How to Write a Research Paper in English

For Korean graduate students and junior faculty preparing to publish in international peer-reviewed journals, writing a research paper in English is one of the most consequential and most challenging tasks in an academic career. The challenge is not primarily one of English vocabulary or grammar — most Korean researchers at the graduate level have sufficient English to communicate their ideas. The challenge is structural: international journals expect research papers to follow specific organizational conventions, section-by-section language patterns, and rhetorical moves that are different from those expected in Korean-language academic writing.

This guide explains how to write a research paper in English for international journal submission, section by section, with attention to the conventions that Korean researchers most commonly get wrong and the language patterns that experienced journal reviewers and editors expect to see.

Before You Write: Understand the IMRaD Structure

The overwhelming majority of empirical research papers published in international journals follow the IMRaD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Some journals add an abstract before the introduction and a conclusion after the discussion. Some combine results and discussion into a single section. But IMRaD is the baseline, and understanding why it exists makes the writing process considerably clearer.

IMRaD is not arbitrary. Each section answers a specific question:

• Introduction: What did you study, and why does it matter?
• Methods: How did you study it?
• Results: What did you find?
• Discussion: What does it mean?

A reader who picks up your paper should be able to identify the answer to each of these questions within the appropriate section. When those answers appear in the wrong section — introduction material in the discussion, results material in the methods — reviewers notice immediately and flag it as a structural problem.

Before writing any section, confirm the specific structure your target journal requires. Read the Instructions for Authors carefully and look at recently published papers in that journal to understand how they are organized. Different journals, and different disciplines, have specific conventions that override general IMRaD guidance.

Step 1: Choose Your Journal Before You Write

One of the most common mistakes Korean junior researchers make is writing the paper first and then deciding where to submit it. This approach often produces a paper that does not fit any journal's scope, format, or audience particularly well.

Choose your target journal before you begin writing, and write the paper for that journal's specific audience, format, and conventions. The decisions you make about how much background to provide, how to present your methodology, and how to frame your contribution should all be made with a specific reader and a specific editorial standard in mind.

When evaluating potential journals, consider:

• Scope alignment. Does your research topic, methodology, and disciplinary framing fit within the journal's stated aims and scope? Read the aims and scope page carefully, not just the journal's name.
• Recent publications. Browse issues from the past two to three years. Have papers similar to yours in topic, methodology, and contribution been published there? If your paper is the first of its kind for a given journal, that is either an opportunity or a mismatch — you need to judge which.
• Impact factor and selectivity. Be realistic about where your paper sits. Submitting a solid, well-executed study to a journal that primarily publishes landmark research results in a desk rejection that wastes months of time.
• Turnaround time. Check how long the journal typically takes to return an initial decision. This varies from weeks to many months and has real implications for early-career researchers with publication timelines tied to degree completion or promotion.
• Language editing requirements. Many international journals require or strongly recommend that manuscripts be reviewed by a native English speaker before submission, particularly for authors whose first language is not English. Some journals state this explicitly in the submission guidelines.

Step 2: Write the Methods Section First

Most experienced researchers advise writing the methods section before any other section of the paper, and for good reason. The methods section describes what you actually did — it is the most objective section of the paper and the one you know most thoroughly because you conducted the research yourself. Writing it first grounds the rest of the paper in factual detail and prevents you from accidentally misrepresenting your methodology later.

The methods section must contain enough detail for a reader in your field to evaluate the soundness of your approach and, in principle, to replicate your study. That means including:

• Study design. What type of study is this? Experimental, observational, qualitative, survey-based, systematic review? State this explicitly.
• Data source or participants. Where did your data come from? If you used human participants, describe your sample: how many, how they were recruited, key demographic characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Measures and instruments. What did you measure and how? If you used an established instrument, cite the source. If you developed your own measure, describe it in sufficient detail.
• Procedure. What happened, in what order? Describe the sequence of events from data collection through analysis.
• Statistical or analytical approach. Name your analytical method specifically. "Statistical analysis was performed" is not sufficient. "Logistic regression with repeated-imputation inference techniques was used to analyze..." is the level of specificity international journals require.
• Ethical approval. If your research involved human participants, state your ethical approval and informed consent procedures. Most international journals require this.

The entire methods section is written in past tense. You are describing what you did, not what you plan to do or what is generally done.

Step 3: Write the Results Section

The results section presents your findings without interpretation. This distinction — between reporting and interpreting — is one that Korean researchers find particularly challenging because Korean academic writing often integrates findings and their significance more fluidly than English-language journals permit.

International journals are strict about this separation. Results belong in the results section. What they mean belongs in the discussion. Mixing the two is one of the most common structural errors flagged by peer reviewers, and it is a significant reason papers are returned for major revision before peer review is even complete.

Organize your results in the same order as your research questions or hypotheses, as introduced in the methods section. Present primary findings first, secondary findings after. For each finding:

• State the result clearly and specifically — never vaguely
• Provide the relevant statistical evidence or qualitative evidence supporting it
• Reference any table or figure that presents the data visually
• Report negative and null findings honestly — omitting them is a form of reporting bias

For a detailed guide to the results section with section-specific language examples and step-by-step instructions, read our article on how to write the results section of a research paper.

Step 4: Write the Discussion Section

The discussion section is where you interpret your findings, explain their significance, connect them to the existing literature, and address their limitations. It is the section that most directly demonstrates your scholarly judgment and your command of your field. It is also the section that Korean researchers most commonly write too briefly, too modestly, or too descriptively — simply restating results rather than interpreting them.

A well-structured discussion section moves through four stages:

Stage 1: Restate Your Main Findings

Open the discussion by briefly restating your most important findings — but do not simply copy sentences from the results section. Rephrase them in a way that sets up your interpretation. "The results revealed that income uncertainty had opposite effects on risk tolerance for men and women" becomes "The finding that income uncertainty affects men and women in opposite directions suggests a more complex relationship than previous research has assumed."

Stage 2: Interpret What the Findings Mean

For each major finding, explain what it means in the context of your field. Why is it significant? Does it confirm, challenge, or extend existing theory? Does it resolve a gap in the literature that you identified in your introduction? This is the central intellectual contribution of your discussion, and it requires you to engage substantively with the prior work you cited.

Stage 3: Address Limitations Honestly

Every study has limitations, and international journals expect you to identify them clearly and address them directly. This is not a weakness in your paper — it is a sign of intellectual honesty and methodological awareness. Common limitations to address include sample size, sample representativeness, measurement validity, and the generalizability of your findings to other populations or contexts.

A common mistake in Korean-authored discussions is either omitting limitations entirely or treating them so briefly that reviewers conclude the authors are not aware of them. Address your limitations with the same specificity you applied to your methodology.

Stage 4: State Implications and Future Directions

End the discussion by answering the "so what?" question. What do your findings mean for practice, policy, or future research? Be specific. "Future research should investigate this topic further" is not an implication — it is a placeholder. "Future research should examine whether income uncertainty moderates the relationship between gender and risk tolerance in samples from countries with different social safety net structures" is a specific and useful direction.

Step 5: Write the Introduction Last

Write the introduction after you have written the methods, results, and discussion. Many researchers write it first, which leads to introductions that don't accurately predict what the paper delivers, or that set up questions the paper doesn't fully answer. Once you know exactly what you found and how you interpreted it, you can write an introduction that sets up precisely what follows.

The introduction of an international research paper follows a recognizable three-move structure, sometimes called the CARS model (Create a Research Space), developed by linguist John Swales:

• Move 1: Establish the research territory. What is the broader field or topic? Why does it matter? What is the current state of knowledge? This move uses present tense for established facts and past tense for specific prior studies.
• Move 2: Identify the gap. What is not yet known? What has previous research failed to address, examine, or resolve? This is the justification for your study. State the gap explicitly — do not expect the reader to infer it from your literature review.
• Move 3: Announce the study. State your research purpose, question, or hypothesis. Describe what you did and what contribution you make. This move transitions the reader from the gap to your study.

Korean academic writing often spends considerable space on Move 1 and treats Move 2 implicitly rather than explicitly. International journals expect Move 2 to be stated clearly: "However, no previous study has examined..." or "A gap remains in our understanding of how..." The gap statement is what justifies the existence of your paper, and reviewers look for it directly.

Step 6: Write the Abstract

Write the abstract last, after all other sections are complete. An abstract written before the paper is finished will not accurately represent what the paper actually contains — a common problem in Korean research manuscripts that causes editors to question whether the author has a clear understanding of their own contribution.

A journal abstract typically contains six elements in 150 to 300 words: background context (one to two sentences), research purpose (one sentence), methodology (two to three sentences), main results (two to three sentences), conclusion and implications (one to two sentences), and keywords. Every word counts. There is no room for filler, vague language, or sentences that do not advance the reader's understanding of the study. For a full step-by-step guide to journal abstracts, see our article on how to write an abstract for an international journal.

Tense Conventions by Section

Incorrect tense is one of the most consistent language errors in Korean-authored English research papers, and it is noticed immediately by experienced editors and reviewers. The conventions are specific:

Language Patterns That Signal Expertise

International journal reviewers read hundreds of manuscripts. They recognize within the first few paragraphs whether the writing meets the standards of their field. Here are the language patterns that experienced reviewers associate with well-prepared manuscripts:

Active vs. Passive Voice

The convention varies by discipline and journal. Many science journals now prefer active voice ("We conducted a survey of...") because it is clearer and more direct. Many social science journals still use passive voice in the methods section ("Data were collected from..."). Check your target journal's recent publications to see what is standard. Do not assume passive voice is always more formal or more appropriate — in many contexts it is simply weaker.

Hedging Language

Academic English uses hedging language to qualify claims appropriately — to signal that findings are probabilistic rather than certain, and to avoid overstating conclusions. Common hedges include "suggest," "indicate," "appear to," "may," "tend to," and "is consistent with." Using hedging language correctly signals disciplinary sophistication. Avoiding it entirely, or using it inconsistently, are both signs of writing that has not been calibrated to academic register.

Too strong: "These results prove that gender causes differences in risk tolerance."
Appropriately hedged: "These results suggest that gender differences in risk tolerance may be driven by differences in income uncertainty and net worth rather than by gender itself."

Signposting Language

Signposting language guides the reader through the paper by signaling what is coming next, what has just been established, and how sections relate to each other. Examples include: "This section presents...", "As noted in the introduction...", "Building on these findings...", "In contrast to the hypothesis...", "Taken together, these results suggest..."

Korean academic writing tends to use less explicit signposting than English academic writing. International journals expect the reader to be guided explicitly, not left to infer the structure from the content alone.

Common Structural Mistakes in Korean-Authored English Research Papers

The following errors appear consistently in English research papers written by Korean researchers and are among the most frequently cited reasons for desk rejection and major revision requests:

• Overly long introductions. Korean academic rhetoric tends to build context extensively before arriving at the research question. International journals expect the gap statement and research purpose to appear early in the introduction — not after several pages of background.
• Implicit rather than explicit gap statements. The justification for the study must be stated explicitly: "No previous study has examined..." or "A gap remains in our understanding of..." International reviewers look for this sentence directly.
• Discussion sections that summarize rather than interpret. Restating your results in the discussion section without interpreting them is the most common discussion-section error. Reviewers expect analysis and judgment, not repetition.
• Mixing results and discussion. Presenting interpretation in the results section, or presenting raw data in the discussion, is a structural error that signals unfamiliarity with international journal conventions.
• Limitations described too briefly or not at all. Omitting limitations, or listing them in a single vague sentence, suggests to reviewers that the authors are not aware of them.
• Conclusions that are too broad or too modest. Korean academic culture values modesty, which sometimes produces conclusions that understate the significance of findings. International journals expect authors to clearly articulate the contribution and implications of their work.

For the language-level errors that accompany these structural problems — including article errors, tense inconsistencies, subject omission, and preposition errors — read our detailed guide on common English writing mistakes Korean speakers make.

After Submission: What to Expect and How to Respond

Submitting a manuscript to an international journal begins a process that most Korean researchers are not fully prepared for. Here is what typically happens:

• Desk review. The editor reads the manuscript and decides whether to send it to peer reviewers. Desk rejection rates at top journals are high — often 50 to 70%. If your manuscript is desk rejected, read the editor's letter carefully. Desk rejection almost always signals a scope or fit problem rather than a fundamental flaw in the research.
• Peer review. If the manuscript passes desk review, it is sent to two to four peer reviewers in your field. The review process typically takes two to six months. Reviewers may recommend acceptance (rare on first submission), major revision, minor revision, or rejection.
• Revision and response. If you receive a request for major or minor revision, this is a positive outcome — it means the editor believes the paper can be published with changes. Address every reviewer comment systematically. Write a detailed response letter that explains exactly what you changed, where in the manuscript the change appears, and why. Never ignore a reviewer comment, even one you disagree with.
• Rejection after review. If the paper is rejected after review, do not discard it. Read the reviewer feedback carefully, use it to strengthen the manuscript, and resubmit to a more appropriate journal.

Rejection is normal at every stage of an academic career. Nature and Science reject more than 95% of submissions. Even well-designed, rigorously conducted studies are regularly rejected on first submission before eventually being accepted at strong journals. For a complete guide to reading reviewer feedback, revising effectively, and making strategic resubmission decisions, read our article on what to do after journal rejection.

A Note on Writing Order

The order in which you write the sections of a research paper is not the order in which they appear in the finished paper. Most experienced researchers write in this sequence:

1. Methods — write first, while the details of your procedure are freshest
2. Results — write from your completed analysis
3. Discussion — write once you know exactly what your results show
4. Introduction — write once you know what you found and what it means
5. Abstract — write last, as a summary of the completed paper
6. Title — finalize last, to accurately reflect the paper's actual contribution

Writing in this order prevents the most common structural problems — introductions that promise what the paper doesn't deliver, abstracts that don't match the results, and discussions that interpret findings differently from how they were presented.

Professional English Editing for Korean Researchers

A research paper that is methodologically strong but written in English that does not meet international journal standards faces a significant disadvantage in peer review. Editors and reviewers notice language quality in the abstract, in the first paragraph of the introduction, and in the precision of the methods and results sections. A manuscript with consistent article errors, tense inconsistencies, or unclear sentence construction gives reviewers an additional reason to be skeptical, even when the underlying research is sound.

This is not a reflection of insufficient effort or insufficient English ability. It is a predictable consequence of writing across two of the world's most structurally different language pairs, as explained in our guide on common English writing mistakes Korean speakers make. The most effective solution is professional native English editing by an editor who understands both the language requirements of international journals and the conventions of academic publishing in your field.

Editor World's academic editing services connect Korean researchers with native English editors who hold advanced degrees and have extensive experience preparing manuscripts for international peer-reviewed journals. Every editor has passed a rigorous credentials review. No AI tools are used at any stage — your manuscript is reviewed entirely by a qualified human editor. Editor World provides a certificate of editing confirming that your manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker, accepted by many international journals as confirmation of English language quality at submission. You choose your own editor from verified profiles by subject expertise and client ratings. Turnaround times start at 2 hours, available 24/7. Use the instant price calculator to get an exact quote, or browse available editors to find the right match for your manuscript.