如何撰写有效的讨论？

分享智慧

共同成长

Full text

Usual way in writing of articles for publishing in biomedical journals is to follow the instructions: – Vancouver’s rules and Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (1, 2). Writing of scientific paper requires high competence and scientific awareness, and the respect of scientific patterns of behavior.

Every paper should essentially be followed by the IMRAD structure, which is generally represented, with minor modifications, in the entire modern scientific publishing. The concept of pointing out that the usual order of sections is contained in the abbreviation “IMRAD” :

I - Introduction,

M - Methods (or Methods and Materials),

R - Results,

A - and

D - Discussion and Conclusion.

The abstract does not contain discussion. Although it is a common fact, editors around the world can point out that today is one thing that is not so rare. The idea, pointing to clear goals, setting the hypothesis itself, and conducting the research itself, are important steps in scientific writing. But, the analysis of the results obtained, and the pointing of these results, as well as, comparison with the results of other studies that deal with the same or similar topic requires skill and high expertise in a particular field.

It is very important that when writing the paper itself, the author has a writing style, which differs from the individual to the individual, and essentially reflects the way the author’s thinking.

Clarity, simplicity, briefness, precision and unity are the inevitable features of a scientific style, while the language of writing must be more precise (3). Selection of verb time depends on which results are described. If known, what has already been published, should be in the present time (Introduction and Discussion) and, if described, their own results should be described in the past time (Material and methods), with recommendation to use active instead of passive, except in summary, where the use of passive language is recommended (3).

Writing must follow the thread, have a meaningful beginning and end, and from each and every part of the context, indicate the benefits of the paper, to its defect, defining ambiguous points that would have the process for further analysis in some subsequent studies by the same or another group of authors (1).

The writing of the discussion itself must point to the specificity of the results of the work itself, whether they are going to work with previously published articles or are different. If it is different to point to the details of the statistical processing, or to point to the level of significance that has become, and in some cases to the intensity and significance of the processed method.

It is very important that authors do not repeat the presented results, but it is only necessary to point to those exceptions that do not confirm the rule. It is very important to elaborate the results that are important because they carry the power of an article. The results that are not confirmed by statistical processing should not be in the center of attention (1, 2).

The discussion should essentially address the theoretical and practical consequences of the results, and the conclusions themselves should be presented as briefly and clearly as possible, with individual argumentation. The purpose of the discussion should be the relation between the observed results and the facts) (3).

The discussion should not contain historical facts about a phenomenon or topic of writing (those who are not important to the survey itself), should not repeat things that are known to a wider population or which are not at an adequate academic level. A comparison of the results obtained with the research should be done with recognized studies in the reference index databases.

Comparing own results with results from predatory or low-quality journals (primarily a journal in which the papers does not undergo peer review) is contextually meaningless, and it is virtually impossible to get a good result (2).

If only the research has, or may have, a large bias selection, it must be shown, because every original scientific paper is an article that could be included in a meta-analysis or systematic review for the second day so that it may be re-established the repetition of bias, that is, the inability to come to conclusions that could be of great importance in the practice tomorrow.

The discussion must not be too long, it must not be too short.

The discussion must be closely related to the subject matter, must not depart from it, and must be a service. It must not exceed the sum of other parts (Introduction, Material and methods, Results) and must be written in six to seven paragraphs.

Each paragraph should not contain more than two hundred words. Paragraphs can be divided into three types generally (4, 5, 6):

1. Introductory paragraph,

2. Intermediate paragraphs,

3. Concluding paragraph

Sentences should be clear, with no undetermined things that can be accidentally different. Quite quantitatively, each sentence should not exceed 25-30 words (4). Through long-lasting experience, the recommendation would be to not use the terms in the writing of the discussion, which are closely related to a certain spatiality or subspecialty, because the work itself must be interesting and clear to the general public, which does not mean that the work should not be written in an academic style.

Many authors have addressed the recommendations of writing a certain part of the work, and young researchers must first learn the basics of the writing methodology, because without it will work for sure many defects (7). The shortcomings happen even to the most experienced researchers (2).

A checklist has been developed, which can be helpful to the author when writing the work (CONSORT checklist or STROBE checklist) (1).

For authors who do not come from an English-speaking area, and the work is translated from a less professional person, it is imperative that they themselves participate in the translation of the Discussion, because the translation of the scientific work sometimes knows that it is defective, not as good as the original, and not shows what should be displayed, that is, does not point things out of importance.

The peer review discussions, although the primary reviewers pay the most attention to the methodology of conducting the research and the results, must be very well made, because although many underestimates.

Instead of conclusion we can say the fact is: the Discussion represents the heart of every scientific article.

全文翻译（仅供参考）

撰写在生物医学期刊上发表文章的通常方式是遵循以下说明：– 温哥华的规则和提交给生物医学期刊的手稿的统一要求：生物医学出版物的写作和编辑 ( 1 , 2 )。撰写科学论文需要高水平的能力和科学意识，以及对科学行为模式的尊重。

每篇论文基本上都应遵循 IMRAD 结构，该结构通常在整个现代科学出版中都有代表，稍作修改。指出节的通常顺序的概念包含在缩写“IMRAD”中：

I - 介绍，

M - 方法（或方法和材料），

R - 结果，

A - 和

D - 讨论和结论。

摘要不包含讨论。尽管这是一个普遍的事实，但世界各地的编辑可以指出，今天是一件并不罕见的事情。这个想法，指向明确的目标，设定假设本身，并进行研究本身，是科学写作的重要步骤。但是，对获得的结果进行分析，并指出这些结果，以及与处理相同或相似主题的其他研究的结果进行比较，需要特定领域的技能和高度专业知识。

很重要的是，作者在写论文本身的时候，有一种写作风格，因人而异，本质上反映了作者的思维方式。

清晰、简洁、简洁、精确和统一是科学文体的必然特征，而写作语言必须更加精确（3）。动词时间的选择取决于描述的结果。如果已知，已经发表的内容应该是现在（介绍和讨论），如果有描述，他们自己的结果应该在过去的时间描述（材料和方法），建议使用主动而不是被动，总而言之，建议使用被动语言（3）。

写作必须遵循主线，有一个有意义的开头和结尾，并从上下文的每一部分，指出论文的好处，到它的缺陷，定义模棱两可的点，这些点将在随后的一些研究中进行进一步分析同一组或另一组作者（1）。

讨论本身的写作必须指出工作结果本身的特殊性，无论它们是要与以前发表的文章一起工作还是有所不同。如果指出统计处理的细节不同，或者指出已经成为的显着性水平，在某些情况下指向处理方法的强度和显着性。

作者不要重复给出的结果是非常重要的，但只需要指出那些不确认规则的例外情况。详细阐述重要的结果非常重要，因为它们具有文章的力量。未经统计处理确认的结果不应成为关注的中心（1、2）。

讨论应主要解决结果的理论和实践后果，结论本身应尽可能简短和清晰地呈现，并带有个人论证。讨论的目的应该是观察结果与事实之间的关系）（3）。

讨论不应包含有关某一现象或写作主题的历史事实（那些对调查本身不重要的事实），不应重复更广泛人群已知或学术水平不高的事物。应将研究获得的结果与参考索引数据库中公认的研究进行比较。

将自己的结果与掠夺性或低质量期刊（主要是论文未经同行评审的期刊）的结果进行比较在上下文中毫无意义，而且几乎不可能获得好的结果 ( 2 )。

如果只有研究有或可能有很大的偏倚选择，则必须显示，因为每篇原始科学论文都是一篇文章，可以在第二天被纳入荟萃分析或系统评价中，这样它就可以重新-确定了偏见的重复，即无法得出对明天的实践可能非常重要的结论。

讨论不能太长，也不能太短。

讨论必须与主题密切相关，不能脱离主题，必须是服务。它不得超过其他部分（引言、材料和方法、结果）的总和，并且必须写成六到七段。

每段不得超过两百字。段落一般可分为三种（4、5、6）：

1. 介绍性段落，

2. 中间段落，

3. 结尾段

句子应该清晰，没有可能意外不同的不确定事物。相当数量，每个句子不应超过 25-30 个单词 ( 4 )。通过长期的经验，建议不要在讨论的写作中使用与某种空间性或亚专业密切相关的术语，因为作品本身必须对公众来说是有趣和清晰的，这并不意味着作品不应该以学术风格写成。

许多作者已经提出了撰写某部分工作的建议，年轻的研究人员必须首先学习写作方法的基础知识，因为没有它肯定会产生许多缺陷（7）。即使是最有经验的研究人员也会遇到这些缺点（2）。

已经制定了一份清单，在编写作品时对作者有帮助（CONSORT 清单或 STROBE 清单）（1）。

对于不是来自英语地区的作者，并且作品是由不太专业的人翻译的，他们自己必须参与讨论的翻译，因为科学作品的翻译有时知道它是有缺陷的，不如原版的，而且不显示应该显示的内容，也就是没有点出不重要的东西。

同行评审讨论，虽然主要评审员最关注进行研究的方法和结果，但必须做得很好，因为尽管很多人低估了。

我们可以说事实是：讨论代表了每篇科学文章的核心，而不是结论。

THE

END

打赏