Downloaded 42 times
Uploaded byRon Martinez
The Discussion Section
The document outlines an academic writing syllabus focusing on the discussion section and common reasons for manuscript rejection. It details specific class dates and topics, covering essential elements like revisions, coherent structure, and clarity. The document also emphasizes the importance of aligning research findings with existing studies and identifying limitations and contributions of the work.
The Discussion Section
- 1. The Discussion Section PRPPG7000- Academic Writing in English
- 2. Syllabus outline • 15/08- Introduction • 22/08 - IMRaD, Most common errors, electronic tools • 29/08 - Strategic planning for your article: CARS and other approaches • 05/09 - Title, Abstract e Introduction • 12/09 - Writing your Introduction • 19/09 - Coherence, cohesion and clarity, and use of authorial voice • 26/09 - (Introduction due) The Results section • 03/10- No class (SIEPE) • 10/10 - The Discussion section • 17/10 - Discussing and Concluding • 24/10 - Writing (no class) • 31/10 - Plagiarism (Students exchange articles) • 07/11 - (peer feedback due) Special guest speaker on journal trends • 14/11 - The submission process
- 3. Motivos mais comunspara rejeição: Belcher (2007) Bordage (2001) Pierson (2012) Wrong journal X ✓ X Faulty method ✓ ✓ ✓ Lack of transparency X ✓ ✓ Problems with statistics X ✓ ✓ Poor Discussion (or overstating importance of findings) ✓ ✓ ✓ Improper formatting X ✓ X Writing difficult to follow ✓ ✓ ✓ Inadequate review of the literature ✓ ✓ ✓ Nothing new ✓ ✓ ✓ Contribution not clear ✓ ✓ X Poor English X X X Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR
- 4.
- 6. Why was itrejected? "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 compositons, mainly due to lime and phase formnation; there are not characterisitics 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 referirng 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."
- 7.
- 8. Why was itrejected? "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 compositons, mainly due to lime and phase formnation; there are not characterisitics 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 referirng 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."
- 9. Why was itrejected? "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 compositons, mainly due to lime and phase formnation; there are not characterisitics 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 referirng 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."
- 10. Why was itrejected? "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 compositons, mainly due to lime and phase formnation; there are not characterisitics 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 referirng 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."
- 11.
- 14. DISCUSS... 1. Why isthe Discussion section so challenging? 2. What should the Discussion section “do”? What are the most common “ingredients”?
- 17. Prof. Dr. RonMartinez - UFPR
- 18. 12 Prof. Dr. RonMartinez - UFPR
- 19. 12 Prof. Dr. RonMartinez - UFPR
- 20. Revisiting points raisedin Introduction
- 21.
- 22. Compare with otherstudies
- 23. How the studyadvances the area; Talk about what is still needed
- 24. ! Talk aboutlimitations
- 25.
- 26. Discussion : 6common elements ! Revisit points raised in the Introduction 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
- 35.
- 36.
- 41.
- 53.
- 56.
- 65.
- 70.
- 71. Back to thatrejection.... (A comparison)
- 73. When you writeyour Discussion think about 1. How do your research and results compare to those of other studies that were published previously? 2. What data are particularly strong/relevant? What are some of the shortcomings in your data (or in other parts of the article)? 3. What are some possible applications/implications of your data/results? 4. What are some of the limitations of your study? 5. What is the main contribution of your research? How does it help your field of study advance? 6. What directions for further research are advanced by your study?
- 74. Homework Download and readthe article on our class webpage. What elements discussed in today’s class are present? Which are missing? (Respond on Formative.)