As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. In contrast, this example strays subtly into interpretation by referring to optimality a conceptual model and tieing the observed result to that idea: If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.
This is a very long and wordy description of a common, simple procedure. Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses.
Burns N, Grove SK. Seedlings or mature plants? Avoid repeatedly using a single sentence to relate a single action; this results in very lengthy, wordy passages.
Unusual findings can be good, but they might also elicit more questions from the committee and other readers, so make sure you have all the answers.
Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.
This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of research used to provide context and background information.
The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness.
The A of the no-light control was measured only at Time 0 and at the end of the experiment. Is ondansetron as effective as droperidol in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting?
This is the overall main point or points that you want your readers to remember. Describe the procedures for your study in sufficient detail that other scientists could repeat your work to verify your findings.
You should refer back to your introduction and establish if what you found was consistent with the existing literature, or if it was somewhat unexpected or controversial. To be honest, you will edit the Discussion part of your manuscript numerous times.
Of course you did, because that is what all good scientists do, and it is a given that you recorded your measurements and observations. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference between ondansetron and droperidol in preventing PONV.
However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand.
The function of the Results section is to objectively present your key resultswithout interpretation, in an orderly and logical sequence using both text and illustrative materials Tables and Figures. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research.
Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Conduct, Critique, and Utilization.
Note that superfluous detail and otherwise obvious information has been deleted while important missing information was added. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript? We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!
Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
The Content The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes: You select those descriptive and inferential statistics you wish to use, and place them in the order that seems reasonable to you. Write the text of the Results section concisely and objectively. Here are some of the common mistakes people make when writing their discussion section: Top of Page Describe the organism s used in the study.
Top of Page Describe your experimental design clearly. Sprinkle with first person pronouns if needed, but generally, avoid it. The Methods section is prone to being wordy or overly detailed. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding.
As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research. Not enough men in the study? Your discussion section is a review of your findings, and it should show you really understand them.Feb 12, · Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician.
The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general.
In this critical part of the research paper, you start the process of explaining any links and correlations apparent in your data. If you left few interesting leads and open questions in the results section, the discussion is simply a matter of building upon those and expanding them.
Feb 12, · Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician.
The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. In this critical part of the research paper, you start the process of explaining any links and correlations apparent in your data.
If you left few interesting leads and open questions in the results section, the discussion is simply a matter of building upon those and expanding them.
Things to Avoid When Writing the Discussion Overinterpretation of the Results Unwarranted Speculation Inflating the Importance of the Findings Tangential Issues The “Bully Pulpit” Conclusions That Are Not Supported by the Data Summary Explaining the meaning of the results to the reader is the purpose of the discussion section of a.
For additional information about how to write a strong research paper, make sure to check out our full research writing series! If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post in the comment box below, email us at [email protected] or reach out to us through our Contact Us page.Download