First, select the questions to be discussed in depth. Some of the results are important, while others can be ignored. In the discussion part, it is the most important problem to choose the appropriate results for in-depth discussion. Generally speaking, it can be judged according to the following principles: if your result reflects the uniqueness of the experiment and is not obtained in other studies, then this result is the key issue to be discussed; Some results are consistent with previous studies, and there is no significant difference, so we should ignore them without in-depth discussion. An important role of discussion is to highlight the innovation of one's own research, showing the characteristics that are significantly different from others. The difference between big and small is another problem. Difference is very important, and difference is innovation.
Here are some techniques to explain sentence patterns. Many authors use "we confirm that", which seems to be "………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Therefore, we can use what we believe ... or the very novel and original results can also be emphasized by us (discover, observe) ... For the first time, this makes readers feel ups and downs and focus.
Then, we should pay attention to the overall logic of paragraph layout and discuss the selected issues from multiple angles according to a certain level. Reasoning should be well-founded and problems should be explained clearly and thoroughly. Sometimes there is more than one problem, usually more than two, which should be described clearly according to a certain level. The first paragraph should clearly tell the reader how many parts you want to discuss. You can put the most important part in the middle and then put down the head and tail. Regardless of the size, problems should come from multiple sources.
(1) First, we should compare similar results to illustrate the uniqueness of our conclusions;
(2) Secondly, we should systematically explain why there is such a result. There are many methods, such as from the perspective of experimental design, theoretical principles, analytical methods, or learning from other people's analytical methods. It is important to explain the problem clearly and deeply, so as not to give people the feeling of wanting more.
(3) Write out the shortcomings of this article. Many authors may find it undesirable to write like this, but it is really a good way to protect their articles. Reviewers are generally awesome in their respective fields. It is very unwise to deliberately hide the loopholes in the article so that others can't see it.
The so-called shortcomings include the following: (1) The research problem is a bit one-sided. During the discussion, it must be said that what should be missed is that this study is only reviewed ... or we only focus on ... (2) The conclusion is somewhat insufficient. Just using the results doesn't mean ... our results are lacking ... but after pointing out these shortcomings, you must immediately strengthen the importance of this article and the possible means to solve these shortcomings, so as to pave the way for others or yourself. In this way, the problems that commentators think of will be explained in advance, indicating that you are already thinking about these problems. However, due to the limitation of article length, experimental progress or experimental means, these questions cannot be answered for the time being. However, with some suggestions, these problems may be realized in future research.