1. Discussing your results
PRPPG7000 - Academic Writing in English

2. Syllabus outline
• 28/08 - Introduction
• 04/09 - IMRaD, Most common errors,
electronic tools
• 11/09 - Strategic planning for your article:
CARS and other approaches
• 18/09 - Title, Abstract e Introduction
• 25/09 - Writing your Introduction
• 02/10 - Coherence, cohesion and clarity, and
use of authorial voice
• 09/10 - (Introduction due) The Method
section
• 16/10- The (Results and) Discussion section
• 23/10 - (Introduction peer feedback due)
Discussing and Concluding
• 30/10 - Writing (no class)
• 06/11 - (1st draft article due) Students
exchange articles (no class)
• 13/11 - Special guest speaker
• 20/11 - (1st draft peer feedback due)
Plagiarism, the submission process
• 18/12 - Final draft of full article due (send
also to “orientador”, with evaluation form)
• 29/01/2020 - Evaluation form due from
orientador

3. Students send to their orientador by December 18*
*Professors can do self or peer evaluation

5. Today
1. A reminder about your Introductions
2. Reviewing Introduction + Method
3. Discussing your results

10. -----------

11. Live now:

12. Last class...

13. Last class...

14. 2. Method
Men (n=4) were chosen for the experiment. After playing
basketball, each man applied two different deodorants, one
on each armpit. A young woman was recruited to judge
how pleasing the smell of each deodorant was. The female
judge smelled each armpit, each time noting her
impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on
the notes taken.

16. Questions you (the “reviewers”) raised
• What were the ages of the men?
• Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada axila?
• Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
• The men were wearing different clothes. Does that compromise
ventilation and consequently the odor after the game?
• What was the criterion used to choose the deodorants?
• Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
• Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro desodorante?
• A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi igual para todos os
participantes?

17. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

18. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

19. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

20. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

21. 2. Method
Men (n=4, ages 27-39) were chosen for the experiment.
After playing basketball for ten minutes, each man applied
a roll-on and spray deodorant, one on each armpit. A
young woman was recruited to judge how pleasing the
smell of each deodorant was using the same criteria
described in Smellerson (1993). The female judge smelled
each armpit for exactly two seconds, each time noting her
impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on

22. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

23. 2. Method
Men (n=4, ages 27-39) were chosen for the experiment.
After playing basketball for ten minutes, each man applied
a roll-on and spray deodorant, one on each armpit. A
young woman was recruited to judge how pleasing the
smell of each deodorant was using the same criteria
described in Smellerson (1993). The female judge smelled
each armpit for exactly two seconds, each time noting her
impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on

24. 2. Method
Men (n=4, ages 27-39) were chosen for the experiment.
After playing basketball for ten minutes, each man applied
a roll-on and spray deodorant, one on each armpit. A
young woman was recruited to judge how pleasing the
smell of each deodorant was using the same criteria
described in Smellerson (1993). To control for intensity,
the female judge smelled each armpit for exactly two
seconds, each time noting her impressions. Her final

25. 1. Introduction
There has been an alarming decline in birthrates in the
world (Alarmiston, 2017). One possible cause is a decline in
deodorant use among men (Ridikuleski, 2018). Much has
been published on the effectiveness of deodorants, yet
whether it is better to use a spray or roll-on type is still
unknown. ...

26. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

27. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes.
Does that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

28. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes.
Does that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

29. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes.
Does that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

30. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

31. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. Quanto tempo ela permanecia avaliando cada
axila?
3. Qual foi a higiene prévia dos participantes?
4. The men were wearing different clothes.
Does that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. Qual o critério utilizado por ela para avaliação?
7. Foi levado em consideração o uso de outro
desodorante?
8. A quantidade e qualidade do exercício físico foi
igual para todos os participantes?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

32. Main reasons articles get rejected
Belcher (2007) Bordage (2001) Sullivan (2002) McKercher
(2007)
Wrong journal X ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty method ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of transparency X ✓ ✓ ✓
Problems with statistics X ✓ ✓ ✓
Poor discussion ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Improper formatting X ✓ X ✓
Writing difficult to follow ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Literature review ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Nothing new ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Contribution not clear ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Poor English X X X X

33. A rejection....

35. Why was it rejected?
"The manuscript is interesting and it brings original ideas. However
a major revision is necessary. The methods should be described
comprehensively and not confused as it is. Details such as use of water
or not to process the mixtures are not mentioned and this is
an important point in this kind of product compositions, mainly due to
lime and phase formation; there are not characteristics of the individual
components as the authors mentioned that the materials were
characterized; the results should justify the interpretations and
conclusions, however they are just pointed out and not discussed at all.
Figures II, III and IV should be standardized (scale). Sometimes one of
the components is namely referring to paper sludge, sometimes it is
namely ETE's sludge waste, and so on. Language should be also
reviewed. Since the manuscript is concerning
to technological development it could present sample image (example:
fracture surface image). Finally, a good, very good revision in the
manuscript is necessary."

36. Why was it rejected?
"The manuscript is interesting and it brings original ideas. However
a major revision is necessary. The methods should be described
comprehensively and not confused as it is. Details such as use of water
or not to process the mixtures are not mentioned and this is
an important point in this kind of product compositions, mainly due to
lime and phase formation; there are not characteristics of the individual
components as the authors mentioned that the materials were
characterized; the results should justify the interpretations and
conclusions, however they are just pointed out and not discussed at all.
Figures II, III and IV should be standardized (scale). Sometimes one of
the components is namely referring to paper sludge, sometimes it is
namely ETE's sludge waste, and so on. Language should be also
reviewed. Since the manuscript is concerning
to technological development it could present sample image (example:
fracture surface image). Finally, a good, very good revision in the
manuscript is necessary."

37. Why was it rejected?
"The manuscript is interesting and it brings original ideas. However
a major revision is necessary. The methods should be described
comprehensively and not confused as it is. Details such as use of water
or not to process the mixtures are not mentioned and this is
an important point in this kind of product compositions, mainly due to
lime and phase formation; there are not characteristics of the individual
components as the authors mentioned that the materials were
characterized; the results should justify the interpretations and
conclusions, however they are just pointed out and not discussed at all.
Figures II, III and IV should be standardized (scale). Sometimes one of
the components is namely referring to paper sludge, sometimes it is
namely ETE's sludge waste, and so on. Language should be also
reviewed. Since the manuscript is concerning
to technological development it could present sample image (example:
fracture surface image). Finally, a good, very good revision in the
manuscript is necessary."

38. Why was it rejected?
"The manuscript is interesting and it brings original ideas. However
a major revision is necessary. The methods should be described
comprehensively and not confused as it is. Details such as use of water
or not to process the mixtures are not mentioned and this is
an important point in this kind of product compositions, mainly due to
lime and phase formation; there are not characteristics of the individual
components as the authors mentioned that the materials were
characterized; the results should justify the interpretations and
conclusions, however they are just pointed out and not discussed at all.
Figures II, III and IV should be standardized (scale). Sometimes one of
the components is namely referring to paper sludge, sometimes it is
namely ETE's sludge waste, and so on. Language should be also
reviewed. Since the manuscript is concerning
to technological development it could present sample image (example:
fracture surface image). Finally, a good, very good revision in the
manuscript is necessary."

39. Why was it rejected?
"The manuscript is interesting and it brings original ideas. However
a major revision is necessary. The methods should be described
comprehensively and not confused as it is. Details such as use of water
or not to process the mixtures are not mentioned and this is
an important point in this kind of product compositions, mainly due to
lime and phase formation; there are not characteristics of the individual
components as the authors mentioned that the materials were
characterized; the results should justify the interpretations and
conclusions, however they are just pointed out and not discussed at all.
Figures II, III and IV should be standardized (scale). Sometimes one of
the components is namely referring to paper sludge, sometimes it is
namely ETE's sludge waste, and so on. Language should be also
reviewed. Since the manuscript is concerning
to technological development it could present sample image (example:
fracture surface image). Finally, a good, very good revision in the
manuscript is necessary."

40. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

43. What do you think?
1. Why is the Discussion section so challenging?
2. What should the Discussion section “do”? What
are the most common “ingredients”?

46. Discussion : 6 common elements

47. Discussion : 6 common elements

48. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)

49. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)

50. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies

51. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies

52. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate

53. Discussion : 6 common elements
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications

54. Discussion : 6 common elements
!
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications

55. Discussion : 6 common elements
!
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications
Talk about limitations

56. Discussion : 6 common elements
!
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications
Talk about limitations

57. Discussion : 6 common elements
!
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications
Talk about limitations
Talk about how the study
advances the area;
what is still needed

58. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

59. 12
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

60. 12
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

61. Revisiting points raised (Intro./Results)

62. Expand, explain, extrapolate

63. Compare with other studies

64. How the study advances the area;
Talk about what is still needed

65. ! Talk about limitations

66. Discussion : 6 common elements
!
Revisit points raised
(Intro./Results)
Compare with other
studies
Expand, explain,
extrapolate
Talk about applications
and practical implications
Talk about limitations
Talk about how the study
advances the area;
what is still needed

75. !

76. !

81. !

93. !

96. !

105. !

112. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

113. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

115. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

116. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

117. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

119. When you write your Discussion think about
1. How do your findings connect back to issues raised in the
Introduction?
2. How do your research and results compare to those of other
studies that were published previously?
3. Which findings are particularly strong/relevant?
4. What are some possible applications/implications of your
data/results?
5. What are some of the limitations of your study? (Reflect critically
on your Method.)
6. What is the main contribution of your research? How does it help
your field of study advance?
7. What directions for further research are advanced by your study?

120. Back to that rejection....
(A comparison)

121. Homework
• Download and read the article on our class webpage.
What elements discussed in today’s class are present?
Which are missing? (Respond on Formative.)
• Remember to complete feedback on Peer Grade.
• Write about your feedback experience on Formative.
• If time: Try outlining the rest of your article.

122. www.drronmartinez.com