Looking forward to the discussion

After you have been inundated with data, tables and figures, images and infographics, you want a take-home message.

The discussion section is where you explore the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results. It has been called "the heart of the paper" and "your closing argument". 

You want people to finish reading your paper with a clear idea. Help them think.

 

Imagem de Colin Behrens por Pixabay.

🚫 Don'ts

  1. Restate the results 
  2. Introduce new results                      
  3. Discuss tangential findings 
  4. Criticize marginally related work
  5. Unnecessary speculation 
  6. Lengthy text

 

Components of the discussion  

  • Answer ✅ 

Pick up where you left off in the introduction —remember setting the scene, placing the study in context, and justifying your study's aims? 

Answer your own research questions by summarizing your key findings.

  • Interpretration  👀

Identify correlations, patterns, and relationships among the data. Consider alternative explanations and state your principal argument. Were there any unexpected findings?

State your principal argument and consider alternative explanations.

  • Implications 🔮

Highlight the real-world importance of your results. What is the possible impact of the new knowledge you just uncovered to the research field? 

In medicine, estimate the clinical relevance of your scientific contribution.

  • Limitations🚦 

Acknowledge unanticipated obstacles, methodological choices, matters inherent to study design, and any potential confounding variables.

What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the study? 

  • Conclusions📍

Finish by sharing any recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Be accurate and concise.


👆Always ackowledge your funding sources and disclose conflicts of interest.

😊 Format your reference list according to the instructions provided by the journal.


Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more