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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghasemi, Asghar, Bahadoran, Zahra, Mirmiran, Parvin, Hosseinpanah, Farhad, Shiva, Niloofar, Zadeh-Vakili, Azita
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