Hello. My name is Thomas Bertelsen, and I want to share with you some strategies that have helped me write journal articles that get published. When I first started writing for publication, I spent countless hours staring at blank pages, feeling overwhelmed by the task of turning my research into something that journals would accept.

The process frustrated me more than I expected. I knew my research was solid, but I couldn't figure out how to present it in a way that would engage editors and reviewers. Sometimes, I would write an entire introduction only to realize it missed the mark completely. Other times, I'd produce a methods section that seemed thorough to me but left my co-authors asking basic questions about what I actually did.

What I discovered is that writing a journal article requires a different approach than writing a thesis or report. Journal articles need to be precise and focused. They must explain not just what you found, but why it matters to readers who may not share your exact expertise. Unlike a thesis, where you can explore every angle of your topic, journal articles demand that you highlight the most important points while maintaining scientific rigor.

The abstract presents its own challenge. Many readers will only see this section, so you need to pack your entire study's value into a few hundred words. This means every sentence must work hard to convey meaning. I learned this the hard way when I received feedback that my abstracts were either too vague or too detailed for the space available.

After publishing several articles and working with co-authors across different fields, I've developed an approach that breaks the writing process into manageable pieces. Rather than trying to write a perfect manuscript from start to finish, I focus on building strong individual sections that work together to tell a coherent story.

This article focuses specifically on the introduction and methods sections - two components that often determine whether your manuscript gets serious consideration. These sections set the foundation for everything that follows, and getting them right can make the difference between acceptance and rejection. I hope that sharing what I've learned will help you avoid some of the trial and error that slowed my own progress.

Understanding the Role of the Introduction

The introduction section determines whether readers will invest time in your research. Over the years, I've learned that a strong introduction can carry a mediocre results section, while a weak introduction can sink even groundbreaking findings. The difference lies in understanding what this section actually needs to accomplish.

Why the introduction matters in a journal article

The introduction creates the first impression that either draws readers in or pushes them away. When I review manuscripts for journals, I can usually predict acceptance or rejection based on the introduction alone. This section must convince readers that your research deserves attention in a field where thousands of papers compete for limited space.

A well-crafted introduction establishes your credibility as a researcher while simultaneously demonstrating the value of your contribution. Research shows the introduction directly impacts acceptance rates, as journals specifically seek manuscripts that both contribute to their field and engage their readership. The introduction essentially sets the tone for your entire paper, laying the foundation upon which your argument is built.

What many authors miss is that the introduction serves as a contract with your readers. You're promising them that if they continue reading, they'll gain something valuable. Break that promise, and you've lost them regardless of how impressive your methodology or results might be.

How it sets up your research question

The primary purpose of an introduction is providing readers with a clear understanding of your research question, alongside the scope, rationale, aims, and objectives of your study. Many experienced writers describe this as a "funnel shape" structure that begins broadly with the bigger picture before following logical steps that narrow toward your specific research focus.

I structure my introductions following this logical progression:

1. Present the topic and establish its importance
2. Provide relevant background information
3. Review previous research to create context
4. Identify the knowledge gap that justifies your work
5. Clearly state your research question or hypothesis

This progression naturally guides readers toward your research question, which should evolve logically from the deficits or problems revealed in the existing literature. Your question should be precisely stated in one or two sentences, including all variables studied when applicable.

The key is making each step feel inevitable. When readers reach your research question, they should think, "Of course that's what needs to be studied next." If they're surprised by your research question, you haven't built your argument effectively.

Common mistakes to avoid in introductions

After reading hundreds of manuscript introductions, I've identified patterns that consistently lead to rejection. The most common mistake is excessive length - many authors produce introductions that are simply too long. While there's no rigid limit, a good rule of thumb is keeping your introduction to approximately 10% of your manuscript's total word count.

Another frequent error involves lack of coherence. Authors often try to address multiple research questions without maintaining a clear focus. Additionally, many writers include too many references, which suggests to qualified readers that your study contributes little new knowledge.

I see this problem regularly: authors cite everything remotely related to their topic rather than focusing on the most relevant work. This approach dilutes your argument and makes it harder for readers to follow your logic.

Stylistically, avoid using author names as sentence subjects. This outdated approach places emphasis on the researcher rather than the evidence itself. For instance, instead of writing "Smith et al. found that anxiety increases during exams," write "Anxiety increases during exams [citation]." This shift highlights the information rather than its source.

Finally, many authors begin with overly general statements or funnel introductions that start too broadly. Instead, aim for a focused opening that clearly positions your work within your specific field while still making it accessible to readers who may not share your exact expertise.

The most successful introductions I've written start with a specific, compelling statement about the research problem rather than broad generalizations about the field. This approach immediately signals to readers that you understand your contribution and can articulate it clearly.

Building a Strong Background Section

After you understand how introductions work, the next challenge is constructing a background section that actually serves your research. I've seen many manuscripts fail because authors treated the background as a place to dump everything they know about their topic. That approach doesn't work.

The background section needs to do specific work for your paper. It should establish why your research problem matters, define what you're studying, and show how your work fits with existing knowledge. Think of it as building a case for your research question rather than writing a general review of your field.

1. The importance paragraph

Start with what I call the importance paragraph. This opening section answers a simple question: why should anyone care about your research problem? When I first started writing papers, I would begin with broad statements about how my topic was "important" or "widely studied." My co-authors would ask me to be more specific about what the actual problem was.

The importance paragraph should accomplish several things:

1. Present a clear overview of your research topic
2. Establish its significance within your field
3. Highlight why the problem warrants investigation
4. Provide enough context for readers unfamiliar with your topic

This paragraph isn't the place for nuanced discussions or detailed explanations. You're making a direct case for why readers should invest their time in your research question. Be clear and compelling, but don't try to cover everything here.

2. Background on your constructs

The next section requires you to explain the key constructs you're studying. Research constructs represent abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured—such as intelligence, motivation, or job satisfaction. Unlike variables that are directly measurable (like age or weight), constructs must be inferred through other measurable indicators.

This is where precision becomes crucial. If you're studying "quality of life," acknowledge that this construct encompasses multiple dimensions including physical health, emotional stability, social relationships, and economic status. Readers need to understand exactly what phenomena you're examining, not just the general topic area.

For each construct, explain:

• Its conceptual definition and boundaries
• How it relates to other concepts in your field
• How it will be operationalized in your study

I learned this the hard way when reviewers questioned whether my operational definitions matched my theoretical concepts. Taking time to clearly define your constructs prevents this confusion and demonstrates your understanding of what you're actually measuring.

3. Previous similar studies

This section focuses on relevant literature that directly informs your research question. Unlike a comprehensive literature review, this background component targets studies that:

• Used similar methodologies to yours
• Investigated the same or related constructs
• Produced findings directly relevant to your research question

The goal isn't listing every study you've read, but analyzing the most relevant ones to identify patterns, conflicts, or gaps. This analysis creates the foundation for justifying your study's unique contribution.

I've found that organizing this section chronologically or by research approach helps readers follow the development of knowledge in your area. Focus on what each study contributed and how the findings relate to your research question.

How to transition from background to rationale

The final component creates a bridge to your research rationale. This transition paragraph should synthesize what previous studies have accomplished while highlighting what remains unknown—the gap your research addresses.

This transition should flow logically from your literature summary to a clear statement of the problem that prompted your study. Help readers understand not just what previous research accomplished, but what it collectively missed.

For example: "Despite these valuable contributions, previous research has not examined [your specific contribution]." This statement sets up the perfect segue into your rationale section, where you'll explain precisely why filling this gap matters.

The key is connecting your literature review to your research question in a way that makes your study seem like the logical next step. When done well, readers should feel that your research question emerges naturally from what came before.

Crafting a Clear Research Aim and Rationale

Having established your background, you face what I consider the most critical challenge in writing journal articles: defining exactly what your study aims to accomplish. I struggled with this for years, producing research questions that seemed clear to me but left reviewers confused about my actual contribution.

During my second year as a PhD student, I submitted a manuscript where I thought I had crafted a brilliant research question. My supervisor's response was blunt: "I can't tell what you're actually trying to find out." This feedback stung, but it taught me that research aims must be precise enough that any reader can understand both what you're investigating and why it matters.

Stating your research question or hypothesis

The research question forms the backbone of your entire article. Without a clear question, everything else falls apart. When formulating a hypothesis, ensure it's grounded in previous evidence-based reports rather than mere speculation, as hypotheses without justification aren't received favorably by the scientific community.

The most effective research questions emerge after thorough literature review that identifies knowledge gaps in your field. Once you've found a question or problem that needs addressing, develop a possible answer or explanation, which becomes your hypothesis.

I learned this the hard way when I proposed a study based on what I thought was an interesting idea, only to discover during peer review that similar work had already been done extensively. The reviewers questioned why I hadn't cited the relevant literature that directly addressed my supposed "gap."

Strong research questions and hypotheses typically:

• Are testable using available methods and technologies
• Connect directly to your literature review findings
• Address specific variables with clear definitions
• Predict relationships between variables
• Fill identified gaps in existing knowledge

Remember that hypotheses can take various formats depending on your study design. You might use an if/then structure when exploring correlations, a when/then format for examining connections between variables, or a direct statement for more complex relationships.

Explaining the gap your study fills

Identifying the research gap was initially my biggest weakness. I would write lengthy introductions that surveyed the literature but failed to pinpoint exactly what was missing. A research gap represents an area within your field that lacks sufficient investigation, understanding, or conclusive evidence. It might emerge from unanswered questions, unexplored topics, or conflicting findings that create opportunities for further exploration.

The identification of research gaps is essential to evidence-based research practice. By explicitly stating where the evidence falls short and how it falls short, you inform readers, policymakers, and funders about questions that need addressing and the types of studies needed.

Research gaps typically fall into several categories:

• Theoretical gaps where existing theories inadequately explain phenomena
• Empirical gaps with limited evidence supporting claims
• Methodological gaps where current approaches are inadequate
• Population gaps where certain groups remain understudied

The key insight I gained is that you must be specific about what type of gap you're addressing. Vague statements like "more research is needed" won't convince reviewers. Instead, explain precisely what aspect of the problem remains unexplored and why addressing it will advance knowledge.

Linking your aim to the rest of the article

Your research aim should function as the golden thread that weaves throughout your entire manuscript. It defines the focus and scope of your research project, helping to ringfence your work to a relatively narrow domain where you can explore deeply.

Throughout your article, this aim serves as a litmus test for relevance. Whenever uncertain whether to include specific information, simply ask: "Does this contribute toward my research aims, objectives or questions?"

The methods section, particularly, should directly reflect your research question. In poorly designed studies, the research methods often don't properly match the research objectives, resulting in data that fails to address the stated aims. Therefore, having clear understanding of your project's research objectives paves the way for critical decisions about designing and conducting your study.

I've seen countless manuscripts where the research question asked one thing but the methods measured something entirely different. This disconnect signals to reviewers that the authors haven't thought clearly about their study design. Make sure your methods can actually answer the question you're asking.

By carefully crafting research aims that connect to identified gaps and ensuring these aims guide your methodology choices, you create a coherent narrative that strengthens your entire manuscript.

Structuring the Methods Section Effectively

The methods section functions as the blueprint that allows others to understand and replicate your work. I've found that a well-structured methods section not only builds credibility but also demonstrates your attention to scientific rigor. Here's how I organize this critical component.

1. Participants: number and key characteristics

Start with your study population and be specific about the details. Include age, gender, ethnicity, and other characteristics that relate directly to your research question. Report your exact sample size rather than approximations. Don't forget to describe participants' health status - whether they were healthy volunteers or individuals with specific conditions.

I've learned that reviewers pay close attention to participant descriptions because they want to understand who your findings apply to. The more precise you are here, the stronger your external validity argument becomes.

2. Recruitment approach and inclusion criteria

Next, describe your sampling procedure - whether you used convenience, random, or stratified sampling. Detail both inclusion criteria (the key features of your target population) and exclusion criteria (characteristics that would interfere with your study). These criteria determine the external validity of your results and indicate how widely your findings can be generalized.

3. Contact frequency and data collection timeline

Specify all relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection. Outline when and how often participants were contacted, as well as where interactions took place - hospital settings, homes, or virtual environments.

This section often gets overlooked, but it's crucial for reproducibility. Reviewers want to know not just what you did, but when and how often you did it.

4. Study procedures and their sequence

Describe all procedures chronologically, detailing what participants did and how data was collected. Clarify the order of steps and explain how you maintained consistency across different data collection points. This thorough explanation is vital for reproducibility and validity regardless of study design.

5. Interventions or experimental manipulations

If applicable, clearly define any interventions implemented, including their components, delivery method, and theoretical basis. For experimental designs, explain randomization procedures and how participants were assigned to different conditions.

6. Measurement of each construct with reliability and validity

Finally, describe all instruments used to measure your constructs, reporting both reliability (consistency of measurement) and validity (accuracy of measurement). Reliability encompasses test-retest, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability. Meanwhile, validity includes face, content, construct, and criterion validity. This information helps readers evaluate the quality of your measurements and, by extension, your findings.

The key is providing enough detail that another researcher could repeat your study and obtain similar results. This transparency strengthens your work and builds trust with reviewers and readers.

Tips for Writing a Transparent and Reproducible Methods Section

Writing a clear methods section that others can follow requires more than just describing what you did. The replicability through its accuracy, specificity, and completeness of your methods section directly affects whether other researchers can build on your work.

Using your lab notebook as a guide

Your lab notebook should be your best friend when writing the methods section. I learned this lesson the hard way during my first attempts at publication. I would finish an experiment, put away my notes, and then months later struggle to remember the exact procedures when writing my manuscript. My co-authors would ask questions like "What concentration did you use?" or "How long did you wait between steps?" and I would find myself scrambling through old notes trying to piece together what I had actually done.

A well-maintained lab notebook provides the ideal foundation for your methods section. Now, I transform my detailed records into publishable content by extracting essential information that allows others to replicate my work. Your notebook should document everything—including mistakes and unexpected outcomes. I focus on recording dates, titles, hypotheses, procedures, observations, and analyses for each experiment.

The key test for your lab notebook is straightforward: could someone with similar technical background use it to repeat your work and obtain the same results? This same standard applies to your methods section. I make sure to record specific details about reagents (source, catalog number, storage conditions) and instruments (type, location, serial number) because these details help explain potential anomalies.

Following a model article structure

One of the most helpful strategies I've discovered is studying published articles in your target journal. Earlier, I outlined the core components of an effective methods section. Now, you need to identify articles similar to yours and analyze how they present these elements. This approach helps ensure your section meets journal expectations while providing necessary detail for reproducibility.

Academic journals specifically require methods sections to include sufficient technical information to allow experiments to be repeated. This typically involves clearly describing your study design, materials, step-by-step methods, and data analysis procedures.

Avoiding redundancy and vague descriptions

Clear scientific writing means choosing words deliberately and precisely. Many manuscripts suffer from redundancy—unnecessary words or phrases that add no value. When I edit my own work, I carefully remove:

• Repetitive phrasing ("close proximity," "end result")
• Unnecessarily complex constructions
• Vague pronouns (replacing "this" or "it" with specific nouns)
• Nominalizations (using verbs instead of nouns)

The goal is to write a transparent methodology where someone unconnected to your research could repeat your procedures based solely on your explanation. This level of clarity demonstrates confidence in your research and substantially enhances your manuscript's publication chances.

Conclusion

Congratulations. You made it through an overview of how to write effective introductions and methods sections. I hope you now have a clearer sense of how to approach these crucial components of your journal articles.

When I look back at my early attempts at writing for publication, I realize how much time I wasted because I didn't understand the basic structure these sections needed. I would write introductions that wandered without purpose or methods sections that left out critical details. My co-authors would send back drafts covered in questions and suggestions, and I'd feel frustrated that what seemed clear to me was confusing to them.

The approach I've shared here - breaking the writing process into specific, manageable pieces - has made all the difference in my own work. Instead of staring at a blank page wondering where to start, I now have a systematic way to build each section. The importance paragraph gives me a clear opening. The background on constructs helps me explain what I'm actually studying. The research gap naturally leads to my specific question.

For the methods section, having a clear structure prevents me from forgetting important details. I know I need to cover participants, procedures, and measurements in a way that someone else could replicate my work. This systematic approach has eliminated most of the back-and-forth with co-authors that used to slow down my writing process.

The most important thing I've learned is that good scientific writing comes from having a clear plan, not from having perfect first drafts. When you know what each section needs to accomplish, the actual writing becomes much more straightforward. You're not trying to figure out what to say and how to say it at the same time.

I hope these strategies help you feel more confident about tackling your own journal articles. The process will still require effort and revision, but having a clear structure makes it much more manageable. Your research deserves to be shared with the scientific community, and these techniques can help you present it in a way that engages readers and contributes to your field.