There is a full length original research paper. Results are demonstrated in result section.
I find this a challenging question. I don't think that there is a formulaic answer but what is required is an understanding of the purpose of making this comparison. Scientific research does not exist in isolation and the results of studies can never stand alone. From a variety of perspectives the appropriate conclusions and appreciation of the significance of results arise by considering the results of the current study in the light of the existing evidence.
The issue is not about making a list - long or short - but by succinctly identifying the current state of knowledge. How you do this depends on the field and the issues at stake. For some disciplines there are a number of authorities that suggest that any new findings should be integrated with older ones through systematic review at the end. More modestly you should select evidence for comparisons that properly represents what is known. If that is done through selective examples you should make that clear and can give a sense of the weight of the evidence without citing every paper. In many cases it is the contrasting results of previous research that is most significant and again you might select examples.
I would suggest two questions should guide you
i) Ask yourself if an expert in the field would think that you had properly selected material to give a fair overview of where your results sit within the body of knowledge.
ii) Ask yourself if a novice reader in the field would come away with a proper appreciation of the contribution of your study to the field as a whole so that they could see both how it complimented and / or extended it.
No study results should ever be conducted in isolation and any vaguely subtle understanding of science (in my field the "Bradford Hill" criteria for determining cause in epidemiology are a good example) would ever suggest that we can properly interpret the results of one study without knowing how this accords with relevant research addressing both the question in hand and the theoretical underpinnings of any hypotheses.
An extreme (but quite good) example is trials of new treatments. Basic statistics tells us that if the null hypothesis is true then we still find significant results in favour of a new treatment 1 time in 20.
First study shows significant results - results are plausible but relevant findings about the theory behind the effect make it more so.
Second study - same results are confirmatory. Contrasting results should not lead to a 'rejection' of the new treatment although IF the second trial was 'bigger and better' the results of the second trail should be given more weigh....
20th study - not much additional contribution if the new study isn't in some way significantly better than what has gone before. You wouldn't need to compare to every single one but give a good overview of what the results are - all the same (in which case you are confirming) or all different (in which case you may or may not be resolving uncertainty...)
I hope that helps!
Peter
Usually you would compare your results with comparable papers in your discussion. But you would present summary data and overall trends, not actual data or lists :)
It is closely related to the subject you wanna discuss. The quality is not determined by quantity, pay attention to comprehensiveness of your manuscript
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers