Writing a Background for a Research Paper: What Goes In

The background of a research paper is the context a reader needs before your question makes sense: the nature of the problem, why it matters, and what is already known about it. In most journal articles it is not a separate section. It is the opening of the Introduction, and it ends where your specific aim begins. This guide covers what belongs in it, the order that works, an annotated example, the usual mistakes and a checklist you can run on your own draft.

Searchers use several phrasings for the same thing: research background, background of research, background in research, what is a background research. They all point at the same job, set out below.

Purpose of the section: what is background in research?

What is a research background?

A research background is the part of a paper or proposal that puts the work in context. The ICMJE Recommendations, which many biomedical journals follow, say the Introduction should “provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance)” and then “state the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation”. Background comes first, purpose last.

Is background a separate section or part of the Introduction?

In an IMRAD article (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) it sits inside the Introduction. PLOS ONE, for example, lists background among the requirements of its Introduction rather than as a separate heading. Its guidelines ask the Introduction to “provide background that puts the manuscript into context”, define the problem and why it is important, include a brief review of the key literature, note relevant controversies or disagreements in the field, and conclude with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work, followed by a comment on whether that aim was achieved. If a funder, university or journal template does give you a heading called Background, follow that template and apply the same logic inside it. For the wider Introduction, see how to write the Introduction section.

How is background different from rationale and objectives?

Background tells the reader what is known and why the problem matters. The rationale argues why this study is the next step; CASRAI covers that in the rationale of a study. The objective or hypothesis states exactly what you will do or test. They sit next to each other in the Introduction, but they do different work, and a background that tries to do all three usually becomes long and vague.

Structure of a background, step by step

The five requirements PLOS ONE lists for an Introduction make a workable order for the background itself:

1. Open with the problem and its significance. One or two sentences that tell a reader outside your subfield what the problem is and why anyone should care (ICMJE: “the nature of the problem and its significance”).
2. Summarise the key literature briefly. Cover only what the reader needs to follow your question. ICMJE asks you to cite only directly pertinent references.
3. Note controversies or disagreements. If findings conflict or the field is split, say so here, because that is often where your question comes from.
4. Narrow to what is unresolved. State what the existing work leaves open. This is the bridge to your study. If you want to build this argument in more detail, the rationale guide above walks through it.
5. Close with your aim. End with the purpose, objective or hypothesis (PLOS: “a brief statement of the overall aim of the work”). Everything above it should lead the reader to this sentence.

Write general to specific, and keep it proportionate: a background is the minimum needed to make the question understandable, not a full review. For longer syntheses, a literature review template is the right tool, and in a proposal the same logic carries into the opening of a research proposal.

A short annotated example

Illustrative example written by CASRAI, not taken from a real paper. The topic and wording are invented to show the structure; it contains no real findings.

[1] Hospital staff often record patient handovers by hand, and the quality of those records affects how well the next shift can act on them. [2] Earlier work has described several handover formats and compared them mainly on how long they take. [3] Studies disagree on whether a structured format improves what the receiving nurse remembers, with some reporting benefit and others none. [4] Few studies have asked the receiving staff themselves what they find missing from a written handover. [5] This study therefore asks what information nurses report as missing from written handovers on general wards.

• [1] Problem and significance, in terms an outsider can follow.
• [2] Brief summary of existing work, with no detail the question does not need.
• [3] The controversy, named plainly.
• [4] What remains unresolved, which is the gap.
• [5] The aim, in one sentence, and it contains no results.

In a real paper each statement in [2] and [3] would carry a citation to the work it describes.

Common mistakes

• Reporting your own data or conclusions. ICMJE says not to include data or conclusions from the work being reported. Those belong in Results and Discussion.
• Citing everything you have read. ICMJE asks for directly pertinent references only. A long list of loosely related citations hides the argument.
• Skipping the significance. A background that only lists earlier studies never says why the problem matters (PLOS: “why it is important”).
• Writing only for specialists. The opening should give background that allows readers outside the field to understand the work (PLOS), not assume the reader already works in your niche.
• Hiding disagreement. If the literature conflicts, PLOS asks authors to note it. Presenting a field as settled when it is not weakens the case for your study.
• Ending without an aim. If the section stops at the gap, the reader has to guess what you did about it. Finish with the purpose, objective or hypothesis.
• Turning it into a literature review. A brief review of key literature is what is asked for; a full survey is a separate document.

Checklist

• Does the opening say what the problem is and why it matters?
• Would someone outside your subfield follow it?
• Does every citation support a point the reader needs?
• Have you noted any real controversy or disagreement?
• Is it clear what existing work leaves unresolved?
• Is there no data or conclusion from your own study in it?
• Does it end with your purpose, objective or hypothesis?
• Does it match the heading and length rules of your target journal, funder or institution?

Frequently asked questions

What is a background research section?

It is the context-setting part of a paper or proposal: the problem, its significance and the key prior work. In an IMRAD paper it is the opening of the Introduction rather than a standalone section.

What is the background of research versus the introduction?

The background is the first job of the Introduction. The Introduction as a whole also states the purpose, objective or hypothesis (ICMJE), so it is wider than the background alone.

What is background in a research paper if the journal has no Background heading?

Write it as the opening paragraphs of the Introduction. PLOS ONE, for instance, expects background inside the Introduction rather than under a separate heading.

How long should a background be?

PLOS ONE asks for a brief review of the key literature and ICMJE for directly pertinent references only, so keep it to what the reader needs to understand the question. Check the author instructions of your target journal or funder for any specific length limit.

Does the background need citations?

Yes, for the prior work and the claims about the field it describes. ICMJE asks for directly pertinent references only.

What is the difference between background and rationale?

Background describes what is known and why the problem matters; the rationale argues why your study is the logical next step. See the rationale of a study. The abstract often compresses both; see the abstract entry and parts of a research paper.

Sources

• ICMJE, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, “Preparing for Submission”: icmje.org (checked 2026-10-29).
• PLOS ONE, Submission Guidelines, Introduction requirements: journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines (checked 2026-10-29).