How to write the discussion part of the paper: the discussion of scientific papers needs to be structured

Suggest the structure used in the discussion part of scientific papers: state the main findings, the advantages and disadvantages of this study, and the advantages and disadvantages compared with other studies; In particular, the differences in results, the significance of research, unanswered questions and future research directions should be discussed.

At the beginning of the discussion, we should reinterpret the main findings, and it is ideal to express them in one sentence. Then fully explain the advantages and disadvantages of this study, both of which can not be neglected. In fact, editors and readers are most concerned about the shortcomings of research, which is inevitable in all medical research. Once editors and readers find the shortcomings of the research, but the author does not discuss them, their trust in the article will be shaken, and they will have doubts: Are there any other weaknesses that they and the author have not found?

Secondly, the research is related to the previous work, not to show off how good your work is, but to compare its advantages and disadvantages. Compare with other studies and avoid covering up your own shortcomings. It is important to discuss why the conclusion is different from others, and the author can speculate freely; But if you don't know why your research results are different from others', it's not convenient to make such a guess, and you shouldn't assert that your research results are right and others' are wrong.

So we should discuss our own research? Show? What, how to explain your findings, and what is the significance for clinicians or decision makers? At this moment, the author's situation is dangerous, and most editors and readers can understand the author's caution and don't exceed the limit of experience. It is up to readers to judge the significance of this research: they will do it. The author can even point out that the research results can't prove anything, lest readers draw excessive and untrue conclusions. Finally, we should point out which questions have not been answered and the work to be done. Obviously, neither editors nor readers like exaggeration. In fact, the author often writes this part of the paper in a mess. Although the author cannot be prevented from writing an article full of speculation, the evidence must not be destroyed by speculation.

The discussion section may sometimes need other subheadings, but we think the structure proposed now is suitable for most research papers. Although it is difficult and even limited to unify the structure, we believe that this structure will reduce the total text length, prevent inappropriate speculation and repetition, reduce the deviation of the report and improve the overall quality of the report. This idea can stand the test completely. We welcome the authors and readers of BMJ to express their opinions. If they respond well, we will use structured discussions.

Please continue to read the relevant recommendation: graduation thesis fresh graduates apply for jobs.

View and download the graduation thesis model essay