How To Write An Effective Introduction Section for Your Manuscript

For many authors, the Introduction is the hardest section to write. You know the context and significance of your study but translating that into a clear opening can be difficult. Not only do you have to introduce what you did but also explain why in a way that will keep the readers going. The Introduction section is important: editors and peer reviewers meet your work for the first time here, and their first question is simple: Why should I keep reading?

So, your introduction needs to be strong. It should help readers understand the context and purpose of your study in a clear and logical manner. Here’re a few tips to help you write an impactful Introduction section that will make a great first impression.

1. Clearly set the research context

Your opening paragraphs should answer one question for the reader: What does this study cover and why does that matter? This is not the place to summarize every study ever published on the topic. Instead, describe your research and why you chose to pursue your line of questioning. Briefly establish what is already known and why the topic continues to be relevant. From a peer reviewer’s perspective, strong Introductions show that the author understands the field. Remember that it is not about how much you share, but what you share without overwhelming the reader. Journals consistently advise authors to be selective and purposeful when preparing the Introduction section.

2. Identify the existing gap in the topic

Once the context is clear, guide the reader toward what is missing, uncertain, or underexplored in your area of study. This is where you could lose impact. Often, authors imply a gap without explicitly pointing it out or describe one that feels disconnected from the study itself. Peer reviewers look for alignment here and want to know how the contribution made by your study matters. The gap you identify should logically lead to your research question. Clear identification and articulation of the research gap can improve the perceived rigor and relevance during peer review. Ask yourself this: if a peer reviewer stopped reading my manuscript here, would they understand the problem my study is addressing?

3. State the purpose of your study

After the research gap has been pointed out, the purpose of the study should be included. This is where you tell the reader how your study aims to address the existing knowledge gap. Effective Introductions are explicit. Peer reviewers value clear purpose statements because they set expectations for the Methods and Results sections that follow.

4. Ensure that the Introduction smoothly connects with the next section

Within the IMRAD framework, the Introduction is meant to set the context for your research and seamlessly flow into the Methods section. Check whether the last paragraph/few sentences of your Introduction make the study design feel inevitable and trigger the question “how”. Journal editors and peer reviewers often comment when the Introduction section appears disconnected from the rest of the manuscript. Keeping IMRAD structure in mind while writing will help you maintain flow and coherence across sections.

5. Keep reviewer expectations in mind

Before submission, reread your Introduction from a peer reviewer’s perspective. Reviewers focus on clarity, coherence, and relevance. Poorly articulated research questions, lengthy background sections, and missing information about the study’s relevance can throw peer reviewers off. A simple strategy is to ask whether each paragraph in your introduction helps you clearly explains the context, gap, and purpose of your study.

6. Run a final clarity check before submission

A strong Introduction section relies on structure and coherence. It is not uncommon for reviewers and editors to recommend that authors revise the Introduction section for clarity in language, content, and flow. A haphazard structure and poor writing can distract reviewers from evaluating the research. Reading your Introduction out loud or sharing it with a colleague could help you identify areas that need improvement.