Writing the discussion: The analysis should speak for itself
Journal name: Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Original article title: Writing the discussion: The analysis should speak for itself
The Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (JISP) publishes original scientific articles on periodontology (the study of supporting structures of teeth) and oral implantology. It is a bimonthly open-access journal with special issues for specific occasions.
This page presents a generated summary with additional references; See source (below) for actual content.
Original source:
This page is merely a summary which is automatically generated hence you should visit the source to read the original article which includes the author, publication date, notes and references.
Ashish Kumar
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology:
(A bimonthly open-access journal)
Full text available for: Writing the discussion: The analysis should speak for itself
Year: 2022 | Doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_317
Copyright (license): CC BY-NC-SA
Summary of article contents:
Introduction
The discussion section of a research article is critical as it interprets the study's results and connects them to the broader context established in the introduction. This section not only validates the author’s understanding of the subject matter but also showcases their literary skills and thoroughness in literature review. Ideally, the discussion acts as an “hourglass,” where information flows from the specific findings in the results to a broader interpretation and implications of those findings.
The Structure of the Discussion
One key concept in writing the discussion is the organization and clarity of arguments. It is essential for authors to break the discussion into several paragraphs, approximately six to eight, to prevent confusion and monotony. Writers have different schools of thought regarding the opening approaches, with some focusing on the study’s purpose, while others directly highlight significant findings or discuss methodology. The discussion should avoid reiterating results already stated in the results section and instead focus on comparing findings with other studies, analyzing meaningful connections, supporting or opposing results, and addressing any contradictory findings. The conclusion of the discussion must also reflect on the strengths and limitations of the study and identify gaps that require further research.
Conclusion
Crafting a compelling discussion is a daunting task that requires careful consideration and judgment. Authors must distinguish between critical and trivial results, articulating their understanding of those results and their broader implications. The conclusion should avoid vague statements like "further studies are needed," instead specifying the exact issues that future research should address. A well-constructed discussion not only enhances the article's overall quality but also advances knowledge within the field by fostering deeper understanding and engagement among readers.
FAQ section (important questions/answers):
What is the purpose of the Discussion section in a research article?
The Discussion section interprets the results of the study, linking them back to the research questions posed in the introduction. It contextualizes findings, compares them with previous studies, highlights innovative approaches, and outlines future research directions.
How should the Discussion section be organized?
The Discussion should ideally consist of 6-8 paragraphs addressing different aspects, such as summarizing key findings, comparing with previous research, discussing related methodologies, and acknowledging the study's strengths and limitations to improve readability.
What key elements should a discussion compare?
The discussion should compare the study's findings with existing literature, addressing both support and opposition. It should analyze contradictory results and include any interesting findings with explanations to provide a comprehensive understanding.
What should not be included in the Discussion section?
The Discussion should avoid repeating specific results or values that were previously detailed in the Results section. Instead, it should focus on interpretations and implications of the findings.
How should authors conclude the Discussion section effectively?
Authors should summarize the strengths and limitations of the study, identify research gaps, and suggest the direction for future research, avoiding vague statements like 'further studies are needed' to ensure clarity and depth.
Glossary definitions and references:
Scientific and Ayurvedic Glossary list for “Writing the discussion: The analysis should speak for itself”. This list explains important keywords that occur in this article and links it to the glossary for a better understanding of that concept in the context of Ayurveda and other topics.
1) Discussion:
The 'Discussion' section is critical in research papers, serving as the bridge between results and the larger context of the study. This part interprets findings, evaluates their implications, compares them to existing literature, and outlines future research directions, thereby validating the author's understanding and contributions to the field.
2) Study (Studying):
A 'Study' refers to a systematic investigation aimed at discovering new knowledge or validating existing theories. It encompasses the research questions, methodologies employed, and the results obtained. The study forms the foundation for discussion, as the findings must be analyzed and contextualized to contribute meaningfully to the scientific community.
3) Writing:
'Writing' in this context represents the skillful articulation of complex ideas and findings in a clear, concise manner. It is essential for effectively communicating the study's significance and ensuring that readers can engage with the evidence presented. Quality writing impacts the credibility and reception of the research.
4) Reason:
'Reason' denotes the rationale behind interpreting research results and discussing their implications. In the 'Discussion' section, researchers articulate the logic that connects their findings to broader questions and existing knowledge, emphasizing the importance of understanding not just what was found, but also why it matters within the field.
5) Relative:
'Relative' highlights the need to place research findings within the context of existing literature and social implications. This comparison helps to demonstrate the significance of the study and how it contributes to or challenges current understanding, thereby situating the research within a broader academic framework.
6) Filling (Filled):
'Filled' refers to addressing gaps in the current research landscape. Researchers must identify what remains unknown or insufficiently explored and articulate how further investigations can address these deficiencies. This process is crucial for advancing knowledge and highlighting the necessity of continued research in a given area.
7) Glass:
'Glass' is metaphorically used to describe the 'hour-glass' structure of research articles, symbolizing the flow from introduction to discussion. The design emphasizes the transition of research findings from specific results to broader implications. Just as an hour-glass narrows in the middle, a study should refine its focus in the discussion.
Other Science Concepts:
Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Writing the discussion: The analysis should speak for itself’. Further sources in the context of Science might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:
Results of the study, Discussion Section, Strengths and limitations, Important result.