Data analysis, deducing new information from the graphs, analytical data, writing, and getting justification from the literature.
How a scientist make his approach?
What is your experience?
It ultimately depends upon your knowledge of an area. If you know the area well, I would write the lit review and abstract last. You know exactly what you need to introduce. If you do not know the area well, the lit review is an essential function.
As for the analysis:
I teach a course in data visualization which is central to this topic that you are asking. What was suggested to me from Knaflic's Data Visualization Textbook is to start graphs as a grayed out canvas and then build the message up from that surface. This allows one to get a good perspective on what you want out of the figure. This is one of the most effective ways of communicating an idea.
Ultimately, I come from a statistics and informatics background. These things provide evidence for a story. Good research often tells a story. Figuring out the story is the trick. That guides the writing. In that case, it is sometimes a good idea to write the conclusions first. The crux of the plot shapes the whole story.
I think that is probably the best advice I can give you.
You should analyze your results very critically and think what the analysis really mean. The process will illumine your mind to think further and may initiate you to perform more experiments. Once you are sure on your results, start writing the paper describing your idea and how your results correspond to it. Finally, you will have to write a concluding section summarizing your explanation of the results and consistency with the experiments and future directions of the study. Good luck.
- Badges
- Science topic