Review of literature is an important part of both 'Introduction' and 'Discussion' in a research publication.
No. Think of it as being like a big party. You introduce a newcomer to everybody at the first opportunity but that person only gets involved in discussions in detail later.
You owe it to your reader to briefly mention in your Introduction the competing theories and results out there. However, space is limited, and you do want to be reader-friendly. So you do not reproduce that introduction later -- the name is enough to remind your attentive reader.
Your Introduction shows what research needs to be done. It mentions what has already done by other researchers, and shows the need for your research.
Your Discussion shows how your results have overcome the deficiency you showed in your Introduction. This Discussion section discusses your results, and compares them with the results of the other researchers you introduced earlier.
In the same way, if you are adapting or adopting someone else's method, you introduce that method in your Introduction, but briefly reference the name in your Methods section.
No. Think of it as being like a big party. You introduce a newcomer to everybody at the first opportunity but that person only gets involved in discussions in detail later.
You owe it to your reader to briefly mention in your Introduction the competing theories and results out there. However, space is limited, and you do want to be reader-friendly. So you do not reproduce that introduction later -- the name is enough to remind your attentive reader.
Your Introduction shows what research needs to be done. It mentions what has already done by other researchers, and shows the need for your research.
Your Discussion shows how your results have overcome the deficiency you showed in your Introduction. This Discussion section discusses your results, and compares them with the results of the other researchers you introduced earlier.
In the same way, if you are adapting or adopting someone else's method, you introduce that method in your Introduction, but briefly reference the name in your Methods section.
References should be added based on which statements are based on other publications. Some references will only be in the introduction, other in the discussion and many both places, but don't make rules that gives an unnatural text.
Referencing in introduction is rather a skillful task. All the important references stating the previous findings relating to the topic of the paper should be included in introduction section. If you need to concise it further as per editorial or reviewer requirements, then you can do it afterwards. But introduction should be self sufficient in itself to explain a new reader about the subject of the paper and what and why you have decided to work with it. Introduction should be such that no questions can be raised regarding the problem you are going to work with and your aims. It should be able to stand alone.
References relating to results and discussion are more important because they are justifying your research findings. But such references are few in number mostly. So in case you need to shorten introduction you can do, but in discussion you should be perfect in explaining your facts and findings.
If these sources are relevant (help to explain why this topic is important and why it should be studied in a way you will study in your paper) then you should not skip them.
These parts of the paper serve a different purpose. With the introduction setting the scene, the discussion links your findings with the existing evidence. This can overlap and papers might be quoted/referenced in both, but this does not have to be the case.
Alok Nahata I agree with your view. Referencing an introduction should only be done if laying a background for the subject involves quoting or citing what previous authors have said concerning the topic. Otherwise, the introduction should be concise and kept as simple as possible.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals