Editing IMRAD (section)

==Caveats==
The idealised sequence of the IMRAD structure has on occasion been criticised for being too rigid and simplistic. In a radio talk in 1964 the [[List of Nobel laureates|Nobel laureate]] [[Peter Medawar]] criticised this text structure for not giving a realistic representation of the thought processes of the writing scientist: "… the scientific paper may be a fraud because it misrepresents the processes of thought that accompanied or gave rise to the work that is described in the paper".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Medawar|first=P|title=Is the scientific paper fraudulent?|journal=The Saturday Review|year=1964|issue=August 1|pages=42–43}}</ref> Medawar's criticism was discussed at the XIXth General Assembly of the [[World Medical Association]] in 1965.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Brain|first=L|title=Structure of the scientific paper|journal=Br Med J|volume=2|year=1965|issue=5466|pages=868–869|doi=10.1136/bmj.2.5466.868 |pmid=5827805|pmc=1846354}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Report of Editors' Conference |journal=BMJ |date=9 October 1965 |volume=2 |issue=5466 |pages=870–872 |doi=10.1136/bmj.2.5466.870 |pmid=20790709 |pmc=1846363 }}</ref> While respondents may argue that it is too much to ask from such a simple instructional device to carry the burden of representing the entire process of scientific discovery, Medawar's caveat expressed his belief that many students and faculty throughout academia treat the structure as a simple panacea. Medawar and others have given testimony both to the importance and to the limitations of the device.