to a scientific manuscript helps readers understand the problem, the existing evidence and the question your study addresses. It should give them enough context to follow your work and a clear reason to keep reading.
This guide explains how to build that argument, select relevant references and revise your introduction before submission.
1.Understand What the Introduction Needs to Do
Before drafting, write brief answers to three questions:
- What does the reader need to know about the topic?
- What remains uncertain or insufficiently understood?
- What did your study set out to investigate?
These answers provide the foundation for your introduction section.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommends establishing the problem and its significance, then stating the study’s purpose, objective or hypothesis. It also advises citing directly relevant references.
Use those principles to decide what belongs in the opening. A paragraph may contain accurate information but still be unnecessary if it does not help explain the research question.
2.Check Your Target Journal Before Writing
Your scientific manuscript needs to suit both its intended readers and the journal’s instructions.
Read the author guidelines and examine several recent papers of the same article type. Notice how much background they provide, how they introduce unresolved questions and where they state their objectives.
Requirements can differ. ICMJE advises excluding findings and conclusions from the introduction, while PLOS ONE asks authors to finish with the overall aim and a brief comment on whether it was achieved. Follow the instructions relevant to your submission.
Avoid treating another paper’s paragraph count as a fixed rule. Its structure can help you understand expectations, but your own argument should determine the organisation.
3.Open with a Specific Research Problem
A broad opening often delays the point.
For example:
“Healthcare has experienced many important developments over the years.”
This sentence gives readers little information about the study that follows.
For a hypothetical project on outpatient attendance, a more focused opening might be:
“Missed follow-up appointments create difficulties for outpatient services trying to maintain continuity of care.”
In a real manuscript, support that statement with appropriate evidence.
Begin close enough to your subject that readers can recognise the problem immediately. Explain its relevance through a concrete consequence, unresolved mechanism or practical difficulty.
Avoid opening with dramatic claims such as “the greatest challenge in modern medicine” unless the evidence genuinely justifies them.
4.Select Background Evidence with a Clear Purpose
The background should prepare readers for your research question. It does not need to describe everything you read while developing the study.
Choose references that establish the main findings, methods or disagreements relevant to your argument. A recent review can help orient readers, while original studies may be needed to support specific claims.
When assessing peer reviewed articles, check what the researchers actually measured and what their results support. Read beyond the abstract before describing detailed findings or limitations.
For each reference, ask:
“What does this source help the reader understand?”
If several sources make the same point, consider whether all are necessary. A scientific manuscript becomes easier to follow when references support a clear line of reasoning.
5.Explain the Research Gap Precisely
“More research is needed” leaves readers wondering what is missing.
A useful gap statement identifies a particular uncertainty. This might concern an understudied population, inconsistent findings, limited follow-up, an untested explanation or a measurement problem.
For a hypothetical study, the distinction could look like this:
Too vague:
“There is limited research on appointment attendance.”
More precise:
“Previous studies have examined reminder messages, but their effectiveness among patients with irregular working hours remains uncertain.”
The second version explains what the proposed investigation would add. However, it would still require supporting references in an actual paper.
Avoid claiming that no research exists unless your literature search supports that statement. Sometimes the contribution is a careful replication or an examination of conflicting evidence.
6.Show Why the Gap Matters
Identifying an unanswered question is only part of the argument. Readers also need to understand why answering it would be useful.
Would the study help evaluate an existing explanation? Improve measurement? Clarify whether earlier findings apply in another setting? Inform the design of a future investigation?
Connect the uncertainty to a realistic consequence.
In the appointment example, understanding working-hour constraints could help researchers examine whether the timing of reminders deserves further study. That is a more defensible rationale than promising that the project will solve missed attendance.
Keep the importance of your scientific manuscript proportional to what the study can establish. Specific, measured explanations are more persuasive than broad promises.
7.End with a Clear Study Objective
The objective should follow naturally from the background and gap.
A reader should not reach the final paragraph and discover a question that the preceding discussion has barely mentioned.
For example:
“This study examined the association between working-hour patterns and follow-up attendance among adults attending an outpatient clinic.”
This hypothetical objective identifies the relationship, population and setting without reproducing the Methods section.
Choose verbs that match your design. “Explored,” “compared,” “estimated” and “evaluated” communicate different purposes. An observational association should not be presented as proof of causation.
If the study tested a prespecified hypothesis, state it accurately. Do not rewrite the original hypothesis to make unexpected findings appear predicted.
8.Give Each Paragraph One Main Job
Clear scientific writing depends on progression as much as sentence quality.
A practical drafting sequence is:
- Introduce the problem and its relevance.
- Summarise the evidence needed to understand it.
- Identify the uncertainty and explain its significance.
- State the study’s objective or hypothesis.
This is a planning aid, not a compulsory four-paragraph formula. Some topics need additional explanation.
After drafting, summarise each paragraph in a short phrase. If two paragraphs perform the same job, consider combining them. If the objective appears disconnected from the background, add the missing reasoning.
Use transitions that explain relationships between ideas. Words such as “however” cannot create a logical connection when the underlying argument is unclear.
9.Revise for Accuracy, Clarity and Consistency
Scientific editing should begin with the argument before moving to individual words.
Check whether the introduction accurately represents previous academic publications and whether every important factual claim has suitable support. Make sure the stated objective matches the Methods, Results and abstract.
Then review the language:
- Replace vague phrases with specific descriptions.
- Remove repeated explanations.
- Define essential abbreviations.
- Keep terminology consistent.
- Shorten sentences that contain several separate ideas.
Ask a colleague to read the introduction without the rest of the paper. Can they explain what you investigated and why?
Their answer can reveal missing connections that are difficult to notice when you know the project well.
Give Readers a Clear Reason to Continue
A strong introduction helps readers move from an established problem to a well-defined research question. It provides relevant context, describes uncertainty fairly and explains what your study was designed to contribute.
Return to the opening once the full scientific manuscript is complete. Check that it still introduces the study you actually report.
Preparing a manuscript for submission? Contact NxtGen Research with your draft, target journal and deadline to discuss scientific editing, language refinement and manuscript preparation support.
FAQ
1.What should the introduction of a scientific manuscript include?
The introduction should explain the research problem, summarise relevant evidence, identify what remains uncertain and state the study’s objective or hypothesis. Each part should help readers understand why the research was needed.
2.How long should the introduction section be?
There is no single word count suitable for every manuscript. Follow your target journal’s instructions and include enough background to explain the research question. Remove details that do not contribute to the study’s rationale.
3.How do I identify a research gap for my introduction?
Compare relevant studies and look for unresolved questions, conflicting findings, limitations or populations that have received little attention. Explain the specific uncertainty your study addresses and support that explanation with appropriate references.
4.How many references should I include in the introduction?
Use the references needed to support your main claims and establish the research context. Prioritise relevance and accuracy over quantity. Include original studies for specific findings and suitable reviews for broader background, while checking the journal’s reference limits.
5.What is the difference between an introduction and an abstract?
An abstract summarises the whole scientific manuscript, usually covering its purpose, methods, main results and conclusion. The introduction develops the background and rationale, leading readers towards the research question.
6.How can scientific editing improve my introduction?
Scientific editing can improve paragraph order, clarify the research gap, remove repetition and make the objective easier to understand. Authors should still verify the scientific claims, references and consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
