However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.
Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1—2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study even the during project stage.
The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. How should the manuscript be written? The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness.
Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature.
Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings.
Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields ie. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses.
During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript. On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment.
For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach. Which target journal should be selected?
Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view.
Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention.
However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. Tell how the study has advanced the field of inquiry. Comparison of the present study to published reports then may be made. Example: Two series have suggested that rhubarb eating reduces the prevalence of colorectal cancer; however, study populations were small, and the studies were not controlled.
DO NOT make the discussion an exhaustive review of the literature. Keep it focused on the present work and closely related publications. References to previous research: either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim.
This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of research used to provide context and background information.
Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
Deduction: a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices. Hypothesis: a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a result of your analysis.
Organization and Structure Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper: Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate]. Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in your introduction.
Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings.
This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study.
If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings.
Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e. The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem.
This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.
Overall Objectives The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant.
If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.
Consider what new directions are supported by your findings. One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. What was the overarching hypothesis? For example, do your experiments suggest that a specific molecule should be tested as a new drug target or that tissue-based studies or clinical investigations should be performed to translate your animal studies to patients? Deduction: a claim for how the results can be applied more generally.
Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. Additional study of large populations in other geographic areas should be considered. Our on-site scientific writing workshops can range from hours to several days in length. In the following example, we state the approach bold and the main result underline.
The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Summarize the major gap in understanding that your work is attempting to fill.
For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among the poor in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself. Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question.
Organization and Structure Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper: Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section. For example, did the approaches differ or were there major differences in sample sizes that may have affected results? Interpretation is a subjective exercise. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand.
This report is consistent with our finding that a major stimulus of ABCD signaling is overexpressed in resistant cells. Example: In this study, we measured secreted factors in the media of sensitive and resistant cell lines to identify differentially expressed cytokines that may mediate resistance. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript? Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors.
In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively.
However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study.
A research paper is not a literature review.
This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of research used to provide context and background information. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.