The discussion may be the most important component of any scientific article. Unfortunately it is the hardest section to write. For biomedical papers is emphasized following axial pattern of a discussion:
1. Generalizations, principles and relationships shown by the results.
2. Highlighting of execptions or any lack of correlation.
3. Presentation of own data, results with their comparation with previously published works.
4. Demonstration of the theoretical implications and as well as any possible practical applications.
5. Conclusion.
What are your personal tips for a powerful discussion?
I think methodological flaws should also be identified and discussed along with validity of the conclusion. This is important in the field of evidence-based medicine whose articles are mainly about whether a specific treatment is effective against a certain disease, etc. I'm not sure if this is the case in other fields of science.
From my own little experience: a discussion is powerful when it achieves the following:
1. Focusing on your results and comparing your work with the most updated previous studies --- comparing with relatively old references will weaken the work --- I saw some historical references and obsolete opinions.
2. Targeting to the aim of the work and presenting new explanation to a specific (subject) based o your own experience --- this will be more beneficial for any researcher or specialist --- your personal experience.
3. An excellent discussion is the result of an excellent choice of the subject and its success will validate your whole work and will promote others to continue in the same aim after you .... specially when the results are of value.
There is much to be said about writing discussion. It is easier to comment when a particular discussion is presented. As this is not the case I will try to emphasize some of the typical mistakes.
Some researchers use the discussion to write again about the results. This is not what is wanted. Not the particular percentages and effect measures are needed here but where your research question has moved after your results have beed obtained, what has been added to the knowledge base in the area.
Comparison with other findings is best when this allows approaching new hypotheses about the origin of difference if revealed.
Further on, discussion of potential threats to internal and external validity shows a real researcher not just a newcomer.
At the end, it is crucial to exlain what should be done further once new resources are available. Because the author is the best to know what was done before his/her study, what was contributed by the study in question, he/she knows best what are next steps to be done. This is to be suggested. If someone follows your advice, this is the best proof that scientific communication is effective.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing