How to Write a Strong Introduction for a Top-Journal Paper

A practical framework for PhD students, built from real examples

academic writing
PhD advice

Most PhD students know their research better than anyone — but struggle to communicate why it matters. This post breaks down the anatomy of a top-journal introduction into 9 concrete steps, with skeleton sentences and a fully annotated real-world example.

Author

Bahman Rostami-Tabar

Published

March 16, 2026

“A good introduction does not summarise the paper. It builds the case that the paper needed to exist.”

Writing an introduction for a peer-reviewed journal article is one of the hardest things a PhD student has to learn — and almost nobody teaches it explicitly. Most of us learn by osmosis: reading dozens of papers and slowly internalising what “works,” without ever being able to articulate why.

This post makes that implicit knowledge explicit. I analysed four published introductions from top operations management journals — Decision Sciences, MSOM, JOM, and POM — and extracted the common structure underlying all of them. The result is a 9-step framework organised into three zones, complete with skeleton sentences you can adapt, and a fully annotated real-world example.

TipWho is this for?

This guide is aimed at PhD students writing their first journal paper, but it is equally useful for experienced researchers who want to sharpen their introductions before submission.

The Big Picture: Three Zones, Nine Steps

Before diving into individual steps, it helps to understand the macro-structure. Every strong introduction moves through three distinct zones:

Zone Purpose Steps
🟣 Motivation Convince the reader the topic matters 1 → 3
🟢 Positioning Show what gap this paper fills 4 → 5
🟡 Contribution Explain what this paper does and why it matters 6 → 9

The movement across zones follows a funnel logic: you start broad (the domain), narrow to a specific problem and tension, identify the gap, and zoom back out to the contribution. If your introduction feels flat, it is almost always because one of these zones is missing, underdeveloped, or out of order.

Here is the full 9-step sequence:

flowchart LR
    subgraph M["🟣 Zone 1 — Motivation"]
        direction TB
        S1["① Context & importance\nEstablish domain relevance\nwith quantified stakes"]
        S2["② Problem or tension\nIntroduce the friction,\ncost, or inefficiency"]
        S3["③ Non-triviality / paradox\nShow why the obvious\nsolution does not work"]
        S1 --> S2 --> S3
    end

    subgraph P["🟢 Zone 2 — Positioning"]
        direction TB
        S4["④ Literature positioning & gap\nWhat is known —\nand what is missing"]
        S5["⑤ Research question / objective\nState clearly what\nthis paper does"]
        S4 --> S5
    end

    subgraph C["🟡 Zone 3 — Contribution"]
        direction TB
        S6["⑥ Conceptual framing\nName and justify\nthe theoretical lens"]
        S7["⑦ Method overview\nSignal empirical\ncredibility"]
        S8["⑧ Key findings\nPreview results at direction\n+ mechanism level"]
        S9["⑨ Contributions & implications\nPosition value for\ntheory and practice"]
        S6 --> S7 --> S8 --> S9
    end

    M --> P --> C

    style M fill:#EEEDFE,stroke:#7F77DD,color:#3C3489
    style P fill:#E1F5EE,stroke:#1D9E75,color:#0F6E56
    style C fill:#FDF3E3,stroke:#BA7517,color:#5A3A08

Zone 1 — Motivation

The goal of this zone is simple: make the reader care. You are answering the question “why does this domain matter?” before you have even introduced the problem.

Step 1 — Context & Importance

Purpose: Open broadly with the domain’s scale and societal relevance. Quantify stakes immediately — numbers do the persuading, not adjectives.

This is your opening paragraph. Its only job is to make the reader care about the topic before you explain the problem. Think of it as answering: “Why should anyone — academic or practitioner — pay attention to this domain?”

The most effective technique is to anchor your opening in a concrete, memorable statistic. Numbers do the persuading; you do not need to write “this is an important topic.”

WarningCommon mistake

Starting with a vague claim like “Supply chains play an important role in modern society.” This tells the reader nothing specific and signals a weak introduction. Always anchor your opening in a real number, a real organisation, or a real observable trend.

Skeleton sentences

“[Domain] plays a critical role in [broader system], accounting for [statistic].”

“In [year], [X%] of [population] [did/experienced X] ([citation]).”

“[Domain] contributes to [stakeholder] by generating [benefit 1], [benefit 2], and [benefit 3].”

“Despite [challenging context], [organisation] reported [impressive metric], representing [X%] of [total].”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

In-kind donations constitute a substantial and economically significant portion of the supply flowing to charities and humanitarian organisations worldwide. In 2017 alone, 52% of Americans donated clothing, food, or other personal items to such organisations (Non Profit Source 2018). These donations contribute to charities’ triple bottom line: they generate additional revenue, advance social welfare, and reduce environmental waste by rechanneling used goods away from landfills (Montgomery and Mitchell 2014). In 2020, despite the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Salvation Army reported $598 million in revenue from 1,116 thrift stores across the United States — representing 18% of its total organisational revenue (Salvation Army 2021). Goodwill alone diverted 3.3 billion pounds of usable goods from landfills in the same year (Goodwill 2021).

Step 2 — Problem or Tension

Purpose: Introduce the friction. Contrast the positive picture of Step 1 with a concrete, costly problem.

After establishing the domain’s value, you reveal the complication. The classic pivot word is “However” — it signals a contrast and prepares the reader for bad news. The problem should be just as quantified as the hook in Step 1.

WarningCommon mistake

Writing “Charities face challenges” rather than “$1 million annually to dispose of 13 million pounds from just 30 stores.” When you name a specific organisation and a specific number, the problem becomes real and verifiable — not just an assertion.

Skeleton sentences

“However, not all [X] are [desirable outcome]. [Specific type] can neither [use 1] nor [use 2].”

“Instead, [problem] imposes significant [type of cost] on the very [stakeholder] it was meant to benefit.”

“[Organisation], for instance, spends [amount] annually on [problem activity] ([citation]).”

“While [X] offers clear benefits, it also creates [type of problem] that [who] must absorb.”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

However, not all donated goods are useful. Low-quality items — stained clothing, torn blankets, broken furniture — can neither be resold in thrift stores nor distributed to beneficiaries. Instead, these inappropriate donations impose significant operational costs on the very organisations they are intended to support. Goodwill Northern New England, for instance, spends over $1 million annually to dispose of 13 million pounds of unsuitable items from only 30 thrift stores (Bookman 2021). Scaling this figure to the more than 3,000 Goodwill stores and 25,000 nonprofit resale shops across the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2021) reveals a staggering systemic cost.

Step 3 — Non-Triviality / Paradox

Purpose: Show why the obvious solution does not work — and therefore why the paper is intellectually necessary.

ImportantThe most commonly missing step

This is the step most often absent from PhD student introductions — and the one that most separates good papers from great ones. A reviewer’s immediate instinct after Step 2 is: “Why can’t someone just fix this in the obvious way?” Step 3 answers that question.

Ask yourself: “What would a smart, experienced manager or policymaker try first — and why would that fail?” The answer to that question is your Step 3. Without it, your paper fills a gap nobody noticed. With it, your paper solves a puzzle that has stumped practitioners and academics alike.

Two to four sentences are sufficient. The key signal words are “yet”, “however”, or “but.”

Skeleton sentences

“This creates a striking paradox: [party A’s action] ends up harming [party B] they intended to help.”

“Yet [stakeholder] cannot simply [obvious solution], because doing so risks [unintended consequence].”

“Although one might expect [intuitive outcome], in practice [counterintuitive reality] ([citation]).”

“[Stakeholder] therefore faces a dilemma: [option A] imposes [cost A], but [option B] risks [cost B].”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

This creates a striking paradox: donors’ good intentions end up harming the organisations they intend to support. Yet charities find themselves unable to simply reject low-quality donations. Declining a goodwill offer risks damaging the donor relationship and discouraging future support — a serious concern given that recurring donors are estimated to give 440% more over their lifetime than one-time donors (Classy 2018). As Daniels and Valdés (2021) demonstrate, donors use rejection experiences as self-serving justification to disengage from future giving. In practice, therefore, charities face an uncomfortable dilemma: accepting inappropriate donations imposes direct operational costs, but refusing them may undermine long-term financial sustainability.

Zone 2 — Positioning

The goal of this zone is to show the reader exactly where your paper sits in the literature — and why that space has not been filled before.

Step 4 — Literature Positioning & Gap

Purpose: Show what is known, and then state precisely what is missing.

This step has two parts that must work together:

  1. A brief, targeted review of what prior research has established
  2. A precise gap statement — what those papers did not examine

Think of it as: “The literature knows A, B, and C — but it does not know D. D is what this paper studies.”

WarningCommon mistake

Writing an exhaustive literature review here. Every citation in the introduction should serve one purpose: building the logical path toward your gap. If removing a citation does not weaken your argument, it probably does not belong here.

Test your gap with this question: “Could a reviewer confirm that this specific thing has not been studied before?” If yes, your gap is precise enough. If not, sharpen it.

Skeleton sentences

“A growing body of research has examined [broad topic], focusing on [aspect 1], [aspect 2], and [aspect 3] ([citations]).”

“Prior research has focused predominantly on [what is known]. However, little is known about [the gap].”

“While [related construct] has received significant attention ([citation]), the [specific aspect] and its implications for [outcome] remain unexplored.”

“[Phenomenon] has heretofore not been examined in the context of [your setting] — a gap this paper addresses directly.”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

A growing body of research has examined donor behaviour and the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase charitable giving (Croson and Treich 2014; Shang and Croson 2009; Martin and Randal 2008). Within this literature, information disclosure and social norm interventions have received particular attention, with demonstrated effectiveness across domains from nutrition labelling to energy conservation (Thaler and Sunstein 2009; Goldstein et al. 2008). However, this literature has focused predominantly on monetary donations and on increasing the quantity of giving. Little is known about how behavioural interventions can improve the quality of in-kind donations — a fundamentally different behavioural target with distinct operational consequences for recipient organisations.

Step 5 — Research Question / Objective

Purpose: State clearly and concisely what this paper does.

After building the problem and identifying the gap, the reader is waiting for one thing: what exactly does this paper do? Answer that in one or two sentences.

Too vague Too technical Just right
“We study charitable giving.” “We estimate a probit model with facility fixed effects…” “The goal of this paper is to find a practical solution that reduces inappropriate donations without losing donors.”

If you have more than one research question, number them. Never list more questions than you can fully address.

Skeleton sentences

“The goal of this paper is to [verb: identify / develop / examine / quantify] [what] in the context of [setting].”

“Specifically, we ask: (i) [RQ1]? (ii) [RQ2]?”

“This paper investigates [phenomenon] and its implications for [stakeholder / outcome].”

“We study whether [intervention / factor] can [outcome] without [undesirable side effect].”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

The goal of this paper is to find a practical solution that reduces the number of inappropriate in-kind donations a charity receives without losing donors. Specifically, we ask: can low-cost behavioural interventions — embedded within existing charity communication channels — nudge donors to voluntarily improve the quality of their donations, while preserving long-term donor retention?

Zone 3 — Contribution

The goal of this zone is to show the reader what your paper does, how it does it, what it finds, and why all of this matters.

Step 6 — Conceptual Framing

Purpose: Name and justify the theoretical lens or conceptual framework guiding the analysis.

This step is often labelled “optional” in writing guides. In most OM, management, and social science journals it is effectively expected — especially if your paper makes a theoretical contribution.

Two things are required:

  1. Name your theory or framework
  2. Justify why it applies to this specific setting

Simply writing “we draw on social norm theory” is not enough. You must explain why that theory is the right lens for this problem. One sentence of justification transforms the theory choice from arbitrary to deliberate.

Skeleton sentences

“We draw on [theory] ([citation]), which [core argument of theory].”

“This framework is particularly well-suited to [your setting] because [reason it fits].”

“We conceptualise [construct] as [definition], which operates through [mechanism].”

“We focus on [X] and [Y], which influence [outcome] through [mechanism 1] and [mechanism 2] respectively.”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

We draw on behavioural economics and the nudge framework (Thaler and Sunstein 2009), which argues that individuals can be steered toward desired behaviours through low-cost, voluntary interventions that preserve freedom of choice. This approach is particularly well-suited to the charity context: unlike harder policy instruments such as taxes or regulatory bans, nudges create less friction between the organisation and its donors. We focus on two mechanisms — information disclosure and descriptive social norms — which influence behaviour through distinct psychological pathways: the former by making consequences more salient (Loewenstein et al. 2014), the latter by leveraging individuals’ desire to conform to their reference group (Cialdini et al. 1990).

Step 7 — Method Overview

Purpose: Signal that your paper has the empirical infrastructure to answer the research questions posed in Step 5.

Think of this as the credibility check. Three things should appear:

  • The type of study (field experiment, survey, archival data, simulation)
  • The scale of the data (N = 763 households; 5 countries; 830,000 discharges)
  • The key design feature that makes the study credible (random assignment, panel structure, matching technique)
WarningCommon mistake

Over-detailing the method in the introduction. If you spend three paragraphs on methodology here, the reader loses the narrative thread. One clear paragraph is enough.

Skeleton sentences

“We conduct a [type of study] in collaboration with [organisation/setting] between [time period].”

“We collect [type of data] from [N units] across [setting / countries / time period].”

“Using a [between/within]-subjects design, we compare [condition A] against [condition B] and a control group.”

“To address [identification concern], we employ [technique] ([citation]).”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

We test these interventions in a field experiment conducted in collaboration with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Arizona (SVdP) between October 31 and November 11, 2020. We collected a panel dataset from 763 households in a between-subjects design with three groups: social norm message, information disclosure message, and control. We subsequently tracked donor retention across all groups over 12 months to capture potential long-term spillover effects.

Step 8 — Key Findings

Purpose: Preview results at direction + mechanism level — not statistical detail.

The right level of abstraction is: direction + mechanism, not regression coefficients. The reader has invested attention through seven steps — now you reward them.

TipThe power of a surprising result

Include at least one counterintuitive finding. In the example below, the failure of information disclosure — one of the most commonly used charity communication tools — goes against conventional wisdom and is the single most memorable sentence in the introduction.

The best findings previews also address a second-order outcome that directly resolves the concern raised in Step 3. The introduction and findings should answer each other.

Skeleton sentences

“Our results show that [intervention/factor] significantly [increases/decreases] [outcome], suggesting that [mechanism].”

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, [expected result] did not [expected effect].”

“We find that [finding], with the effect being stronger for [subgroup/condition].”

“Importantly, [secondary finding], indicating that [concern raised in Step 3] does not materialise in practice.”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

Our results show that the social norm intervention significantly improved the quality of in-kind donations — an effect that remained stable over time. Contrary to conventional wisdom, information disclosure did not alter donor behaviour. While both interventions produced an initial, temporary decline in return rates, this disparity converged fully at 12 months, indicating no lasting harm to donor retention. A conservative estimate suggests the intervention reduced inappropriate donations by approximately 50%, at zero direct operating cost to the charity.

Step 9 — Contributions & Implications

Purpose: Separate from findings — explain why those findings matter for theory and practice.

ImportantDo not merge this with Step 8

Step 8 answers “what did you find?” Step 9 answers “why does that matter?” These require different sentences. Merging them is the single most common structural weakness in student introductions.

A good contributions paragraph has two parts:

  • Theoretical contribution — which literature stream does the paper extend? What is new?
  • Practical implication — what should managers, policymakers, or practitioners do differently?

Be specific. “This contributes to the operations management literature” is too vague. “This extends the behavioural OM literature to the domain of in-kind supply quality” is specific enough for a reviewer to evaluate. Write with declarative confidence: “This study contributes…” — not “We hope this might contribute…”

Skeleton sentences

“This study contributes to the [specific literature stream] by [what it does that is new].”

“We extend [prior work / theory] to [new domain/context], demonstrating that [finding].”

“Our findings have direct implications for [practitioner type] who [face the problem described in Steps 1–3].”

“By showing that [finding], this paper provides [stakeholder] with an actionable [tool/guideline] to [desired outcome].”

Example — from MSOM (2023)

This study makes several contributions. Theoretically, it extends the behavioural operations management literature to a new domain — the quality of in-kind supply — and demonstrates that behavioural interventions can shape not only the volume but the composition of charitable supply flows. It also contributes to the literature on behavioural spillovers by tracking how an initial intervention affects subsequent donor behaviour over a 12-month horizon (Dolan and Galizzi 2015). Practically, the findings offer an immediately actionable, resource-free tool for charities seeking to improve operational efficiency without jeopardising donor relationships — a particularly valuable insight for organisations that must do more with less.

Putting It All Together

Here is how all nine steps come together as a single, flowing introduction — exactly as it would appear in a published paper. The step labels disappear; the structure is felt, not announced.

[Step 1] In-kind donations constitute a substantial and economically significant portion of the supply flowing to charities and humanitarian organisations worldwide. In 2017 alone, 52% of Americans donated clothing, food, or other personal items to such organisations (Non Profit Source 2018). These donations contribute to charities’ triple bottom line: additional revenue, social welfare, and environmental sustainability (Montgomery and Mitchell 2014). In 2020, the Salvation Army reported $598 million in revenue from 1,116 thrift stores — representing 18% of its total revenue (Salvation Army 2021).

[Step 2] However, not all donated goods are useful. Low-quality items — stained clothing, torn blankets, broken furniture — can neither be resold nor distributed to beneficiaries. Goodwill Northern New England spends over $1 million annually to dispose of 13 million pounds of unsuitable items from only 30 thrift stores (Bookman 2021), and the systemic cost across 25,000 nonprofit resale shops in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2021) is staggering.

[Step 3] This creates a striking paradox: donors’ good intentions end up harming the organisations they intend to support. Yet charities cannot simply reject low-quality donations — declining an offer risks damaging the donor relationship, and recurring donors give 440% more over their lifetime than one-time donors (Classy 2018). Charities therefore face an uncomfortable dilemma: accepting inappropriate donations imposes direct costs, but refusing them risks long-term financial sustainability.

[Step 4] A growing body of research has examined interventions designed to increase charitable giving (Croson and Treich 2014; Shang and Croson 2009), with particular attention to information disclosure and social norm mechanisms (Thaler and Sunstein 2009; Goldstein et al. 2008). However, this literature has focused on the quantity of giving. Little is known about how behavioural interventions can improve the quality of in-kind donations — a different behavioural target with distinct operational consequences.

[Step 5] The goal of this paper is to find a practical solution that reduces the number of inappropriate in-kind donations a charity receives without losing donors. Specifically: can low-cost behavioural interventions nudge donors to voluntarily improve donation quality while preserving long-term retention?

[Step 6] We draw on the nudge framework (Thaler and Sunstein 2009), particularly well-suited to the charity context because, unlike taxes or bans, nudges create minimal friction with donors. We focus on information disclosure — which makes consequences more salient (Loewenstein et al. 2014) — and descriptive social norms — which leverage conformity to peer behaviour (Cialdini et al. 1990).

[Step 7] We conduct a field experiment with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Arizona across 763 households in a between-subjects design (October–November 2020), with social norm, information disclosure, and control conditions, tracking donor retention over 12 months.

[Step 8] The social norm intervention significantly improved donation quality — an effect stable over time. Contrary to conventional wisdom, information disclosure had no effect. The initial decline in return rates fully converged at 12 months, confirming no long-term harm to donor retention. The intervention reduced inappropriate donations by approximately 50% at zero direct operating cost.

[Step 9] Theoretically, this study extends the behavioural OM literature to the quality of in-kind supply, showing that interventions can shape supply composition — not just volume. Practically, it provides charities with an immediately actionable, cost-free tool to improve operational efficiency without jeopardising donor relationships (Dolan and Galizzi 2015).

Quick Diagnostic Checklist

Use this when reviewing any draft introduction — yours or a student’s.

# Check Zone
1 Does the opening paragraph include at least one concrete statistic? Motivation
2 Is the focal construct defined precisely within the first two paragraphs? Motivation
3 Is there a clear “however” or “yet” pivot that reveals a problem? Motivation
4 Does the paper explain why the obvious solution fails? (Step 3) Motivation
5 Is the literature review purposeful — building toward the gap, not exhaustive? Positioning
6 Is the gap precise enough for a reviewer to verify? Positioning
7 Are research questions stated explicitly? Positioning
8 Is the theoretical lens both named and justified for this setting? Contribution
9 Does the method preview include study type, data scale, and key design feature? Contribution
10 Are findings previewed at direction + mechanism level — not statistics? Contribution
11 Are contributions in a separate paragraph from findings? Contribution
12 Is the voice declarative? (“we find”, not “we hope to show”) Craft

Closing Thoughts

The nine-step framework is not a formula. Real introductions rarely have nine cleanly separated paragraphs — some steps are merged, some span several paragraphs, and the transitions between them are invisible by design. What the framework gives you is a diagnostic lens: when an introduction feels weak, you can usually trace it to a missing step, an underdeveloped zone, or a gap statement that is not precise enough.

The three questions worth asking about any introduction, at any stage of revision, are:

  1. After reading the first paragraph, does the reader care? (Motivation zone)
  2. After the gap statement, does the reader understand exactly what is missing? (Positioning zone)
  3. After reading the whole introduction, does the reader know what the paper does, how, and why it matters? (Contribution zone)

If the answer to all three is yes, you have a strong introduction.

This post is part of an ongoing series on academic writing for PhD students in operations management and related fields.

References

De La Torre Pacheco, S., Eftekhar, M., & Wu, C. (2023). Improving the quality of in-kind donations: A field experiment. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 25(5), 1677-1691.