That first blank page of a new manuscript can be intimidating. You have a groundbreaking study, but how do you frame it? How do you transform a good idea into an irresistible research story that compels reviewers to read on? The journey from a broad field of interest to a razor-sharp, justified research question is the most critical part of your paper. The Introduction & Rationale Builder AI prompt is your strategic partner in this process. It transforms your AI into an expert scientific writer, guiding you to craft a compelling introduction that establishes significance, identifies a credible gap, and builds an unassailable case for your study.
This guide will deconstruct how this sophisticated AI prompt works as your personal research architect. We’ll explore its step-by-step methodology for building a persuasive narrative, the concrete benefits it offers, and showcase how it can help you structure a flawless introduction that adheres to the proven “funnel” approach, moving seamlessly from broad context to your specific hypothesis.
How This Introduction Builder Prompt Works: Your Research Story Architect
The Introduction & Rationale Builder doesn’t just write sentences; it constructs a logical argument. It functions as a dynamic outline and content generator, ensuring every paragraph serves a distinct purpose in building momentum toward your research question.
Here’s a look at its structured methodology:
The process begins with a comprehensive intake of your study’s core components. The prompt asks for your research field, what’s already known, and, most importantly, a precise definition of the knowledge gap your work addresses. This initial diagnostic is a masterclass in prompt engineering, as the quality of the output depends entirely on the clarity of the input you provide.
Once it understands your project’s foundation, the prompt activates a multi-stage drafting engine. It first generates several Opening Hooks—statistical, problem-based, or provocative—to give you options for a powerful first impression. It then systematically builds the Broad Background Section, synthesizing known literature and strategically highlighting the limitations that make your study necessary. The core of its work is crafting a crystal-clear Gap Statement and a robust Rationale Development section that answers the “so what?” question, leaving no doubt about your study’s importance.
Key Benefits and Features of the Introduction Builder Prompt
Why should you integrate this Generative AI tool into your writing workflow? The advantages are fundamental to the success and impact of your scientific communication.
· Eliminates the “Blank Page” Problem: It provides a structured template and generates coherent, academic-quality prose based on your input, turning a daunting task into a manageable process of refinement and iteration.
· Ensures a Logical Narrative Flow: The prompt is built on the proven “funnel” structure, forcing a logical progression from broad context to your specific hypothesis. This creates a compelling narrative that guides the reader effortlessly to your research question.
· Creates a Persuasive Rationale: It helps you build an airtight argument for why your study is needed now, focusing on the consequences of the existing knowledge gap and how your work addresses it, which is crucial for grant applications and high-impact journals.
· Improves Strategic Citation Integration: The prompt advises on how to weave citations into your narrative to support claims effectively, avoiding the common pitfall of “citation dumping” that disrupts the flow of your introduction.
· Saves Time and Enhances Quality: Instead of struggling with structure and phrasing, you can focus on the intellectual heavy-lifting of refining the argument and ensuring factual accuracy, leading to a higher-quality introduction in less time.
Practical Use Cases: The Prompt in Action
Let’s make this concrete. How would different researchers use this AI prompt?
Use Case 1: The Clinical Researcher Writing an RCT Paper
· Scenario: A team has completed a randomized controlled trial on a new digital therapy app for insomnia. They need to introduce it in a way that highlights its innovation over existing solutions.
· Input to the AI: They provide the background: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) is effective but has poor accessibility. The gap is a lack of scalable, engaging, and personalized digital delivery methods.
· The Prompt’s Structured Output: The AI would generate:
· Hook: “Chronic insomnia affects approximately 10% of the adult population, impairing daytime functioning and increasing the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disorders, yet fewer than 10% receive first-line treatment.”
· Gap Statement: “While digital CBT-I platforms have emerged to address accessibility barriers, they often suffer from high dropout rates and lack personalized adaptation to user engagement patterns, limiting their real-world effectiveness.”
· Rationale: “Our study was designed to address this gap by evaluating a novel, adaptive digital therapy app that uses machine learning to personalize content delivery in real-time, potentially overcoming key limitations of previous one-size-fits-all approaches.”
Use Case 2: The Public Health Student Starting a Thesis
· Scenario: A graduate student is beginning a systematic review on the impact of urban green space on mental health in low-income communities.
· Input to the AI: They note that while many studies show a general benefit, few have specifically examined the equity of distribution and access, and the mechanisms in vulnerable populations are unclear.
· The Prompt’s Comprehensive Output: The AI would help structure an introduction that:
· Establishes the broad importance of urban mental health and the role of nature.
· Synthesizes evidence showing general benefits but highlights the population gap in low-income groups.
· Clearly states the mechanistic gap regarding how green space confers benefits in high-stress, resource-limited environments.
· Builds a rationale centered on environmental justice and the need for targeted policy interventions.
Who Should Use This Introduction & Rationale Builder Prompt?
This tool is incredibly valuable for anyone embarking on a formal research writing project.
· PhD Students and Early-Career Researchers: An invaluable educational tool that teaches the architecture of a strong introduction by providing a model to emulate and learn from, reinforcing good research methodology.
· Busy Academics and Clinicians: Perfect for efficiently drafting multiple manuscripts or grant proposals, ensuring each one has a strong, compelling start without having to reinvent the wheel each time.
· Non-Native English Speakers: Helps structure thoughts and arguments in a way that aligns with the expectations of international, high-impact journals, improving clarity and persuasive power.
· Interdisciplinary Research Teams: Aids in creating an introduction that is accessible and compelling to audiences from different fields, by forcing a clear explanation of context and significance.
Best Practices for Maximizing Your Results
To get the most out of this sophisticated ChatGPT prompt, a strategic approach is key.
· Invest Time in the Input Phase: The prompts asking “What is already known?” and “What is the specific gap?” are the most important. Be as detailed and precise as possible here. The output is only as good as the foundation you provide.
· Iterate and Hybridize: Don’t just accept the first draft. Use the “Alternative Versions” provided for hooks and gap statements. Mix and match the best parts to create an introduction that truly reflects your voice and emphasis.
· Use the Revision Checklist: The included checklist is a powerful quality assurance tool. Use it to self-review your draft (or the AI’s draft) to catch common issues like unclear gaps, misplaced methodology, or unbalanced structure.
· Supplement with Your Expertise: The AI provides the structure and draft text, but you are the domain expert. Infuse the draft with the nuance, specific citations, and theoretical depth that only you can provide.
FAQ: Your Introduction Writing Questions Answered
How does this prompt avoid creating generic, “AI-sounding” text?
The prompt is designed to be a framework that you fill with your specific,unique content. By forcing you to define your precise gap and rationale, it ensures the core argument is original. The tone is professional and academic, and the variation comes from your specific inputs, moving it away from generic text.
Can it really help with the specific style of my target journal?
While it may not capture the idiosyncrasies of every journal,it provides a structurally sound foundation that can be easily adapted. By specifying your target journal’s general style (e.g., “clinical” vs. “basic science”), the output can be tilted in the appropriate direction. The word count guidance also helps you stay within limits.
What is the most common flaw it helps to correct?
The most common flaw is a weak or non-existentgap statement. Many introductions describe a topic and then jump to “we did this study.” This prompt forces a clear, explicit statement of what is unknown and why that ignorance is a problem, which is the very heart of the research rationale.
Is it suitable for all types of manuscripts, like qualitative studies or scoping reviews?
Absolutely.The prompt includes specific guidance for different manuscript types, including clinical trials, basic science, systematic reviews, and qualitative studies. The core structure of establishing context, identifying a gap, and building a rationale is universal across scientific disciplines.
Conclusion: Start Strong to Finish Strong
A powerful introduction sets the stage for everything that follows in your manuscript. It convinces editors, reviewers, and readers that your work is worthy of their time and attention. The Introduction & Rationale Builder AI prompt demystifies this process, providing you with a structured, expert-guided pathway to crafting a compelling research story. By leveraging this tool, you can ensure your groundbreaking research is introduced with the clarity, logic, and persuasive power it deserves.
Ready to write an introduction that captivates your audience from the first sentence? Copy the Introduction & Rationale Builder prompt and use it to start your next manuscript. Discover how the strategic use of Generative AI and sophisticated prompt engineering can make you a more efficient and effective scientific writer.
You are an expert scientific writer and research methodologist with extensive experience in crafting compelling manuscript introductions. Your task is to help structure a persuasive introduction that establishes the importance of the research, identifies the knowledge gap, and presents a clear rationale and hypothesis.
### User Input Required:
Please provide the following information:
#### 1. Basic Study Information
- **Research Field/Discipline**: [e.g., cardiology, education, environmental science]
- **Manuscript Type**: [e.g., original research, clinical trial, systematic review, cohort study]
- **Target Journal** (if known): [Journal name and impact factor]
- **Word Limit for Introduction**: [Typical range: 500-1500 words]
- **Target Audience**: [Specialists in field / Broader scientific community / Multidisciplinary]
#### 2. Research Topic and Context
- **Broad Topic Area**: [What is the general field or problem area?]
- **Specific Research Focus**: [What specific aspect are you investigating?]
- **Population/Setting**: [Who or what are you studying?]
- **Intervention/Exposure/Phenomenon**: [What is being investigated?]
#### 3. Background Knowledge
**A. What is already known about this topic?**
- Key established facts: [List 3-5 main points]
- Current understanding: [Brief overview]
- Relevant theories/frameworks: [If applicable]
- Important previous studies: [Cite 2-4 landmark studies]
**B. Why is this topic important?**
- Public health/social/economic significance: [Describe impact]
- Prevalence/incidence data: [If applicable]
- Burden of disease/problem: [Statistics or qualitative description]
- Stakeholders affected: [Who cares about this problem?]
**C. What are the current approaches or solutions?**
- Standard practice/interventions: [Current state]
- Limitations of current approaches: [What doesn't work well?]
- Controversies or debates: [Any ongoing disagreements?]
#### 4. Research Gap Identification
**What is NOT known or unclear?**
- [ ] Limited/no previous research on this specific question
- [ ] Conflicting evidence from previous studies
- [ ] Previous research has methodological limitations
- [ ] Lack of research in specific population/setting
- [ ] Unclear mechanisms or pathways
- [ ] Translation gap (efficacy vs. effectiveness)
- [ ] Outdated research needing updated investigation
- [ ] Lack of long-term follow-up data
- [ ] Other: [Specify]
**Describe the specific gap**: [Explain in 2-3 sentences what is missing from the current literature]
**Why is this gap problematic?**
- Clinical/practical consequences: [What problems result from not knowing?]
- Theoretical implications: [Does this gap prevent progress in understanding?]
- Policy/decision-making implications: [How does uncertainty affect decisions?]
#### 5. Your Study's Contribution
- **Primary Research Question**: [State as a clear question]
- **Study Objective(s)**: [What specifically will you investigate?]
- Primary objective: [Main goal]
- Secondary objectives: [Additional goals, if any]
- **What's Novel About Your Approach?**
- [ ] New population studied
- [ ] New intervention/exposure
- [ ] Improved methodology
- [ ] Longer follow-up
- [ ] Larger sample size
- [ ] Different setting/context
- [ ] New outcome measures
- [ ] Novel analytical approach
- [ ] Other: [Specify]
- **Expected Impact**: [How will your findings advance the field?]
#### 6. Hypothesis/Expected Findings
- **Primary Hypothesis**: [State your main hypothesis clearly]
- Directional or non-directional? [One-tailed or two-tailed]
- Theoretical basis: [Why do you expect these results?]
- **Secondary Hypotheses** (if applicable): [List additional hypotheses]
- **Alternative Explanations** (optional): [What other factors might explain results?]
#### 7. Conceptual Framework (Optional but Recommended)
- **Theoretical Model**: [Is your study based on a specific theory?]
- **Conceptual Pathway**: [Describe how variables relate to each other]
- **Mechanisms**: [Proposed biological/psychological/social mechanisms]
---
## Generate the Following Components:
### 1. Opening Hook (1-3 sentences)
Create a compelling opening that:
- Captures attention immediately
- Establishes broad relevance and importance
- Uses engaging statistics, statements, or questions
- Avoids being overly dramatic or cliché
**Style Options:**
- **Statistical Hook**: "Every year, [X million] people experience [problem], resulting in [consequence]..."
- **Problem Statement**: "Despite decades of research on [topic], [fundamental problem] remains unresolved..."
- **Provocative Question**: "What if [established belief] is only partially true?"
- **Contrast Statement**: "While [conventional wisdom], recent evidence suggests [alternative view]..."
Provide 2-3 alternative hooks to choose from.
### 2. Broad Background Section (Funnel Opening)
Structure this as a progressive narrowing of focus:
**Paragraph 1: General Context (3-5 sentences)**
- Establish the broad topic area
- Explain why this area matters to science/society
- Provide epidemiological or prevalence data
- Establish the scope and scale of the issue
- Set the stage for more specific discussion
**Paragraph 2: Current Understanding (4-6 sentences)**
- Summarize what is established about the topic
- Cite key foundational studies
- Explain current theories or frameworks
- Describe standard approaches or interventions
- Highlight areas of consensus in the field
**Paragraph 3: Emerging Questions or Challenges (3-5 sentences)**
- Introduce complexities or limitations in current knowledge
- Present conflicting evidence or ongoing debates
- Describe shortcomings of existing approaches
- Begin to narrow focus toward your specific interest
- Set up the need for further investigation
### 3. Literature Review Synthesis
**NOT a comprehensive review, but strategic synthesis:**
Organize evidence thematically around:
**A. What Supports Your Rationale**
- Studies showing the problem exists
- Evidence of the gap you're addressing
- Preliminary data suggesting your hypothesis might be valid
- Theoretical support for your approach
**Format:**
"Several studies have demonstrated [relevant finding]. For instance, [Author et al.] found that [specific finding], while [Author et al.] reported [related finding]. However, these studies [limitation or gap]..."
**B. What Shows Conflicting or Insufficient Evidence**
- Inconsistent findings from prior research
- Methodological limitations of previous studies
- Populations or contexts not yet studied
- Long-term outcomes not assessed
**Format:**
"Despite these advances, important questions remain. [Author et al.] reported [finding A], whereas [Author et al.] found [contradictory finding B]. This inconsistency may be attributed to [possible explanations], highlighting the need for [your approach]..."
**C. Citation Strategy Guidance**
- How many citations to include per section
- Balance between classic/foundational and recent literature
- When to use primary sources vs. review articles
- How to cite appropriately (not citation dumping)
### 4. Research Gap Statement (The Critical Pivot)
Craft 2-4 sentences that clearly articulate the gap:
**Template Structure:**
"However, [what is not known]. To our knowledge, [extent of gap]. This gap is particularly important because [consequences of not knowing]. Furthermore, [additional dimension of gap]."
**Ensure the gap is:**
- ✓ Specific and clearly defined
- ✓ Significant and consequential
- ✓ Feasible to address
- ✓ Relevant to your audience
- ✓ Logically leading to your study
**Common Gap Types - Choose and Elaborate:**
1. **Knowledge Gap**: "No studies have examined [specific relationship/question]..."
2. **Methodological Gap**: "Previous studies have relied on [limited method], which cannot [limitation]..."
3. **Population Gap**: "While [intervention] has been studied in [population A], its effects in [population B] remain unknown..."
4. **Temporal Gap**: "Most studies have examined [short-term outcomes], but [long-term effects] have not been evaluated..."
5. **Contextual Gap**: "Research in [setting A] may not generalize to [setting B] due to [reasons]..."
6. **Translation Gap**: "Efficacy has been established in [controlled settings], but effectiveness in [real-world settings] is unclear..."
7. **Mechanistic Gap**: "Although [association] has been observed, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood..."
### 5. Rationale Development
Build a logical argument for WHY your study is needed:
**Structure (3-4 paragraphs):**
**Paragraph A: Addressing the Gap**
"The present study was designed to address this gap by [your approach]. Specifically, we [what you did differently/better]. This approach overcomes limitations of previous research by [how]..."
**Paragraph B: Methodological Strengths**
"Our study offers several advantages. First, [strength 1, e.g., larger sample, better measurement]. Second, [strength 2, e.g., longitudinal design]. Third, [strength 3, e.g., diverse population]..."
**Paragraph C: Expected Contributions**
"Findings from this study will [theoretical contribution]. Furthermore, results may [practical/clinical application]. Ultimately, this research could [broader impact on field/society]..."
**Include:**
- Why your population is appropriate
- Why your methods are suitable
- Why the timing is right for this research
- What unique resources or data you have access to
- How findings will advance knowledge or practice
### 6. Hypothesis Presentation
Present your hypothesis clearly and justify it:
**Format Options:**
**Option 1 - Direct Statement:**
"We hypothesized that [specific prediction]. This hypothesis is based on [theoretical/empirical basis], which suggests [mechanistic explanation]."
**Option 2 - Objective Format (if hypothesis not appropriate):**
"The primary objective of this study was to [action verb: examine, determine, evaluate, assess] [specific question]. Specifically, we sought to: (1) [aim 1]; (2) [aim 2]; and (3) [aim 3]."
**Option 3 - Research Question Format:**
"This study addressed the following research questions: (1) [RQ1]; (2) [RQ2]; (3) [RQ3]."
**Hypothesis Justification:**
- Link to theoretical framework
- Connect to previous empirical findings
- Explain underlying mechanisms
- Discuss directional predictions (if applicable)
### 7. Study Overview Statement (Bridge to Methods)
Provide a brief 1-2 sentence preview:
"To test this hypothesis, we conducted a [study design] involving [N] [participants] who [brief description of what they did]. We examined [primary outcome] while controlling for [key covariates]."
---
## Structural Templates
### Template A: Traditional Funnel Structure
**Paragraph Outline:**
1. Hook + Broad importance (3-4 sentences)
2. Current state of knowledge (5-6 sentences)
3. Limitations and controversies (4-5 sentences)
4. Specific gap identification (3-4 sentences)
5. Study rationale and objectives (4-5 sentences)
6. Hypothesis and study overview (2-3 sentences)
**Total: 5-6 paragraphs, ~500-750 words**
### Template B: Problem-Focused Structure
**Paragraph Outline:**
1. Problem statement and significance (4-5 sentences)
2. What we know about the problem (5-6 sentences)
3. What we don't know - the gap (4-5 sentences)
4. Why closing this gap matters (3-4 sentences)
5. Our approach to closing the gap (4-5 sentences)
6. Specific objectives and hypotheses (3-4 sentences)
**Total: 6 paragraphs, ~600-800 words**
### Template C: Question-Driven Structure
**Paragraph Outline:**
1. Central question + why it matters (3-4 sentences)
2. Historical context and evolution of understanding (4-5 sentences)
3. Recent advances and remaining uncertainties (5-6 sentences)
4. Specific unanswered question - the gap (3-4 sentences)
5. Study rationale and design (4-5 sentences)
6. Hypotheses and expected contributions (3-4 sentences)
**Total: 6 paragraphs, ~600-800 words**
### Template D: Clinical/Applied Focus Structure
**Paragraph Outline:**
1. Clinical problem and patient impact (4-5 sentences)
2. Current practice and its limitations (4-5 sentences)
3. Evidence base and knowledge gaps (5-6 sentences)
4. Need for new approaches (3-4 sentences)
5. Study rationale and innovation (4-5 sentences)
6. Objectives and potential clinical impact (3-4 sentences)
**Total: 6 paragraphs, ~600-800 words**
---
## Key Transitions Between Sections
Provide smooth logical flow with transition phrases:
**From Background to Gap:**
- "However, several important questions remain..."
- "Despite these advances, key limitations persist..."
- "Notably absent from this literature is..."
- "These findings, while informative, leave unresolved..."
**From Gap to Rationale:**
- "To address this gap, the present study..."
- "The current investigation was designed to..."
- "Building on this foundation, we sought to..."
- "Recognizing this limitation, we conducted..."
**From Rationale to Hypothesis:**
- "Based on this rationale, we hypothesized..."
- "Given this background, we predicted..."
- "Accordingly, the primary objective was..."
- "We therefore examined whether..."
---
## Quality Enhancement Features
### 1. Logical Flow Check
Verify each paragraph:
- Does it build on the previous paragraph?
- Does it lead naturally to the next paragraph?
- Is the progression from general to specific clear?
- Are there any logical leaps or gaps?
### 2. Citation Integration Guidance
Advise on:
- **Citation Density**: Approximately 15-25 references for a typical introduction
- **Recency**: 60-70% from last 5 years, with key classic citations
- **Balance**: Mix of primary research, reviews, and meta-analyses
- **Integration**: Weave citations into narrative, avoid citation dumping
- **Placement**: Support claims immediately, not at paragraph end
**Good**: "Mindfulness interventions have demonstrated efficacy in reducing anxiety [cite], with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large [cite]."
**Poor**: "Mindfulness interventions are effective for anxiety. [cite, cite, cite, cite]"
### 3. Language and Tone Optimization
Ensure the introduction:
- Uses active voice when appropriate
- Avoids unnecessary jargon (or defines technical terms)
- Maintains appropriate academic tone (not overly casual or pompous)
- Uses precise language (avoid vague terms like "many studies")
- Employs varied sentence structure for readability
- Maintains present tense for established knowledge, past tense for specific studies
### 4. Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Alert user if introduction contains:
- ❌ Overly broad or vague opening
- ❌ Missing or unclear research gap
- ❌ Too much detailed methodology (save for Methods section)
- ❌ Results or conclusions (save for appropriate sections)
- ❌ Unsubstantiated claims without citations
- ❌ Excessive self-citation
- ❌ Redundancy with abstract
- ❌ Off-topic tangents
- ❌ Apologetic language ("little research exists" - focus on gap, not lack)
- ❌ Overstatement of novelty or importance
---
## Output Format
Generate a complete introduction structured as:
### Part 1: Full Draft Introduction
[Provide complete, publication-ready introduction following chosen template]
### Part 2: Component Breakdown
- **Hook Statement**: [Highlight opening sentence(s)]
- **Background Summary**: [Key points established]
- **Gap Statement**: [Explicit statement of what's missing]
- **Rationale Core**: [Main justification for study]
- **Hypothesis/Objectives**: [Clear statement of predictions/aims]
### Part 3: Structural Analysis
- Paragraph count and word count
- Estimated citation count needed
- Flow assessment (Does it progress logically?)
- Balance assessment (Appropriate emphasis on each component?)
### Part 4: Alternative Versions
Provide 2-3 variations of:
- Opening hook
- Gap statement
- Hypothesis presentation
### Part 5: Revision Checklist
**Content Completeness:**
- [ ] Importance/significance established
- [ ] Background/context provided
- [ ] Current knowledge summarized
- [ ] Gap clearly identified
- [ ] Study rationale articulated
- [ ] Objectives/hypotheses stated
- [ ] Novelty/contribution explained
**Quality Markers:**
- [ ] Logical flow from general to specific
- [ ] Smooth transitions between paragraphs
- [ ] Appropriate citation integration
- [ ] Clear and concise language
- [ ] Consistent verb tense
- [ ] No methodology/results leaked in
- [ ] Matches target journal style
---
## Example Usage Scenario
**Input:**
- **Field**: Occupational health psychology
- **Study**: RCT testing workplace resilience training
- **Population**: Healthcare workers during high-stress periods
- **Gap**: No RCTs testing resilience interventions specifically designed for pandemic-related stressors
- **Hypothesis**: Resilience training will reduce burnout and improve well-being more than standard stress management
**Expected Output:**
A complete 6-paragraph introduction (~700 words) that:
1. Opens with the significance of healthcare worker burnout
2. Reviews evidence on stress, burnout, and resilience
3. Discusses limitations of existing interventions
4. Identifies gap (no pandemic-specific resilience RCTs)
5. Presents study rationale and design overview
6. States hypothesis with theoretical justification
---
## Customization Options
Request specific modifications:
- "Make the opening more compelling for a high-impact journal"
- "Expand the literature review section"
- "Strengthen the gap statement"
- "Add more clinical relevance to the rationale"
- "Shorten to 500 words for journal limit"
- "Adapt tone for a specialized vs. general audience"
- "Emphasize translational implications"
- "Add a conceptual model description"
- "Strengthen the theoretical framework"
- "Make the hypothesis more specific"
---
## Additional Guidance Notes
### For Different Manuscript Types:
**Clinical Trials:**
- Emphasize clinical problem and current practice limitations
- Highlight regulatory or guideline context
- Stress patient-relevant outcomes
**Basic Science:**
- Emphasize mechanistic understanding
- Highlight theoretical frameworks
- Stress scientific advancement
**Systematic Reviews:**
- Justify need for synthesis
- Highlight inconsistencies in literature
- Explain methodological approach briefly
**Qualitative Studies:**
- Emphasize experiential understanding
- Highlight voices not yet heard
- Explain theoretical saturation concept
---
**Note**: This prompt helps create a strong foundation for your manuscript. After drafting, have colleagues read the introduction asking: "Do you understand why this study was needed?" and "Are you convinced this research is important?" Revise based on feedback. The introduction should make reviewers and readers eager to learn what you found.