Discussion

Function what was already known 1.To interpret your results in light of what was already known about the subject of the investigation. 2.To explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration.

Introduction it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction. The Discussion will always connect to the Introduction by way of the question(s) or hypotheses you posed and the literature you cited, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction. Instead, it tells how your study has moved us forward from the place you left us at the end of the Introduction.

1.Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses?

2.Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps a unforeseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)

3.Given your findings, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction? 3.Given your findings, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction?

4. Explain weaknesses, shortcomings. Be fair: this will build trust. Don’t over-criticize yourself, don’t go to unnecessary details.

5. If warranted, what would be the next step in your study, e.g., what experiments would you do next?

6. What is the final conclusion: the practical and most important gain from the study?

Discussion Reverse of Introduction (pyramid)

These results show... The findings fit with those of... Ca channel blockers can be used.. This may allow man to live in space...

Organize the Discussion to address each of the experiments or studies for which you presented results: in the same order or in a logical order. Do not waste entire sentences restating your results; use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation: "The slow response of the lead- exposed neurons relative to controls suggests that...[interpretation]".

Do not introduce new results in the Discussion Although you might occasionally include in this section tables and figures which help explain something you are discussing, they must not contain new data (from your study) that should have been presented earlier.

Allowed Tablets and Figures in the Discussion 1.Flow diagrams 2.Accumulation of data from the literature, 3.Or, something that shows how one type of data leads to or correlates with another, etc.

Discussion Be modest Be balanced (objective) Be concise End with a strong statement –“The conclusion” –Conclusion: “other studies are necessary to prove….”

Check list for Discussion (1) Have you discussed the key findings? Why do they matter? Limitations and strengths covered? Alternative interpretations discussed? How does this fit with existing knowledge? No new data added?

Check list for Discussion (2) Where can this lead ? Is the flow logical ? Trivia removed? Criticism justified and gentle? Is it too one-sided? Balance

Abstract Most people stop here Keep it short (<250 words) Structure it

Basic IMRaD structure Introduction Methods Results Discussion  Objective  Design  Setting  Subjects (incl./excl.)  Interventions  Main outcomes  Statistics  Important findings  Conclusion (+limitations)

Abstract Summarizes the major findings in the broad context of the work Consists of two or three sentences of topic introduction (objectives are necessary) Enough methods to orient and enable to see weaknesses and strengths. Selected results (not all but the most important) Concludes with implications of work

Check list for Abstract Objectives, methods, results, conclusion? Key features mentioned? Anything that does not appear in full text? Results in words? Conclusion: justified? objective? Meaningful interpretation Follows the guidelines

References Appropriate format Don’t over self-cite Avoid conference abstracts Select carefully — balance authors used Only 1 or 2 references per point Use recent review articles Avoid textbooks

APA Style Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.(Alpay & Russell, 2002) Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.(Balen & Jewesson, 2004) References Alpay, L., & Russell, A. (2002). Information technology training in primary care: the nurses' voice. Comput Inform Nurs, 20(4), Balen, R. M., & Jewesson, P. J. (2004). Pharmacist computer skills and needs assessment survey. J Med Internet Res, 6(1), e11.

“Vancouver” Style Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. 1 Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 2 References 1.Balen RM, Jewesson PJ. Pharmacist computer skills and needs assessment survey. J Med Internet Res. Mar ;6(1):e11. 2.Alpay L, Russell A. Information technology training in primary care: the nurses' voice. Comput Inform Nurs. 2002;20(4):

معاهدة تهران شرايط مطلوب مقالات ارسالي براي نشريات علوم پزشكي ايران

Raymon H Mulford library

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (citation) References - Bibliographic citation - Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. (citation) References - Bibliographic citation - Research Paper Stack of References: Journal articles Book chapters Web sites Monographs Endnote Library of References

1.Design well 2.Decide politics 3.Choose journal 4.Read instructions to authors/papers 5.Set framework 6.Prepare drafts 7.Distribute 8.Polish 9.Submit

POLISH revise, revise, and revise for: accuracy, brevity, clarity, grace accuracy: spelling, figures differ in tables and text; too many decimals brevity: empty phrases and words; excessive weak verbs and connectives clarity: first person; basic grammar grace: choice of words; vary sentences