Thesis Writing reference-how to write the thesis discussion section

How to write a thesis discussion section (written by a foreign cool) [conversion]

The discussion of scientific papers needs to be structured

Readers of medical journals are familiar with the imrad structure (Introduction, method, result, and discussion; introduction, methods, results and discussion) of the paper, and consciously or unconsciously know the role of each part. Likewise, readers are familiar with structured summaries, which contain more information than non-structured summaries. Some publications require special papers to use special structures, such as Randomised trials. Now we propose that the discussion part of the scientific paper should be structured, because it is often the weakest part of the paper, and careful explanation becomes endless.
Old-fashioned papers often lack new data (possibly including case reports), but they are discussed with ease. The purpose of the discussion seems to be to convince readers that the author's explanation of the data and speculation are correct. This is not a fair test of evidence. The times have changed. People pay more attention to methods and results because methods are more complex and more scientific. However, we still find that the discussion in many papers seems to be "selling" ourselves.
Richard Horton, Lancet's editor-in-chief, and some people have written articles about how the author plays with rhetoric in the discussion. Some authors talk about the text with no subtitles. The content is heavy and special. The description is bloated, arrogant, the result is preferred, and the content is nagging repeatedly. the importance and universality of discovery are exaggerated, leading to deviations. Draw inappropriate conclusions regardless of the collected evidence.

It is recommended that the structure used in the scientific papers be discussed.
. Statement mainly found
. Strengths and weaknesses of this study
. Strengths and Weaknesses compared with other studies; differences in results should be discussed in particular
The significance of the study: Possible Mechanisms and use prospects of clinicians or decision makers
Unanswered questions and future research directions

at the beginning of the discussion, we should re-explain the main findings and use a sentence to express the ideal results. Next, we will give a comprehensive explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of this study. In fact, editors and readers pay the most attention to the shortcomings of research, which is inevitable for all medical research. Once the editors and Readers discover the shortcomings of the research, but the author does not discuss them, their trust in the Article will be shaken, and they will be confused: are there any other vulnerabilities that they and the author have not found?
second, associate the study with the previous work, instead of showing off how good your work is than the previous work, but comparing its advantages and disadvantages. Compared with other studies, do not mask your defects. The important thing is that we should discuss why we come to conclusions different from others, so that the author can let up his speculation. But if we cannot figure out why our research results are different from others' results, it is inconvenient to make such speculation, and it is not necessary to assert that the results of your own research are correct, and that others are wrong.
next we should discuss what our study "shows", how we explain our findings, and what it means to clinicians or decision makers? At this moment, the author's situation is dangerous. Most editors and readers can understand the author's caution, not exceeding the empirical boundary. Readers determine the significance of research by themselves: they will do it. The author can even point out that the research results do not prove anything, preventing readers from drawing excessive and false conclusions. Finally, it is necessary to clarify which questions have not been answered and the work to be continued. Obviously, editors and readers do not like exaggerated practices. In fact, this part of the paper is often messy. Although the author cannot be prevented from writing a speculative article, the evidence cannot be ruined by speculation.
some discussions may sometimes require other subtitles, but we think that the structure proposed now is suitable for most research papers. Although the unified structure is difficult or even limited, we believe that this structure will reduce the overall length of the text, prevent improper speculation and repetition, reduce the report deviation, and improve the overall quality of the report. This idea is completely tested. We welcome the author and readers of BMJ to express their views. If they are well reflected, we will use a structured discussion.
(translated by Qian shouchu)