Cargando…
The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion
The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forw...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Kowsar
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31497043 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415 |
_version_ | 1783441374602854400 |
---|---|
author | Ghasemi, Asghar Bahadoran, Zahra Mirmiran, Parvin Hosseinpanah, Farhad Shiva, Niloofar Zadeh-Vakili, Azita |
author_facet | Ghasemi, Asghar Bahadoran, Zahra Mirmiran, Parvin Hosseinpanah, Farhad Shiva, Niloofar Zadeh-Vakili, Azita |
author_sort | Ghasemi, Asghar |
collection | PubMed |
description | The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forward. A well-written discussion should provide clear “statements of the main findings”, “possible explanations and implications”, “strengths and weaknesses of the study and other studies”, “unanswered questions”, and “suggestions for future research”. The authors also need to clarify the external validity of the findings and show how the findings can be generalized. In this review, we focus on the function, content, and organization of the “discussion section” of a hypothesis-testing paper. Beyond providing the most important principles and common strategies for organizing the discussion section, we also discuss metadiscourse, scientific explanation (reasoning and contextualization), and models of scientific explanation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6679622 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Kowsar |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66796222019-09-06 The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion Ghasemi, Asghar Bahadoran, Zahra Mirmiran, Parvin Hosseinpanah, Farhad Shiva, Niloofar Zadeh-Vakili, Azita Int J Endocrinol Metab Review Article The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forward. A well-written discussion should provide clear “statements of the main findings”, “possible explanations and implications”, “strengths and weaknesses of the study and other studies”, “unanswered questions”, and “suggestions for future research”. The authors also need to clarify the external validity of the findings and show how the findings can be generalized. In this review, we focus on the function, content, and organization of the “discussion section” of a hypothesis-testing paper. Beyond providing the most important principles and common strategies for organizing the discussion section, we also discuss metadiscourse, scientific explanation (reasoning and contextualization), and models of scientific explanation. Kowsar 2019-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6679622/ /pubmed/31497043 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415 Text en Copyright © 2019, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Ghasemi, Asghar Bahadoran, Zahra Mirmiran, Parvin Hosseinpanah, Farhad Shiva, Niloofar Zadeh-Vakili, Azita The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title | The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title_full | The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title_fullStr | The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title_full_unstemmed | The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title_short | The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion |
title_sort | principles of biomedical scientific writing: discussion |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31497043 http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghasemiasghar theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT bahadoranzahra theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT mirmiranparvin theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT hosseinpanahfarhad theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT shivaniloofar theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT zadehvakiliazita theprinciplesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT ghasemiasghar principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT bahadoranzahra principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT mirmiranparvin principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT hosseinpanahfarhad principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT shivaniloofar principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion AT zadehvakiliazita principlesofbiomedicalscientificwritingdiscussion |