Writing the Discussion Section

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Major Purpose ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Fundamental Understanding ◽  
Fine Tune

This chapter focuses on the Discussion section, the last part of the standard IMRD structure for a journal article. The Discussion section, as mentioned in chapter 4, can stand alone or can be part of a combined Results and Discussion (R&D) section. In either case, it serves the same major purpose: to interpret the results of the study. In this chapter, we analyze excerpts from various Discussion sections, including those that accompany results presented in chapter 4 (excerpts 4B–4G). Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Organize a Discussion section following the major moves ■ Interpret your results (but avoid overinterpretation) ■ Describe the greater importance of your findings ■ Follow appropriate writing conventions As you work through this chapter, you will write a Discussion section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 5A Read the literature 5B Prepare to write 5C Draft your Discussion section 5D Practice peer review 5E Fine-tune your Discussion section In the Discussion section of a journal article, authors interpret their data, address why and how questions (e.g., Why was the reaction faster? How did the mechanism proceed?), and, ultimately, extend their findings to a larger context (e.g., What value will these findings have to the scientific community?). Ideally, the Discussion section explains the story revealed by the data, postulates reasons for the observed behaviors, and furthers our fundamental understanding of the underlying science. Although interpretation is the primary goal of the Discussion section, authors must be careful not to overinterpret their data, misinterpret their results, overstate their assumptions, or stray too far from scientific evidence. The excerpts selected for this chapter illustrate ways to avoid these pitfalls. Similarly, the excerpts illustrate that the language of the Discussion section is typified by restraint and understatement. Such words as fact, truth, and prove are rarely used in a Discussion section. Hedging words, such as theory and evidence, are much more common, as are such verbs as appear, indicate, seem, and suggest.

Writing the Abstract and Title

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Topic ◽  
Science Content ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Topic Importance ◽  
Fine Tune

This chapter addresses how to write abstracts and titles for journal articles. Both the abstract and title provide succinct, informative (not descriptive) summaries of the research. To this end, they are usually written in the final stages of the writing process. After completing this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Write a concise and informative abstract ■ Write a concise and informative title As you work through the chapter, you will write an abstract and title for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 7A Read titles and abstracts 7B Prepare to write 7C Write your abstract 7D Write your title 7E Practice peer review 7F Fine-tune your abstract and title When compared to the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of a journal article, the title and abstract are quite short; the title usually has fewer than 20 words, and many journals limit the abstract to fewer than 200 words. Despite their brevity (and perhaps because of it), the title and abstract are the most widely read sections of the journal article and thus are viewed by many as the most important sections of the journal article. As you read the title and abstract in excerpt 7A, consider the following: a. Read the title. Which of the following are included: research topic, importance, gap statement, procedures, instrumentation, results, interpretations, citations, conclusions? b. The abstract contains six sentences (107 words). Briefly state the purpose of each sentence. Based on these purposes, propose a move structure for the abstract. c. Are there any sentences in the abstract that do not include science content? Explain. d. Based only on the title and abstract, who are the intended audiences for this article (including subdisciplines of chemistry)? Give reasons for your choices.

Writing the Introduction Section

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structure ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Writing Skills ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
Opening Paragraph ◽  
Fine Tune

This chapter focuses on the Introduction, the first formal section of the journal article. The Introduction is often the first section to be read (by readers) but the last section to be written (by writers). This is because the Introduction must tell readers “where the article is going and why”, a mission that is most easily accomplished after the rest of the sections have been completed. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to do following: Write an Introduction following its conventional organizational ■ structure ■ Compose the all-important opening sentence of an Introduction ■ Cite and summarize others’ works in concise and appropriate ways ■ Conclude your Introduction in an effective manner As you work through the chapter, you will write an Introduction section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter guide you step-by step as you do the following: 6A Read and paraphrase the literature 6B Prepare to write 6C Draft your opening paragraph 6D Identify a gap 6E Draft your full Introduction 6F Practice peer review 6G Fine-tune your Introduction The Introduction, as its name implies, sets the stage for the rest of the journal article by introducing the research area, describing its importance, and hinting at what new knowledge and insights the authors have gained. The Introduction is also where authors summarize others’ works; this involves several important writing skills such as paraphrasing, writing concisely, and correctly citing the literature. Paraphrasing and writing concisely are addressed in this chapter; citing the literature is addressed in chapter 17. At long last, we ask you to read the Introduction to the aldehydes-in-beer article (excerpt 6A). If you have progressed through these textbook chapters sequentially, you have already read the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. Admittedly, this order may seem a bit unusual. Remember, however, we want you to read the Introduction through the eyes of the writer, not the reader. As authors write their Introduction, they already know what unfolds in the rest of their paper; now you, too, have this perspective.

Writing the Results Section

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
The Other ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
The Third ◽  
Fine Tune ◽  
Unbroken Chain

This chapter focuses on the Results section of the journal article. The Results section makes use of both text and graphics to highlight the essential findings of a study and to tell the story of scientific discovery. In this chapter we focus on writing the text; we refer you to chapter 16 for information on formatting graphics. After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Distinguish between the description and interpretation of data ■ Organize and present your results in a clear, logical manner ■ Refer appropriately to a figure or graph in the text ■ Use appropriate tense, voice, and word choice ■ Prepare a properly formatted figure and table As you work through the chapter, you will write a Results section for your own paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 4A Read the literature and review your results 4B Organize your results 4C Prepare figures and/or tables 4D Tell the story of scientific discovery 4E Practice peer review 4F Fine-tune your Results section The purpose of a Results section (the third section in the standard IMRD format) is to present the most essential data collected during a research project. A well-written Results section guides the reader’s attention back and forth between text and graphics while highlighting important features of the data and telling the story of scientific discovery. Months (possibly years) of accumulated knowledge and wisdom, and countless pages of data, are distilled into only a few pages; hence, only the essential threads of the story are included in the Results section. In many journal articles, the Results section is actually a combined Results and Discussion (R&D) section. Combined R&D sections are preferred by many scientists who want to present and discuss results in an unbroken chain of thought. The combination is often more concise because less time is spent reminding the reader which results are being discussed. Combined R&D sections are not all alike; rather, they fall on a continuum with fully separated R&D sections at one end and fully integrated R&D sections at the other.

scholarly journals Data publication consensus and controversies

F1000Research ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kratz ◽  
Carly Strasser
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Basic Data ◽  
Descriptive Data ◽  
Data Publication ◽  
The Core ◽  
Data Citation ◽  
Core Elements

The movement to bring datasets into the scholarly record as first class research products (validated, preserved, cited, and credited) has been inching forward for some time, but now the pace is quickening. As data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention. Data publication implementations differ in a variety of factors, including the kind of documentation, the location of the documentation relative to the data, and how the data is validated. Publishers may present data as supplemental material to a journal article, with a descriptive “data paper,” or independently. Complicating the situation, different initiatives and communities use the same terms to refer to distinct but overlapping concepts. For instance, the term published means that the data is publicly available and citable to virtually everyone, but it may or may not imply that the data has been peer-reviewed. In turn, what is meant by data peer review is far from defined; standards and processes encompass the full range employed in reviewing the literature, plus some novel variations. Basic data citation is a point of consensus, but the general agreement on the core elements of a dataset citation frays if the data is dynamic or part of a larger set. Even as data publication is being defined, some are looking past publication to other metaphors, notably “data as software,” for solutions to the more stubborn problems.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

scholarly journals New directions in scholarly publishing: journal articles beyond the present

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
And Storage

>> See video of presentation (28 min.) The primary goal of scholarly communication is improving human knowledge and sharing is the key to achieve this goal: sharing ideas, sharing methodologies, sharing of results, sharing data, information and knowledge. Although the concept of sharing applies to all phases of scholarly communication, most often the only visible part is the final publication, with the journal article as a most common type. The traditional characteristics of the present journals allow only limited possibilities for sharing the knowledge. Basic functions, registration, dissemination, certification, and storage, are still present but they are no more effective in the network environment. Registration is too slow, there are various barriers to dissemination, certification system has many shortcomings, and used formats are not suitable for the long term preservation and storage. Although the journals today are digital and various powerful technologies are available, they are still focused on their unaltered printed versions. This presentation will discuss possible evolution of journal article to become more compliant with users' needs and to enable “the four R’s of openness” – reuse, redistribute, revise and remix (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010).Several aspects of openness will be presented and discussed: open access, open data, open peer review, open authorship, and open formats. With digital technology which has become indispensable in the creation, collection, processing and storage of data in all scientific disciplines the way of conducting scientific research has changed and the concept of "data-driven science" has been introduced (Ware & Mabe, 2009). Sharing research data enhances the capabilities of reproducing the results, reuse maximizes the value of research, accelerating the advancement of science, ensuring transparency of scientific research, reducing the possibility of bias in the interpretation of results and increasing the credibility of published scientific knowledge. The open peer review can ensure full transparency of the entire process of assessment and help to solve many problems in the present scholarly publishing. Through the process of the open peer review each manuscript can be immediately accessible, reviewers can publicly demonstrate their expertise and could be rewarded, and readers can be encouraged to make comments and views and to become active part of the scholarly communication process. The trend to to describe the author's contribution is also present, which will certainly lead to a reduced number of “ghost”, "guest" and "honorary" authors, and will help to establish better standards for author’s identification.Various web technologies can be used also for the semantic enhancement of the article. One of the most important aspects of semantic publication is the inclusion of the research data, to make them available to the user as an active data that can be manipulated. It is possible to integrate data from external sources, or to merge the data from different resources (data fusion) (Shotton, 2012), so the reader can gain further understanding of the presented data. Additional options provide merging data from different articles, with the addition of the component of time. Other semantic enhancement can include enriched bibliography, interactive graphical presentations, hyperlinks to external resources, tagged text, etc.Instead of mostly static content, journals can offer readers dynamic content that includes multimedia, "living mathematics", “executable articles”, etc. Videos highlighting critical points in the research process, 3D representations of chemical compounds or art works, audio clips with the author's reflections and interviews, and animated simulations or models of ocean currents, tides, temperature and salinity structure, can became soon common part of every research article. The diversity of content and media, operating systems (GNU / Linux, Apple Mac OSX, Microsoft Windows), and software tools that are available to researchers, suggests the usage of the appropriate open formats. Different formats have their advantages and disadvantages and it would be necessary to make multiple formats available, some of which are suitable for "human" reading (including printing on paper), and some for machine reading that can be used by computers without human intervention. Characteristics and possibilities of several formats will be discussed, including XML as the most recommended format, which can enable granulate document structure as well as deliver semantics to the human reader or to the computer.Literature:Hilton, J. I., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Four R’s of Openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 37–44. doi:10.1080/02680510903482132Shotton, D. (2012). The Five Stars of Online Journal Articles - a Framework for Article Evaluation. D-Lib Magazine, 18(1/2), 1–16. doi:10.1045/january2012-shottonWare, M., & Mabe, M. (2009). The stm report (p. 68).

scholarly journals Report on the Meeting of the Political Science Members of the National Academy of Sciences

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (01) ◽  
pp. 237-238
Author(s):  
David Laitin ◽  
Gary King
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
The Political ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Public Issues ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Many ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

With assistance of the APSA, the political science members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) held their standing meeting at the annual APSA convention in Chicago. The purposes of these meetings are two-fold: First, as required, to discuss ways that political science can fulfill the NAS mission in providing scientific evidence to address consequential public issues that come from queries posed by various agencies of government; and second, to increase the presence of political scientists in the Academy, where membership from our discipline is, in our view, much lower than political scientists' contributions to the scientific community, and does not adequately recognize the many political scientists who merit election. While we have made some progress toward this second goal, it is a complicated battle: 2,179 members and 437 foreign associates across scientific disciplines have been elected to and currently serve in the NAS, but only 21 are political scientists. Although the science-based mission of NAS does not seek to represent all of the highly pluralistic discipline of political science, far more research relying on methods that are recognized in the natural sciences is produced in our field than is presently represented in the NAS.

The Illusion of Validity and the Power of “Negative Thinking”

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey C. Kabat
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
The Real ◽  
Negative Thinking

Often our view of a problem is limited by our preconceptions, and we may fail to see other aspects that are crucial to its solution. This is true of attention to factors that may affect our health. There is widespread confusion about what are the real threats that can affect our health. On some issues, there is debate within the scientific community, whereas, on other issues, misconceptions are rampant in the wider society. These controversies can only be clarified by a critical assessment of the available scientific evidence, guarding against bias and preconceptions.

Evidence-Based Research in Nursing Science: A Reproducible Framework

2020 ◽  
pp. 019394592097779
Author(s):  
Soyoung Choi
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Nursing Science

While current clinical research generally employs complex computational methods to analyze large amounts of data, reproducible research is a growing movement within the scientific community. This methodology paper consists of five sections discussing the definitions of replicability, reproducibility, and reproducible research, the current status of reproducible research in nursing science, the introduction of a reproducible framework, and the challenges and recommendations for reproducible research. To ensure the data preprocessing process and data analysis of an original study at the minimum standard, it is necessary for the study’s data investigative cycle to be transparent. Most arguments for reproducible research were driven by a critical review of journal articles and conference proceedings. The suggested methodological framework capturing how scientific research generates is expected to contribute to guiding nurse scientists to conduct reproducible research. To generate high-quality scientific evidence for evidence-based practice, the reproducible framework should be integrated into nursing research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document