"Discussion" is regarded as a yardstick to measure the pros and cons of a paper, which can best reflect the amount of literature mastered by the author and the depth of understanding of an academic issue.
The "discussion" part is the weak link of many China authors, which can best reflect the gap between China and international scientific papers.
The main problems in the "discussion" part of the paper are as follows:
1) simply lists the experimental data and describes the experimental phenomena. The discussion process is actually a description of the experimental process and results;
2) The contents of "abstract" and "introduction" were repeatedly quoted in the discussion, which did not form the author's own analysis of the experimental results;
3) A large number of domestic and foreign literatures are cited in the discussion, but there is a lack of integrated analysis of literature viewpoints, and the author's own opinions are not put forward (especially in the review articles);
4) The evaluation of research results is not objective enough, or boastful, or harmless, or deliberately avoids the limitations of research.
The author believes that both "discussion" and "conclusion" must exist in scientific papers. In order to form a conclusion, the author should make clear his own views during the discussion: what to support, what to oppose, why to support and why to oppose. Therefore, the process of drawing a conclusion in the discussion reflects the logic of thinking and the degree of comprehensive understanding and skilled application of knowledge. The author believes that "discussion" should be written from the following aspects.
1) "Discussion" should have its inherent logic. Starting with the analysis of the "particularity" of experimental results and phenomena, this paper gradually discusses the mechanism of this phenomenon. In this process, other people's opinions can be introduced for comparison or evidence, and the positive and negative aspects of the experimental results can also be discussed, and finally opinions can be obtained and commented. This process embodies the rigor of thinking, the rigor of logic and the systematization of knowledge. In the process of discussion, we should adhere to the universal contact method and dialectical method to analyze and understand the problem.
2) Data processing should be expressed as comprehensively as possible by graphs, tables and texts. Avoid listing the data, reflect the in-depth analysis of the data, and the formed figures and tables should be self-explanatory, avoid repeating the same set of data in the figures, tables and texts, and simply clarify the conclusive data in the figures or tables with concise words. In addition to using data or graphs to describe the trend, we should also use statistical methods as far as possible to reflect the statistical analysis of data on the premise of eliminating differences and avoid the mistake of using special data to produce general conclusions.
3) During the discussion, use "maybe" as little as possible. Because the discussion is a process of constantly verifying, removing the false and retaining the true, the author should analyze the positive or negative reasons of the experimental results through hypothetical methods. But it can't end with the hypothesis of "maybe", and further experiments should be designed to verify it. Putting forward assumptions is only a theoretical possibility; Design experiment verification is to find the possibility in practice. In this way, the consistency between theory and practice shows that the hypothesis is correct, otherwise further discussion and analysis are needed.
4) The positive results and negative results should be combined in the discussion process. In any research, the correct negative experiment is the premise to improve the depth of the paper. The process of research and discussion is the process of constantly eliminating wrong methods and finding correct methods. By comparing the positive and negative experimental results, the author can see the problem more comprehensively, broaden his horizons and make the paper more convincing.
5) Citation of documents. Some domestic authors cite a lot of foreign literature, not for a better summary, but to prove their reading ability. Even a large number of documents were cited twice, and even the original text could not be seen. Some authors don't quote or systematically quote literature, either think it is unimportant, fail to find it, or deliberately avoid it to highlight the "novelty" and "value" of their own research. Although some authors cited relevant literature, they did not combine their own research, which led to the split in the discussion process, and readers could not systematically and deeply understand the author's research results. Therefore, the above three phenomena should be avoided in the process of citing documents.
6) For papers that are theoretical and need some mathematical assistance, unless the purpose of the article is to prove the content of mathematical assumptions, it is necessary to avoid too detailed mathematical derivation. Because after all, mathematics is used as a tool rather than a simple mathematical problem. If you need to explain the whole process in detail, you can mark it in the form of an appendix for readers' reference.
7) The potential limitations and deficiencies of the author's research should be pointed out during the discussion. Domestic authors don't like to talk about the shortcomings of their own research [2]. It seems that this will make their works look flawed and even have problems with the topic selection. This is also caused by the general environment, but we should try to abandon this way of thinking. Pointing out the limitations can not only provide reference for later researchers, but also increase the objectivity of the article.
"Discussion" occupies a very important position in scientific papers. The author puts forward several problems that should be paid attention to in the process of writing scientific papers, which not only requires the author to have a thorough and comprehensive awareness of analyzing problems in the writing process, but also requires every editor to strictly check and seriously revise in the process of reviewing and editing, and give timely feedback to the author on scientific and reasonable revision opinions, so as to finally ensure the formation of high-quality academic papers.