The document discusses academic writing and specifically how to write the discussion section of a research paper. It provides examples of student feedback on figures and data presentation in a research article. It also discusses key aspects of writing an introduction, method, results and discussion section for a research paper. The document provides guidance on revising a manuscript that was rejected for a journal publication by addressing issues with the method description, results interpretation, figure formatting and language.

1. Academic Writing:
Discussing your Results
Dr. Ron Martinez
UFPR, UC Berkeley

2. Today...

3. ● Quick look at Figures used in the "Meat"
article
● What is the Discussion section supposed
to do?
● Your final assessment
Today...

5. From Student "Paulo"
The article has relevant and high-impact data, but the graphical elements are
misused. In figure 1 there are numerous data that should be described in a table,
but demonstrated in graphs.
In figure 2 there is not the label with the value nor the sign if they have statistical
difference or not.

6. From Student "Maria"
From my point of view, the article has a lot of interesting data but poorly
presented. Figure 1 shows very close columns making it difficult to visualize, I
believe that data would be better visualized in a table. I like the presentation in
columns as in figure two, but I believe that some relevant information such as
significance was poorly presented. I also believe that this figure would be
unnecessary since the author shows the same information in table 1.

11. Last class...

12. Last class...

13. 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.

14. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. How long did the judge spend evaluating the
scent on each armpit?
3. Had the men showered before? With odorless
soap?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. What evaluation criteria were used, and why?
7. What were the criteria for selecting these
particular deoderants?
8. Was exercise intensity controlled for?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

15. 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 the notes taken.

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

17. 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 the notes taken.

18. 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 analysis was then given, based on

19. 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. ...

20. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. How long did the judge spend evaluating the
scent on each armpit?
3. Had the men showered before? With odorless
soap?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. What evaluation criteria were used, and why?
7. What were the criteria for selecting these
particular deodorants?
8. Was exercise intensity controlled for?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

21. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. How long did the judge spend evaluating the
scent on each armpit?
3. Had the men showered before? With odorless
soap?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. What evaluation criteria were used, and why?
7. What were the criteria for selecting these
particular deodorants?
8. Was exercise intensity controlled for?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

22. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. How long did the judge spend evaluating the
scent on each armpit?
3. Had the men showered before? With odorless
soap?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. What evaluation criteria were used, and why?
7. What were the criteria for selecting these
particular deodorants?
8. Was exercise intensity controlled for?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

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

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

25. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW & WHY
WHAT
SO WHAT?

26. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW & WHY
WHAT & WHY
SO WHAT?

27. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW & WHY
WHAT & WHY
SO WHAT? (& WHY)

28. 1. What were the ages of the men?
2. How long did the judge spend evaluating the
scent on each armpit?
3. Had the men showered before? With odorless
soap?
4. The men were wearing different clothes. Does
that affect odor?
5. What was the criterion used to choose the
deodorants?
6. What evaluation criteria were used, and why?
7. What were the criteria for selecting these
particular deoderants?
8. Was exercise intensity controlled for?
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S

29. 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

30. A rejection....

32. 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."

33. 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."

34. 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."

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."

39. 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”?

42. Discussion : 6 common elements

43. Discussion : 6 common elements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

55. 12
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

56. 12
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

57. Revisiting points raised (Intro./Results)

58. Expand, explain, extrapolate

59. Compare with other studies

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

61. ! Talk about limitations

62. 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

63. A few other examples...

72. !

73. !

78. !

90. !

93. !

102. !

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

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

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

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

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

115. Back to that rejection....
(A comparison, for homework on Moodle)

116. 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?

117. Your final assessment

118. 2020 (turma atual)

123. DUE SEPTEMBER 10 AT 17:00

131. Assessment will be available
on September 3rd!
(But you can already start now.)