How To Write Discussion In a Research Paper: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction: How to Write the Discussion Section in a Research Paper

Writing research papers is a crucial part of sharing the knowledge we gain throughout our academic careers. However, crafting these manuscripts can be quite challenging. This task can be particularly daunting for those who are juggling a heavy workload or who are not native English speakers, given that English is the most commonly used language for sharing scientific knowledge.

The aim of this guide is to break down the process of writing the "Discussion" section of a research paper and to address the question “How to Write the Discussion Section in a Research Paper”. The Discussion is often considered the most critical part of a manuscript, but it can also be the most difficult and least enjoyable to write. Here, we’ll walk you through simple and effective strategies that can make this process easier, based on what has worked in practice. We'll also highlight common mistakes that are frequently made in this section.

In the course of this guide, we'll touch on some general principles of manuscript writing, but our primary focus will be on the Discussion section itself. Whether you're new to writing research papers or looking to refine your skills, this guide will help you approach the Discussion section with greater confidence and clarity.

A - Approaches to the General Aspects of Manuscript Writing

1. How to Manage Your Time for Writing a Research Paper

When it comes to writing a research paper, there are two main strategies you can consider for managing your time effectively.

One approach is to dedicate at least 30 minutes each day to writing. This adds up to about 3.5 hours a week, which may seem like a small amount of time, but it can help you complete a manuscript within a few weeks. This method is particularly beneficial because it helps you build a routine for academic research and keeps your motivation consistently high.

The second approach is to try and complete the manuscript in a single, intensive week. This method allows you to reach your goal quickly. However, spending long periods focusing on the manuscript can be exhausting and might lead to a drop in motivation. Additionally, daily responsibilities that aren’t related to writing can interfere, potentially stretching out the writing process. Taking long breaks can also mean you’ll need to revisit the literature, which can be time-consuming. Therefore, the daily writing strategy is often considered the best way to maintain high motivation throughout the process.

Before you dive into writing your manuscript, it’s crucial to create a draft and lay out the paper on a theoretical level. To do this effectively, it’s important to work in a distraction-free environment, allowing you to complete this draft in 1–2 hours.

It’s also advisable to start writing the manuscript before your study is fully completed, even during the project phase. The reason for this is that writing early can help you identify any gaps in your research or issues with your writing methodology, giving you the opportunity to address them before the study is finished. Once the study is complete, it can be much harder to fix these problems.

At the very least, you should draft the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Materials and Methods’ sections early on. You can also start organizing your numerical data into tables for the ‘Results’ section. This proactive approach helps streamline the writing process and can lead to a more polished final manuscript.

2. How Should You Write the Manuscript?

When it comes to writing a research paper, the most important principles to keep in mind are simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. The goal should always be to present your findings in a way that readers can easily understand.

Our recommended approach is to write all sections of the manuscript simultaneously and to start writing as soon as you begin reading the relevant literature. This way, new ideas and thoughts that emerge can be immediately documented. However, during this process, it's important to fully express your findings and clearly convey the main message of your manuscript. This approach, which we can call the "hunter’s approach," allows you to hit your target quickly and directly.

Another method is the "collector’s approach." In this approach, you first gather potential data and literature, then carefully review and select what you’ll use. While this method might work well in some fields, the "hunter’s approach" is often more effective for getting your message across clearly and efficiently. However, those who are new to academic writing might prefer the "collector’s approach" as they build their skills.

Working in a research team that includes members of different ages and experience levels can offer significant advantages. Younger team members often bring enthusiasm and energy, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the study and write the manuscript. More experienced researchers can offer valuable guidance. To work effectively as a team, it’s important to appoint a lead researcher to oversee the project and organize regular progress meetings. The unique skills and experiences of team members in areas like research methods, patient interactions, project planning, fundraising, and statistical analysis can greatly enhance the quality of the manuscript. Assigning tasks based on these strengths and completing them within set time frames can help maintain motivation and ensure that data remains current.

In our view, the ‘Abstract’ section should be written after the rest of the manuscript is complete. This is because the importance of study outcomes can shift during the writing process. However, if an abstract was already presented at a conference, it can serve as a useful guide to keep the manuscript focused on its main objectives.

Finally, it’s crucial to insert references as you write the manuscript, rather than leaving this task until the end. Trying to recall relevant references for the ‘Discussion’ section later can be challenging. Using reference management software, as discussed in other sections, can make this process more efficient and organized.

3. How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Manuscript

Selecting the right journal for your manuscript is crucial, especially when it comes to writing the Discussion section. The way you approach the Discussion will often depend on the specific guidelines and word limits of your target journal. These limitations can have a significant impact on how you craft your Discussion, making it essential to align your manuscript with the journal’s expectations.

To choose the most appropriate journal, you need to fully understand your data from a scientific perspective. While similar articles may have been published before, introducing new insights or innovative perspectives on the topic can increase your chances of acceptance. Nowadays, journals are more interested in articles that challenge existing knowledge rather than those that simply confirm it. However, it's important not to question well-established facts unless there is a compelling reason to do so. For example, a manuscript that suggests “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or claims “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” is unlikely to be accepted without a thorough critical review. Additionally, the journal you choose should be open to publishing articles with similar themes. Editors are less likely to reserve space for papers that offer conclusions too similar to those already published.

The title of your manuscript is just as important as the content itself. It should highlight the most significant or novel finding from your research. Before you start writing, it can be helpful to come up with 2–3 potential titles. This can boost your motivation and give you a sense of direction as you write. As you develop the manuscript, you can choose the title that best reflects the intensity of the Discussion. However, it’s crucial to ensure that the title aligns with the focus of your target journal. For instance, a title like “Use of Barbed Sutures in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy Shortens Warm Ischemia Time” would not be suitable for a journal focused on "Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology," as it falls outside the scope of that publication.

4. Is It Necessary to Get a Pre-Peer Review Before Submission?

Before submitting your manuscript to your chosen journal, it’s highly recommended to seek feedback from both internal and external reviewers. This pre-peer review can help identify areas for improvement and increase the chances of your manuscript being accepted.

Internal reviewers can be divided into two groups: general internal reviewers and expert internal reviewers. General internal reviewers are colleagues from different medical or academic disciplines who may not be experts in your specific field. Their role is to review your manuscript for simplicity, clarity, and overall writing effectiveness. On the other hand, expert internal reviewers are individuals with deep knowledge of your subject area, often senior colleagues with more experience. They can offer valuable guidance on both the content and structure of your manuscript.

External reviewers are colleagues who were not involved in your study but have expertise in the subject matter. Because they are not connected to the study or the authors, they can provide a more objective review.

Before sending your manuscript to these reviewers, it's important to first ask if they have the time and willingness to review it. Provide them with some background on the subject matter to ensure they can offer useful feedback. This step is crucial, as delays in the pre-peer review process can slow down your manuscript's journey to publication and affect the authors' motivation.

When selecting reviewers, consider what you want to achieve with their feedback. These internal and external reviewers should be able to answer the following questions:

1. Does the manuscript contribute to the existing literature?

2. Is the argument persuasive?

3. Is the manuscript appropriate for the selected journal?

4. Is the language simple, clear, and effective?

Based on their feedback, you can critically review and refine your manuscript to ensure it meets high standards.

After receiving feedback from your reviewers, focus on addressing the key issues they’ve identified. It’s important to consider their comments carefully and constructively, without becoming defensive. During this "incubation" period, while waiting for the reviewers' feedback, it’s also a good idea to revisit the literature. New articles may have been published that could be relevant to your Discussion section and should be included in your manuscript.

5. Common Mistakes in the Manuscript Writing Process

When writing a manuscript, some common mistakes can hinder its effectiveness. One of the biggest issues is failing to deliver a clear and focused message. This often happens when multiple main ideas are crammed into the same section or when too many unrelated results are presented in an attempt to strengthen the manuscript’s claims. This scattered approach can cause the study to lose its focus. To avoid this, authors should continuously ask themselves, "What is the objective of this study?" If you can consistently provide a clear answer, then you're on the right track. It can also be helpful to use a template that outlines the key messages you want to convey, ensuring that the focus remains sharp throughout the writing process.

Another common mistake is neglecting to thoroughly review the manuscript after it has been completed. It’s essential for the authors to collectively review the manuscript at least three times once the writing is finished.

1. First Review: Focus on the overall logic and structure of the manuscript. Check if the intended messages are clear and well-organized.

2. Second Review: Examine the syntax and grammar to ensure that the writing is clear and error-free.

3. Third Review: This should be done 1 or 2 weeks after the manuscript has been completed. Reviewing the "cooled" manuscript after some time allows for a more objective perspective, making it easier to assess its overall coherence and integrity.

Other mistakes include filling the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, repeatedly addressing the same problems or solutions, over-criticizing or over-praising other studies, and using overly complex or flowery language. The main goal should always be to share information clearly and effectively. (Öner Şanlı, Selçuk Erdem, and Tzevat Tefik, 2013)

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1.How to Construct the Main Points of the 'Discussion' Section in a Research Paper

When writing the 'Discussion' section of a research paper, it's important to keep it concise and focused. This section should be shorter than the combined length of the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Results sections, ideally fitting into 6–7 paragraphs. Each paragraph should be no longer than 200 words. Here's a simple way to structure your 'Discussion' section:

1. Introductory Paragraph

Start with a strong opening sentence that clearly states the purpose of your study. This paragraph should:

• Identify the Main Issue: Briefly explain the problem your study addresses without repeating the Introduction.

• Propose Solutions: Suggest possible solutions or recommendations related to the issue.

• Highlight Innovation: Point out what makes your study unique or innovative.

• Explain Contribution: Describe how your study adds value to solving the problem.

This introduction helps set the stage for the rest of the 'Discussion' section and guides the reader through your analysis.

2. Intermediate Paragraphs

In the middle paragraphs of your 'Discussion,' delve into:

• Detailed Analysis: Expand on the key findings of your study and how they relate to existing research.

• Comparisons: Compare your results with previous studies and discuss any differences or similarities.

• Implications: Explore the significance of your findings and their implications for the field.

3. Concluding Paragraph

End your 'Discussion' section with a strong conclusion that includes:

• Study Strengths: Highlight the strong points of your study using cautious, well-supported statements.

• Acknowledge Limitations: Mention any limitations of your study to show objectivity and transparency.

• Future Directions: Suggest possible future research or potential clinical applications based on your findings.

By following this structure, you ensure that your 'Discussion' section is clear, informative, and effectively communicates the significance of your research.

How to Formulate the Intermediate Paragraphs of the 'Discussion' Section

The intermediate paragraphs of the 'Discussion' section are crucial for presenting and analyzing your findings. These paragraphs often come after the introductory and before the concluding paragraphs and can sometimes feel dry to readers. To keep them engaging and informative, follow these tips:

Structure of Intermediate Paragraphs

1. Focus on Your Findings: Each paragraph should focus on one key finding from your study. Organize your findings by their importance and create a separate paragraph for each.

2. Start with a Strong Opening: Begin each paragraph with a clear and undeniable statement about the finding. This statement should answer the question: “What have we found?”

3. Discuss in Light of Existing Literature:

   • Explain the Finding: After your opening sentence, explain the finding in detail.

   • Relate to Previous Research: Discuss how this finding fits into or contrasts with existing research. Highlight new ideas or insights based on your study.

   • Conclude the Paragraph: End with a summary or concluding remark that ties the discussion back to the main point.

Key Points to Include

• Relevance and Importance: Emphasize how the finding contributes to the overall understanding of the topic and its place among other studies.

• Logical Sequence: Present studies and findings in a logical order—such as from earlier to more recent research or from smaller to larger studies.

• Contradictions: Point out any contradictions between your findings and previous studies.

• Avoid Repetition: Don’t repeat numerical values from the Results section unless necessary. Focus on discussing the meaning and implications of the results.

Helpful Questions to Address

To guide your writing and ensure clarity, consider answering these questions in each paragraph:

1. Can the Result Be False or Inadequate?

   • Assess whether there might be issues with the result, such as flaws in study design, protocol contamination, or statistical power.

2. Why Might It Be False or Inadequate?

   • Discuss potential reasons for any inaccuracies or limitations in the study, such as poor blinding or loss to follow-up.

3. What Does the Result Mean?

   • Explain the significance of the finding and what it conveys about the research topic.

By structuring your intermediate paragraphs this way, you ensure they are informative, well-organized, and engaging for readers.

3. Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing the Discussion Section

Writing the 'Discussion' section of a research paper can be challenging. To ensure your paper is well-received, avoid these common mistakes:

1. Overloading with References

One major mistake is including too many references. Remember, the 'Discussion' section is not a review article. Focus on discussing results relevant to the specific paragraph. Here’s how to manage references effectively:

• Relevance: Only include studies that directly relate to your findings. Avoid citing unrelated research.

• Primary Sources: Cite original articles rather than abstracts or review articles, unless absolutely necessary.

• Conciseness: Avoid overloading the section with numerous references. A few well-chosen references are more effective.

2. Wordiness and Lack of Precision

Another frequent error is writing too much or including unnecessary information. Each paragraph should be concise and focused. Here’s how to ensure precision:

• Be Concise: Eliminate words or sentences that do not add value. Each word should contribute to the meaning of the paragraph.

• Avoid ‘Word Salads’: Steer clear of overly complex or verbose writing. Make sure every sentence clearly supports your main point.

3. Lack of Structure

Disorganized writing can lead to confusion and rejection. Follow these tips to keep your 'Discussion' section well-structured:

• Clear Organization: Present findings and references in a logical sequence.

• Focused Paragraphs: Ensure each paragraph has a clear focus and supports the overall discussion.

By avoiding these common mistakes, you can make your 'Discussion' section clearer, more relevant, and more likely to be accepted by reviewers.

4. Writing Rules and Grammar for the 'Discussion' Section

To ensure your 'Discussion' section is clear and professional, pay attention to the following writing rules and grammar tips:

Use Simple Language

• Conversational Tone: Write as if you’re discussing with a colleague. Use straightforward, simple language.

• Clarity: Ensure that each sentence conveys a single point to avoid confusion.

Sentence Structure

• Length: Keep sentences between 25–30 words.

• Organization: Place information from previous sentences at the beginning of the new sentence. Introduce new information towards the end.

• Avoid Unnecessary Words: Be concise. Remove any words that do not add value to the sentence.

Active vs. Passive Voice

• Prefer Active Voice: Use active voice rather than passive voice. Active voice is clearer and easier to understand. For example, instead of "The study was conducted by us," write "We conducted the study."

• Adapt to Conventions: While passive voice is common in scientific writing, especially in certain languages, using active voice is generally recommended for clarity.

Sentence Beginnings

• Start with "We": Don’t hesitate to start sentences with "We" if it helps improve readability and clarity. Editors often prefer active voice for better understanding.

Conclusion

In summary, writing a manuscript effectively means focusing on simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. By applying these principles, you can craft each part of the manuscript (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) simultaneously. For the 'Discussion' section, using a “divide and conquer” approach can make the writing process easier and more structured.

Remember that feedback from colleagues, whether positive or critical, can help improve your manuscript. No manuscript is perfect, so don’t let language issues or lack of experience stop you from writing. Embrace the writing process as a chance to refine and enhance your work.

FAQs

What are the key principles for writing a manuscript? Focus on simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness to ensure your manuscript is well-written.

How can the “divide and conquer” approach help in writing the 'Discussion' section of a Research Paper? This approach helps by organizing your findings and discussions into manageable, focused paragraphs.

What should you do if you receive feedback on your manuscript? Use feedback from colleagues to improve your manuscript and enhance its quality.

What is the recommended sentence length for the 'Discussion' section of a Research Paper? Sentences should be between 25–30 words to ensure clarity and readability.

How should information be organized in sentences? Place information linking to the previous sentence at the beginning, and new information towards the end of the sentence.

Why should active voice be used in the 'Discussion' section? Active voice is clearer and more engaging for readers compared to passive voice.

What are the common mistakes in writing the 'Discussion' section? Common mistakes include overloading with references, being wordy, and lacking structure. Focus on relevance, conciseness, and clear organization to avoid these issues.

How should references be handled in the 'Discussion' section? Include only relevant references, cite original articles, and avoid overloading with numerous references. Abstracts and review articles should be cited only if absolutely necessary.

How can I avoid wordiness in the 'Discussion' section? Be concise and eliminate unnecessary words or sentences. Ensure every sentence adds value and clearly supports the main point of the paragraph.

What should each intermediate paragraph of the 'Discussion' section focus on? Each intermediate paragraph should focus on a key finding from your study, starting with a clear statement about the finding, discussing its relevance in light of existing research, and ending with a summary.

How should findings be presented in the intermediate paragraphs? Findings should be presented in a logical sequence, emphasizing their importance and relevance while avoiding repetition of numerical values from the Results section.

What questions should be answered in the intermediate paragraphs? Address whether the result might be false or inadequate, why it could be flawed, and what meaning or significance it conveys about the research topic.

This approach ensures the intermediate paragraphs are clear, structured, and easy to follow, while also making the content more accessible to a general audience.

What should the introductory paragraph of the 'Discussion' section include? The introductory paragraph should outline the main issue of the study, suggest solutions, highlight the study's unique aspects, and explain how it contributes to addressing the problem.

How long should the 'Discussion' section be? The 'Discussion' section should generally be shorter than the combined length of the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Results sections, fitting into 6–7 paragraphs with each paragraph being no longer than 200 words.

What should be included in the concluding paragraph of the 'Discussion' section of a Research Paper? The concluding paragraph should emphasize the study's strengths, acknowledge any limitations, and suggest future research directions or potential clinical applications.