There are countless ways to write a research paper. But no matter how we write the paper, the goal is always the same: to present our findings as clear and interesting as possible.
Traditionally, a research paper consists of 6 main sections: the abstract, the introduction, the literature review, the methodology, the results and discussion, and finally the conclusion. However, many authors present their researches in different ways. They might separate the results from the discussion, merge the discussion with the conclusion, or merge the introduction with the literature review. The last one is the case I am interested in.
I am very interested in hearing your ideas about this issue. When do you think it is more appropriate to present the introduction and the literature review as one section and when to separate them?
Well, that would be in fact seven sections - I consider the references as one section. :-)
I prefer a variety of possibilities. Most often, I find that the introduction and literature review can be fruitfully merged, as the motivations for the new paper are (partly) to be found in aspects in/from previous papers that are cited in the new paper - such as something is lacking in previous research, and the new paper mentions some of them. These things can certainly be discussed within the framework of the introduction.
A separation can be motivated when the paper itself is a review, but most often I think it is natural to marge the two.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles