# Research Paper / Technical Analysis Template > **Back to [Markdown Style Guide](../markdown_style_guide.md)** — 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. --- ## How to Use 1. Copy this file to your project 2. Replace all `[bracketed placeholders]` with your content 3. Adjust sections — not every paper needs every section, but the core flow (Abstract → Introduction → Methodology → Findings → Conclusion) should stay intact 4. **Cite aggressively** — every claim, every statistic, every external methodology reference gets a `[^N]` footnote 5. Add [Mermaid diagrams](../mermaid_style_guide.md) for any process, architecture, data flow, or comparison --- ## Template Structure ``` 1. 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 ``` --- ## The Template Everything below the line is the template. Copy from here: --- # [Paper Title: Descriptive and Specific] _[Author(s) or Team] · [Organization] · [Date]_ --- ## Abstract [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] --- ## 📋 Introduction ### Problem statement [What problem exists? Why does it matter? Who is affected? Be specific — include metrics where available.] [The scope of the problem, with citation][^1]. ### Research questions This paper investigates: 1. **[RQ1]** — [Specific, answerable question] 2. **[RQ2]** — [Specific, answerable question] 3. **[RQ3]** — [Specific, answerable question] ### Scope and boundaries - **In scope:** [What this paper covers] - **Out of scope:** [What this paper deliberately excludes and why] - **Target audience:** [Who will benefit from these findings]

💬 Context Notes

- Why this research was initiated - Organizational context or business driver - Relationship to prior internal work - Known constraints that shaped the scope

--- ## 📚 Background ### Industry context [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]. ### Prior work | 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] | ### Gap in current knowledge [What's missing from existing research? What question remains unanswered? This is the gap your paper fills.]

📋 Extended Literature Review

[Deeper discussion of related work, historical context, evolution of approaches, and detailed comparison of methodologies used by prior researchers. This depth supports the paper's credibility without cluttering the main flow.]

--- ## 🔬 Methodology ### Approach [Describe your research methodology — qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, experimental, observational, case study, etc.] ```mermaid 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 ``` ### Data sources | Source | Type | Size / Scope | Collection Period | | ---------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------- | ----------------- | | [Source 1] | [Survey / API / Database / etc.] | [N records / respondents] | [Date range] | | [Source 2] | [Type] | [Size] | [Date range] | ### Tools and technologies - **[Tool 1]** — [Purpose and version] - **[Tool 2]** — [Purpose and version] - **[Analysis framework]** — [Why this was chosen] ### Limitations of methodology > ⚠️ **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.]

🔧 Detailed Methodology

### Data collection protocol [Step-by-step description of how data was gathered] ### Cleaning and preprocessing [What transformations were applied, what was excluded and why] ### Statistical methods [Specific tests, confidence levels, software used] ### Reproducibility [How someone else could replicate this research — data availability, code repositories, environment setup]

--- ## 📊 Findings ### Finding 1: [Descriptive title] [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] ### Finding 2: [Descriptive title] [Present the finding. Include a diagram if the finding involves relationships, processes, or comparisons.] ```mermaid 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.] ### Finding 3: [Descriptive title] [Present the finding with supporting evidence.]

📊 Supporting Data Tables

[Detailed data tables, raw numbers, statistical breakdowns that support the findings but would interrupt the reading flow if placed inline. Readers who want to verify can expand.]

--- ## 💡 Analysis ### Interpretation [What do the findings mean? Connect back to your research questions. Explain the "so what?"] - **RQ1:** [How Finding 1 answers Research Question 1] - **RQ2:** [How Finding 2 answers Research Question 2] - **RQ3:** [How Finding 3 answers Research Question 3] ### Implications **For [audience 1]:** - [What this means for them and what action they should consider] **For [audience 2]:** - [What this means for them and what action they should consider] ### Comparison with prior work [How do your findings compare with the studies referenced in the Background section? Do they confirm, contradict, or extend prior work?] ### Limitations [What caveats should the reader keep in mind? What factors might affect generalizability? Be honest — this is where credibility is built.]

💬 Discussion Notes

- Alternative interpretations of the data - Edge cases or outliers observed - Areas where more data would strengthen conclusions - Potential confounding variables

--- ## 🎯 Conclusions ### Summary [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.] ### Recommendations 1. **[Recommendation 1]** — [Specific, actionable. What to do, who should do it, expected impact] 2. **[Recommendation 2]** — [Specific, actionable] 3. **[Recommendation 3]** — [Specific, actionable] ### Future work - [Research direction 1] — [What it would investigate and why it matters] - [Research direction 2] — [What it would investigate and why it matters] --- ## 🔗 References _All sources cited in this paper:_ [^1]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^2]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^3]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^4]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^5]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^6]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. [^7]: [Author/Org]. ([Year]). "[Title]." _[Publication]_. --- _Last updated: [Date]_