Back to Markdown Style Guide — Read the style guide first for formatting, citation, and emoji rules.
Use this template for: Research papers, technical analyses, literature reviews, data-driven reports, competitive analyses, market research, or any document built around evidence and methodology. Designed for heavy citation, structured argumentation, and reproducible findings.
Key features: Abstract for quick assessment, methodology section for credibility, findings with supporting data/diagrams, rigorous footnote citations throughout, and a complete references section.
Philosophy: A great research document lets the reader evaluate your conclusions independently. Show your work. Cite your sources. Present counter-arguments. The reader should trust your findings because the evidence is right there — not because you said so.
[bracketed placeholders] with your content[^N] footnote1. Abstract — What you did, what you found, why it matters (150-300 words)
2. 📋 Introduction — Problem statement, context, scope, research questions
3. 📚 Background — Prior work, literature review, industry context
4. 🔬 Methodology — How you did the research, data sources, approach
5. 📊 Findings — What you discovered, with evidence and diagrams
6. 💡 Analysis — What the findings mean, implications, limitations
7. 🎯 Conclusions — Summary, recommendations, future work
8. 🔗 References — All cited sources with full URLs
Everything below the line is the template. Copy from here:
[Author(s) or Team] · [Organization] · [Date]
[150–300 word summary structured as: Context (1–2 sentences on the problem space), Objective (what this paper investigates), Method (how the research was conducted), Key findings (the most important results), Significance (why this matters and who should care).]
Keywords: [keyword 1], [keyword 2], [keyword 3], [keyword 4], [keyword 5]
[What problem exists? Why does it matter? Who is affected? Be specific — include metrics where available.]
[The scope of the problem, with citation][^1].
This paper investigates:
[Current state of the field. What's known. What the established approaches are. Cite existing work.]
[Key finding from prior research][^2]. [Another relevant study found][^3].
| Study / Source | Key Finding | Relevance to Our Work |
|---|---|---|
| [Author (Year)][^4] | [What they found] | [How it connects] |
| [Author (Year)][^5] | [What they found] | [How it connects] |
| [Author (Year)][^6] | [What they found] | [How it connects] |
[What's missing from existing research? What question remains unanswered? This is the gap your paper fills.]
[Describe your research methodology — qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, experimental, observational, case study, etc.]
flowchart LR
accTitle: Research Methodology Flow
accDescr: Four-phase research process from data collection through analysis to validation and reporting
collect[📥 Data **collection**] --> clean[⚙️ Data **cleaning**]
clean --> analyze[🔍 **Analysis**]
analyze --> validate[🧪 **Validation**]
validate --> report[📤 Report **findings**]
classDef process fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#2563eb,stroke-width:2px,color:#1e3a5f
class collect,clean,analyze,validate,report process
| Source | Type | Size / Scope | Collection Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Source 1] | [Survey / API / Database / etc.] | [N records / respondents] | [Date range] |
| [Source 2] | [Type] | [Size] | [Date range] |
⚠️ Known limitations: [Be upfront about what could affect the validity of your results — sample size, selection bias, time constraints, data quality issues. This builds credibility, not weakness.]
[Present the finding clearly. Lead with the conclusion, then show the evidence.]
[Data supporting this finding][^7]:
| Metric | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Metric 1] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/- %] |
| [Metric 2] | [Value] | [Value] | [+/- %] |
📌 Key insight: [One-sentence takeaway from this finding]
[Present the finding. Include a diagram if the finding involves relationships, processes, or comparisons.]
xychart-beta
title "[Chart title]"
x-axis ["Category A", "Category B", "Category C", "Category D"]
y-axis "Measurement" 0 --> 100
bar [45, 72, 63, 89]
[Explanation of what the data shows and why it matters.]
[Present the finding with supporting evidence.]
[What do the findings mean? Connect back to your research questions. Explain the "so what?"]
For [audience 1]:
For [audience 2]:
[How do your findings compare with the studies referenced in the Background section? Do they confirm, contradict, or extend prior work?]
[What caveats should the reader keep in mind? What factors might affect generalizability? Be honest — this is where credibility is built.]
[3–5 sentences. Restate the problem, summarize the key findings, and state the primary recommendation. A reader who skips to this section should understand the entire paper's value.]
All sources cited in this paper:
[^1]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^2]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^3]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^4]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^5]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^6]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
[^7]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." [Publication]. https://example.com
Last updated: [Date]