The IMRaD paper asked us to go through the whole scientific process with the ultimate goal of producing a scientific article with the standard format of introduction, methodology, results, and discussion. We began by analyzing the structure of published IMRaD journal articles to develop an understanding of the form, including the purpose of each section, the type of language used, and the overall tone. After getting a sense of the structure, we came up with an initial research question and then investigated the current state of knowledge in that area through peer-reviewed articles and other sources. We then had to conduct primary research to further investigate the question. After the primary research data was gathered, we analyzed it and incorporated everything into a scientific paper with the IMRaD structure. Additionally, we participated in peer review with a classmate and then presented our findings in an oral presentation to the class. Overall, this was an in-depth exploration of what is arguably the most important form of writing for budding scientists, and I thought that actually doing primary research on which we based our IMRaD was the most effective way possible to develop a deep understanding of what goes into this genre.
While the peer review process for the op-ed response paper was certainly useful, the peer review experience for this paper was even more effective in making the final product better. I thought that answering the specific questions on the peer review form made for very focused reviews. During my own review of a classmate’s paper, thinking critically about her paper not only felt helpful in improving her work, but also made me more critical of my own paper. Her review of my IMRaD paper made the revision process between the first draft and the final draft so much easier and more effective than it would have been if I had just tried to improve it on my own. Before, with my fixed mindset, I would have been mortified to have someone read my writing with the express purpose of pointing out weaknesses to fix. While such an activity is still not easy for me, I now completely recognize the value of having that second pair of eyes looking for potential improvements. When trying to consider your audience during the writing process, the best way to see if you’re effectively reaching that audience is to have one of those people read your paper and see what they think. Perhaps the biggest outcome for me going forward is that I plan to have someone else read all of my important writing, even if it’s not something that would generally be peer reviewed.
After completing this herculean (or Pasteurian?) task, I recognize the huge amount of work that goes into writing a peer-reviewed scientific article and will have even more respect now for the journal articles I read in the future. I have also learned that even in the well-defined form of IMRaD, the writing process is most definitely still a creative act.
