research discussion meaning

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 8. The Discussion

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction; the discussion should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the introduction.

Importance of a Good Discussion

This section is often considered the most important part of a research paper because it most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based on the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem you are studying.

The discussion section is where you explore the underlying meaning of your research , its possible implications in other areas of study, and the possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research.

This is the section where you need to present the importance of your study and how it may be able to contribute to and/or fill existing gaps in the field. If appropriate, the discussion section is also where you state how the findings from your study revealed new gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described.

This part of the paper is not strictly governed by objective reporting of information but, rather, it is where you can engage in creative thinking about issues through evidence-based interpretation of findings. This is where you infuse your results with meaning.

Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive.
• Be concise and make your points clearly.
• Avoid using jargon.
• Follow a logical stream of thought.
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works and references in the past tense.
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation or to group your interpretations into themes.

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : comment on whether or not the results were expected and present explanations for the results; go into greater depth when explaining findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning.
• References to previous research : compare your results with the findings from other studies, or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results than being part of the general research you cited to provide context and background information.
• Deduction : a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or recommending best practices.
• Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research].

III. Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, mode of narration, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in the introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequencing of providing this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data. The order of interpreting each major finding should be in the same order as they were described in your results section.
• A good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This paragraph should begin with a description of the unexpected finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each them in the order they appeared as you gathered the data.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of the findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical.
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of statistical significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This demonstrates to the reader you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate for your readers the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the meaning of the findings and why you believe they are important. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think about the results [“why hadn’t I thought of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important finding first.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to other previously published research. The discussion section should relate your study findings to those of other studies, particularly if questions raised by previous studies served as the motivation for your study, the findings of other studies support your findings [which strengthens the importance of your study results], and/or they point out how your study differs from other similar studies. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your prior assumptions or biases.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Describe the generalizability of your results to other situations, if applicable to the method chosen, then describe in detail problems you encountered in the method(s) you used to gather information. Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address, and.... VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, other questions related to the problem likely remain unanswered. Moreover, some unanswered questions may have become more focused because of your study. You should make suggestions for further research in the discussion section.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources in your research paper are usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results and/or linked to similar studies. If a study that you cited disagrees with your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why the study's findings differ from yours.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste entire sentences restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of the finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “The lack of available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas suggests that...[then move to the interpretation of this finding].”
• Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation.
• Use of the first person is acceptable, but too much use of the first person may actually distract the reader from the main points.

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. How to Write an Effective Discussion. Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Summary: Using it Wisely . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion . Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Overinterpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. Therefore, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you've gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretion of those results, not just the data itself.

Azar, Beth. Discussing Your Findings.  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006)

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if you studied the impact of foreign aid on increasing levels of education among the poor in Bangladesh, it's generally not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim. If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand the discussion in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your efforts to interpret the data.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" discussion section

"discussion and conclusions checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018., peer review.

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

This is is usually the hardest section to write. You are trying to bring out the true meaning of your data without being too long. Do not use words to conceal your facts or reasoning. Also do not repeat your results, this is a discussion.

• Present principles, relationships and generalizations shown by the results
• Point out exceptions or lack of correlations. Define why you think this is so.
• Show how your results agree or disagree with previously published works
• Discuss the theoretical implications of your work as well as practical applications
• State your conclusions clearly. Summarize your evidence for each conclusion.
• Discuss the significance of the results
•  Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained.
• Typical stages in the discussion: summarizing the results, discussing whether results are expected or unexpected, comparing these results to previous work, interpreting and explaining the results (often by comparison to a theory or model), and hypothesizing about their generality.
• Discuss any problems or shortcomings encountered during the course of the work.
• Discuss possible alternate explanations for the results.
• Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed; presenting discussion that does not relate to any of the results; presenting results and discussion in chronological order rather than logical order; ignoring results that do not support the conclusions; drawing conclusions from results without logical arguments to back them up. 

CONCLUSIONS

• Provide a very brief summary of the Results and Discussion.
• Emphasize the implications of the findings, explaining how the work is significant and providing the key message(s) the author wishes to convey.
• Provide the most general claims that can be supported by the evidence.
• Provide a future perspective on the work.
• Avoid: repeating the abstract; repeating background information from the Introduction; introducing new evidence or new arguments not found in the Results and Discussion; repeating the arguments made in the Results and Discussion; failing to address all of the research questions set out in the Introduction. 

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I COMPLETE MY PAPER?

 The peer review process is the quality control step in the publication of ideas.  Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science".  These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly.    Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section.  Are the materials and methods used written clearly enough for another scientist to reproduce the experiment?  Other areas they look at are: originality of research, significance of research question studied, soundness of the discussion and interpretation, correct spelling and use of technical terms, and length of the article.

• << Previous: RESULTS
• Next: LITERATURE CITED >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

Discussion and Conclusion

• First Online: 18 February 2020

Cite this chapter

• Coleen E. Toronto 3 &
• Ruth Remington 4  

4452 Accesses

1 Citations

In the discussion section of the integrative review, the reviewer explains and evaluates the findings of the synthesis and how the findings relate to existing literature and the review question(s). Here, the reviewer interprets the meaning and relevance of the findings. Implications of the findings for research, practice, education, and/or policy are described. Writing the discussion requires reflection and critical thinking about the entire review process. This chapter can serve as a guide to writing a comprehensive discussion section.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

Discussion: The heart of the paper

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

Aveyard H (2019) Doing a literature review in health and social care: practical guide, 4th edn. Open University Press, Bethesda, MD, p 153

Google Scholar  

Bettany-Saltikov J (2010) Learning how to undertake a systematic review: part 2. Nurs Stand 24:47–56

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowman KG (2007) A research synthesis overview. Nurs Sci Q 20:171–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318407299575

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brady S, Lee N, Gibbons K, Bogossian F (2019) Woman-centered care: an integrative review of empirical literature. Int J Nurs Stud 94:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.001

Cals JWL, Kotz D (2013) Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: Discussion. J Clin Epidemiol 66:1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.04.017

Cartwright J, Atz T, Newman S, Mueller M, Demirci JR (2017) Integrative review of interventions to promote breastfeeding in the late preterm infant. JOGN Nurs 46:347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2017.01.006

Classen S, Winter SM, Brown C, Morgan-Daniel J, Medhizadah S, Agarwal N (2019) An Integrative Review on teen distracted driving for model program development. Front Public Health [Internet]. Frontiers Media SA 3:7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00111

Connelly LM (2009) The discussion section of a research report. Medsurg Nurs 18:300–301

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooper SA, Compton PA (2019) Nursing interventions for sexual dysfunction: an integrative review for the psychiatric nurse. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 33:389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2019.04.003

Coughlan M, Cronin P (2017) Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care. Sage, London, UK, p 120

Coughlin MB, Sethares KA (2017) Chronic sorrow in parents of children with a chronic illness or disability: an integrative literature review. J Pediatr Nurs 37:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.06.011

Dawidowicz P (2010) Literature reviews made easy: a quick guide to success. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, p 150

de Souza MT, da Silva MD, de Carvalho R (2010) Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein (São Paulo) 8:102–106. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134

Flanagan J (2018) The integrative review. Int J Nurs Knowl. Wiley 29(2):81. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12208

Foster M, Gilbert M, Hanson D, Whitcomb K, Graham C (2018) Use of simulation to develop teamwork skills in prelicensure nursing students: an integrative review. Nurse Educ 44:E7–E11. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000616.

Ghazal LV, Ma C, Squires A (2019) Transition-to-U.S. practice experiences of internationally educated nurses: an integrative review. West J Nurs Res 4:193945919860855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919860855

Gibbons SW, Ross A, Bevans M (2014) Liminality as a conceptual frame for understanding the family caregiving rite of passage: an integrative review. Res Nurs Health 37:423–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21622

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hess DR (2004) How to write an effective discussion. Respir Care 49:1238–1241

Hooker SA, Grigsby ME, Riegel B, Bekelman DB (2015) The impact of relationship quality on health-related outcomes in heart failure patients and informal family caregivers: an integrative review. J Cardiovasc Nurs 30:552–563. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.000000000000270

Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L (2016) Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci 30:662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12327

Kearney MH (2017) The discussion section tells us where we are. Res Nurs Health 40:289–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21803

Lee SE, Scott LD, Dahinten VS, Vincent C, Dunn Lopez K, Park CG (2019) Safety culture, patient safety, and quality of care outcomes: a literature review. West J Nurs Res 4(2):279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/019394591774716

Oermann MH, Hays JC (2019) Writing for publication in nursing, 4th edn. Springer, New York, NY, p 118

Radbron E, Wilson V, McCance T, Middleton R (2019) The use of data collected from mhealth apps to inform evidence-based quality improvement: an integrative review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 16:70–77

Robertson-Malt S (2014) Presenting and interpreting findings. Am J Nurs 114:49–54

Roush K (2019) A nurse’s step-by-step guide to writing a dissertation or scholarly project (2nd ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International (publisher). p 100

Rückholdt M, Toflera GH, Randall S, Buckley T (2019) Coping by family members of critically ill hospitalised patients: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud 97:40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.04.016

Schulte B (2003) Scientific writing & the scientific method: parallel “Hourglass” structure in form & content. Am Biol Teach 65:591–594. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451568

Skelton JR, Edwards SJL (2000) The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. Br Med J 320:1269–1270

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stamp KD, Machado MA, Allen NA (2014) Transitional care programs improve outcomes for heart failure patients. J Cardiovasc Nurs [Internet]. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 29(2):140–154. https://doi.org/10.1097/jcn.0b013e31827db560

Teunissen C, Burrell B, Maskill V (2019) Effective surgical teams: an integrative literature review. West J Nurs Res 41:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919834896

Toronto CE, LaRocco SA (2019) Family perception of and experience with family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs 28:32–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14649

Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15:404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

Watson R (2018) The discussion section of a manuscript. Nurse, vol 28. Author, p 3

White LL, Cohen MZ, Berger AM, Kupzyk AZ, Bierman PJ (2019) Self-Efficacy for management of symptoms and symptom distress in adults with cancer: an integrative review. Oncol Nurs Forum 46:113–128

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA

Coleen E. Toronto

Department of Nursing, Framingham State University, Framingham, MA, USA

Ruth Remington

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Coleen E. Toronto .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Toronto, C.E., Remington, R. (2020). Discussion and Conclusion. In: Toronto, C., Remington, R. (eds) A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1_6

Published : 18 February 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-37503-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-37504-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

General Research Paper Guidelines: Discussion

Discussion section.

The overall purpose of a research paper’s discussion section is to evaluate and interpret results, while explaining both the implications and limitations of your findings. Per APA (2020) guidelines, this section requires you to “examine, interpret, and qualify the results and draw inferences and conclusions from them” (p. 89). Discussion sections also require you to detail any new insights, think through areas for future research, highlight the work that still needs to be done to further your topic, and provide a clear conclusion to your research paper. In a good discussion section, you should do the following:

• Clearly connect the discussion of your results to your introduction, including your central argument, thesis, or problem statement.
• Provide readers with a critical thinking through of your results, answering the “so what?” question about each of your findings. In other words, why is this finding important?
• Detail how your research findings might address critical gaps or problems in your field
• Compare your results to similar studies’ findings
• Provide the possibility of alternative interpretations, as your goal as a researcher is to “discover” and “examine” and not to “prove” or “disprove.” Instead of trying to fit your results into your hypothesis, critically engage with alternative interpretations to your results.

For more specific details on your Discussion section, be sure to review Sections 3.8 (pp. 89-90) and 3.16 (pp. 103-104) of your 7 th edition APA manual

*Box content adapted from:

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 8 the discussion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/discussion

Limitations

Limitations of generalizability or utility of findings, often over which the researcher has no control, should be detailed in your Discussion section. Including limitations for your reader allows you to demonstrate you have thought critically about your given topic, understood relevant literature addressing your topic, and chosen the methodology most appropriate for your research. It also allows you an opportunity to suggest avenues for future research on your topic. An effective limitations section will include the following:

• Detail (a) sources of potential bias, (b) possible imprecision of measures, (c) other limitations or weaknesses of the study, including any methodological or researcher limitations.
• Sample size: In quantitative research, if a sample size is too small, it is more difficult to generalize results.
• Lack of available/reliable data : In some cases, data might not be available or reliable, which will ultimately affect the overall scope of your research. Use this as an opportunity to explain areas for future study.
• Lack of prior research on your study topic: In some cases, you might find that there is very little or no similar research on your study topic, which hinders the credibility and scope of your own research. If this is the case, use this limitation as an opportunity to call for future research. However, make sure you have done a thorough search of the available literature before making this claim.
• Flaws in measurement of data: Hindsight is 20/20, and you might realize after you have completed your research that the data tool you used actually limited the scope or results of your study in some way. Again, acknowledge the weakness and use it as an opportunity to highlight areas for future study.
• Limits of self-reported data: In your research, you are assuming that any participants will be honest and forthcoming with responses or information they provide to you. Simply acknowledging this assumption as a possible limitation is important in your research.
• Access: Most research requires that you have access to people, documents, organizations, etc.. However, for various reasons, access is sometimes limited or denied altogether. If this is the case, you will want to acknowledge access as a limitation to your research.
• Time: Choosing a research focus that is narrow enough in scope to finish in a given time period is important. If such limitations of time prevent you from certain forms of research, access, or study designs, acknowledging this time restraint is important. Acknowledging such limitations is important, as they can point other researchers to areas that require future study.
• Potential Bias: All researchers have some biases, so when reading and revising your draft, pay special attention to the possibilities for bias in your own work. Such bias could be in the form you organized people, places, participants, or events. They might also exist in the method you selected or the interpretation of your results. Acknowledging such bias is an important part of the research process.
• Language Fluency: On occasion, researchers or research participants might have language fluency issues, which could potentially hinder results or how effectively you interpret results. If this is an issue in your research, make sure to acknowledge it in your limitations section.

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Limitations of the study . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations

In many research papers, the conclusion, like the limitations section, is folded into the larger discussion section. If you are unsure whether to include the conclusion as part of your discussion or as a separate section, be sure to defer to the assignment instructions or ask your instructor.

The conclusion is important, as it is specifically designed to highlight your research’s larger importance outside of the specific results of your study. Your conclusion section allows you to reiterate the main findings of your study, highlight their importance, and point out areas for future research. Based on the scope of your paper, your conclusion could be anywhere from one to three paragraphs long. An effective conclusion section should include the following:

• Describe the possibilities for continued research on your topic, including what might be improved, adapted, or added to ensure useful and informed future research.
• Provide a detailed account of the importance of your findings
• Reiterate why your problem is important, detail how your interpretation of results impacts the subfield of study, and what larger issues both within and outside of your field might be affected from such results

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 9. the conclusion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion

• Previous Page: Results
• Next Page: References
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

How To Write The Discussion Chapter

A Simple Explainer With Examples + Free Template

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve reached the discussion chapter of your thesis or dissertation and are looking for a bit of guidance. Well, you’ve come to the right place ! In this post, we’ll unpack and demystify the typical discussion chapter in straightforward, easy to understand language, with loads of examples .

Overview: The Discussion Chapter

• What  the discussion chapter is
• What to include in your discussion
• How to write up your discussion
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way
• Free discussion template

What (exactly) is the discussion chapter?

The discussion chapter is where you interpret and explain your results within your thesis or dissertation. This contrasts with the results chapter, where you merely present and describe the analysis findings (whether qualitative or quantitative ). In the discussion chapter, you elaborate on and evaluate your research findings, and discuss the significance and implications of your results .

In this chapter, you’ll situate your research findings in terms of your research questions or hypotheses and tie them back to previous studies and literature (which you would have covered in your literature review chapter). You’ll also have a look at how relevant and/or significant your findings are to your field of research, and you’ll argue for the conclusions that you draw from your analysis. Simply put, the discussion chapter is there for you to interact with and explain your research findings in a thorough and coherent manner.

What should I include in the discussion chapter?

First things first: in some studies, the results and discussion chapter are combined into one chapter .  This depends on the type of study you conducted (i.e., the nature of the study and methodology adopted), as well as the standards set by the university.  So, check in with your university regarding their norms and expectations before getting started. In this post, we’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as this is most common.

Basically, your discussion chapter should analyse , explore the meaning and identify the importance of the data you presented in your results chapter. In the discussion chapter, you’ll give your results some form of meaning by evaluating and interpreting them. This will help answer your research questions, achieve your research aims and support your overall conclusion (s). Therefore, you discussion chapter should focus on findings that are directly connected to your research aims and questions. Don’t waste precious time and word count on findings that are not central to the purpose of your research project.

As this chapter is a reflection of your results chapter, it’s vital that you don’t report any new findings . In other words, you can’t present claims here if you didn’t present the relevant data in the results chapter first.  So, make sure that for every discussion point you raise in this chapter, you’ve covered the respective data analysis in the results chapter. If you haven’t, you’ll need to go back and adjust your results chapter accordingly.

If you’re struggling to get started, try writing down a bullet point list everything you found in your results chapter. From this, you can make a list of everything you need to cover in your discussion chapter. Also, make sure you revisit your research questions or hypotheses and incorporate the relevant discussion to address these.  This will also help you to see how you can structure your chapter logically.

Need a helping hand?

How to write the discussion chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear idea of what the discussion chapter is and what it needs to include, let’s look at how you can go about structuring this critically important chapter. Broadly speaking, there are six core components that need to be included, and these can be treated as steps in the chapter writing process.

Step 1: Restate your research problem and research questions

The first step in writing up your discussion chapter is to remind your reader of your research problem , as well as your research aim(s) and research questions . If you have hypotheses, you can also briefly mention these. This “reminder” is very important because, after reading dozens of pages, the reader may have forgotten the original point of your research or been swayed in another direction. It’s also likely that some readers skip straight to your discussion chapter from the introduction chapter , so make sure that your research aims and research questions are clear.

Step 2: Summarise your key findings

Next, you’ll want to summarise your key findings from your results chapter. This may look different for qualitative and quantitative research , where qualitative research may report on themes and relationships, whereas quantitative research may touch on correlations and causal relationships. Regardless of the methodology, in this section you need to highlight the overall key findings in relation to your research questions.

Typically, this section only requires one or two paragraphs , depending on how many research questions you have. Aim to be concise here, as you will unpack these findings in more detail later in the chapter. For now, a few lines that directly address your research questions are all that you need.

Some examples of the kind of language you’d use here include:

• The data suggest that…
• The data support/oppose the theory that…
• The analysis identifies…

These are purely examples. What you present here will be completely dependent on your original research questions, so make sure that you are led by them .

Step 3: Interpret your results

Once you’ve restated your research problem and research question(s) and briefly presented your key findings, you can unpack your findings by interpreting your results. Remember: only include what you reported in your results section – don’t introduce new information.

From a structural perspective, it can be a wise approach to follow a similar structure in this chapter as you did in your results chapter. This would help improve readability and make it easier for your reader to follow your arguments. For example, if you structured you results discussion by qualitative themes, it may make sense to do the same here.

Alternatively, you may structure this chapter by research questions, or based on an overarching theoretical framework that your study revolved around. Every study is different, so you’ll need to assess what structure works best for you.

When interpreting your results, you’ll want to assess how your findings compare to those of the existing research (from your literature review chapter). Even if your findings contrast with the existing research, you need to include these in your discussion. In fact, those contrasts are often the most interesting findings . In this case, you’d want to think about why you didn’t find what you were expecting in your data and what the significance of this contrast is.

Here are a few questions to help guide your discussion:

• How do your results relate with those of previous studies ?
• If you get results that differ from those of previous studies, why may this be the case?
• What do your results contribute to your field of research?
• What other explanations could there be for your findings?

When interpreting your findings, be careful not to draw conclusions that aren’t substantiated . Every claim you make needs to be backed up with evidence or findings from the data (and that data needs to be presented in the previous chapter – results). This can look different for different studies; qualitative data may require quotes as evidence, whereas quantitative data would use statistical methods and tests. Whatever the case, every claim you make needs to be strongly backed up.

Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations of your study

The fourth step in writing up your discussion chapter is to acknowledge the limitations of the study. These limitations can cover any part of your study , from the scope or theoretical basis to the analysis method(s) or sample. For example, you may find that you collected data from a very small sample with unique characteristics, which would mean that you are unable to generalise your results to the broader population.

For some students, discussing the limitations of their work can feel a little bit self-defeating . This is a misconception, as a core indicator of high-quality research is its ability to accurately identify its weaknesses. In other words, accurately stating the limitations of your work is a strength, not a weakness . All that said, be careful not to undermine your own research. Tell the reader what limitations exist and what improvements could be made, but also remind them of the value of your study despite its limitations.

Step 5: Make recommendations for implementation and future research

Now that you’ve unpacked your findings and acknowledge the limitations thereof, the next thing you’ll need to do is reflect on your study in terms of two factors:

• The practical application of your findings
• Suggestions for future research

The first thing to discuss is how your findings can be used in the real world – in other words, what contribution can they make to the field or industry? Where are these contributions applicable, how and why? For example, if your research is on communication in health settings, in what ways can your findings be applied to the context of a hospital or medical clinic? Make sure that you spell this out for your reader in practical terms, but also be realistic and make sure that any applications are feasible.

The next discussion point is the opportunity for future research . In other words, how can other studies build on what you’ve found and also improve the findings by overcoming some of the limitations in your study (which you discussed a little earlier). In doing this, you’ll want to investigate whether your results fit in with findings of previous research, and if not, why this may be the case. For example, are there any factors that you didn’t consider in your study? What future research can be done to remedy this? When you write up your suggestions, make sure that you don’t just say that more research is needed on the topic, also comment on how the research can build on your study.

Step 6: Provide a concluding summary

Finally, you’ve reached your final stretch. In this section, you’ll want to provide a brief recap of the key findings – in other words, the findings that directly address your research questions . Basically, your conclusion should tell the reader what your study has found, and what they need to take away from reading your report.

When writing up your concluding summary, bear in mind that some readers may skip straight to this section from the beginning of the chapter.  So, make sure that this section flows well from and has a strong connection to the opening section of the chapter.

Tips and tricks for an A-grade discussion chapter

Now that you know what the discussion chapter is , what to include and exclude , and how to structure it , here are some tips and suggestions to help you craft a quality discussion chapter.

• When you write up your discussion chapter, make sure that you keep it consistent with your introduction chapter , as some readers will skip from the introduction chapter directly to the discussion chapter. Your discussion should use the same tense as your introduction, and it should also make use of the same key terms.
• Don’t make assumptions about your readers. As a writer, you have hands-on experience with the data and so it can be easy to present it in an over-simplified manner. Make sure that you spell out your findings and interpretations for the intelligent layman.
• Have a look at other theses and dissertations from your institution, especially the discussion sections. This will help you to understand the standards and conventions of your university, and you’ll also get a good idea of how others have structured their discussion chapters. You can also check out our chapter template .
• Avoid using absolute terms such as “These results prove that…”, rather make use of terms such as “suggest” or “indicate”, where you could say, “These results suggest that…” or “These results indicate…”. It is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something (due to a variety of resource constraints), so be humble in your language.
• Use well-structured and consistently formatted headings to ensure that your reader can easily navigate between sections, and so that your chapter flows logically and coherently.

If you have any questions or thoughts regarding this post, feel free to leave a comment below. Also, if you’re looking for one-on-one help with your discussion chapter (or thesis in general), consider booking a free consultation with one of our highly experienced Grad Coaches to discuss how we can help you.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

Thank you this is helpful!

This is very helpful to me… Thanks a lot for sharing this with us 😊

This has been very helpful indeed. Thank you.

This is actually really helpful, I just stumbled upon it. Very happy that I found it, thank you.

Me too! I was kinda lost on how to approach my discussion chapter. How helpful! Thanks a lot!

This is really good and explicit. Thanks

Thank you, this blog has been such a help.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

Dear sir/madame

Thanks a lot for this helpful blog. Really, it supported me in writing my discussion chapter while I was totally unaware about its structure and method of writing.

With regards

Syed Firoz Ahmad PhD, Research Scholar

I agree so much. This blog was god sent. It assisted me so much while I was totally clueless about the context and the know-how. Now I am fully aware of what I am to do and how I am to do it.

Thanks! This is helpful!

thanks alot for this informative website

Dear Sir/Madam,

Truly, your article was much benefited when i structured my discussion chapter.

Thank you very much!!!

This is helpful for me in writing my research discussion component. I have to copy this text on Microsoft word cause of my weakness that I cannot be able to read the text on screen a long time. So many thanks for this articles.

This was helpful

Thanks Jenna, well explained.

Thank you! This is super helpful.

Thanks very much. I have appreciated the six steps on writing the Discussion chapter which are (i) Restating the research problem and questions (ii) Summarising the key findings (iii) Interpreting the results linked to relating to previous results in positive and negative ways; explaining whay different or same and contribution to field of research and expalnation of findings (iv) Acknowledgeing limitations (v) Recommendations for implementation and future resaerch and finally (vi) Providing a conscluding summary

My two questions are: 1. On step 1 and 2 can it be the overall or you restate and sumamrise on each findings based on the reaerch question? 2. On 4 and 5 do you do the acknowlledgement , recommendations on each research finding or overall. This is not clear from your expalanattion.

Please respond.

This post is very useful. I’m wondering whether practical implications must be introduced in the Discussion section or in the Conclusion section?

Sigh, I never knew a 20 min video could have literally save my life like this. I found this at the right time!!!! Everything I need to know in one video thanks a mil ! OMGG and that 6 step!!!!!! was the cherry on top the cake!!!!!!!!!

Thanks alot.., I have gained much

This piece is very helpful on how to go about my discussion section. I can always recommend GradCoach research guides for colleagues.

Many thanks for this resource. It has been very helpful to me. I was finding it hard to even write the first sentence. Much appreciated.

Thanks so much. Very helpful to know what is included in the discussion section

this was a very helpful and useful information

This is very helpful. Very very helpful. Thanks for sharing this online!

it is very helpfull article, and i will recommend it to my fellow students. Thank you.

Superlative! More grease to your elbows.

Powerful, thank you for sharing.

Wow! Just wow! God bless the day I stumbled upon you guys’ YouTube videos! It’s been truly life changing and anxiety about my report that is due in less than a month has subsided significantly!

Simplified explanation. Well done.

The presentation is enlightening. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the support and guidance

This has been a great help to me and thank you do much

I second that “it is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something”; although, could you enlighten us on that comment and elaborate more please?

Sure, no problem.

Scientific proof is generally considered a very strong assertion that something is definitively and universally true. In most scientific disciplines, especially within the realms of natural and social sciences, absolute proof is very rare. Instead, researchers aim to provide evidence that supports or rejects hypotheses. This evidence increases or decreases the likelihood that a particular theory is correct, but it rarely proves something in the absolute sense.

Dissertations and theses, as substantial as they are, typically focus on exploring a specific question or problem within a larger field of study. They contribute to a broader conversation and body of knowledge. The aim is often to provide detailed insight, extend understanding, and suggest directions for further research rather than to offer definitive proof. These academic works are part of a cumulative process of knowledge building where each piece of research connects with others to gradually enhance our understanding of complex phenomena.

Furthermore, the rigorous nature of scientific inquiry involves continuous testing, validation, and potential refutation of ideas. What might be considered a “proof” at one point can later be challenged by new evidence or alternative interpretations. Therefore, the language of “proof” is cautiously used in academic circles to maintain scientific integrity and humility.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• University of Memphis Libraries
• Research Guides

Empirical Research: Defining, Identifying, & Finding

• Defining Empirical Research
• Introduction

The Discussion Section

• Database Tools
• Search Terms
• Image Descriptions

The Discussion section is where the author(s) explain the results. They will talk about how the research answered, or failed to answer, the research question. They will address how the outcomes filled gaps in the research, how they might be applied more broadly, how the study's results may have limitations, and discuss new questions that came up in the course of the research. 

What Criteria to Look For

The Discussion is where the authors will most likely discuss how to  generalize  from their research to other samples and situations. 

Finding the Criteria

The Discussion section will have a "Discussion" heading fairly consistently. However, many articles may also have additional headings or subheadings in the Discussion section. Where the information on generalization is located may vary based on which headings the author(s) decide to use. 

What Headings to Look Under

• General heading for the section. If this is the only heading, there should be discussion of generalization here. 
• If there are additional headings, the discussion of generalization may be in those headings or spread across multiple headings including the general discussion heading.
• Final overview of the research. 
• Likely some mention of how to generalize from the results. 
• Where the author(s) will discuss how the research results affects the understanding of the topic or how it could be used in practice.
• If this section exists, there is likely discussion of generalization here.
• Will explain any weaknesses in the study's design or sample that would make the research results less usable. 
• The author(s) will likely discuss how to  not  generalize the results in this section.
• The author(s) will identify possible research projects to follow up with this research.
• May discuss how to address issues from Limitations that would improve generalization. 
• Has a single heading for "Discussion" beginning on page 93.
• Final paragraph on on page 95 discusses how the results of the study might be generalized and applied at a larger community level after noting possible limitations in the study. 
• Discussion section begins on page 545, which include the headings "Discussion," "Policy and Practice Implications," "Limitations and Future Directions," and "Summary and Conclusions."
• Each section addresses what evidence the study does, or does not, provide for larger debates on the subject. 
• << Previous: Results
• Next: Searching for Empirical Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:25 AM
• URL: https://libguides.memphis.edu/empirical-research

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Research Discussion – Importance & How To Write It

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The research discussion section of a dissertation is a vital element that compiles the significance of your results in the context of your overall study. It allows you to interpret your findings, draw conclusions, relate your outcomes to existing literature, and suggest potential further research. This guide provides detailed insights into composing an influential research discussion. We will explore key findings, interpretation, implications and limitations, and Dos and Don’ts.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Research Discussion – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Research discussion
• 3 Key findings in the research discussion
• 4 Interpretations in the research discussion
• 5 Implications in the research discussion
• 6 Limitations of the research discussion
• 7 Recommendations in the research discussion
• 8 Research Discussion: Dos and Don’ts

Research Discussion – In a Nutshell

• The research discussion critically analyzes and interprets the results of your study.
• The interpretation of the results, the implication of the study, and the limitations.
• The research discussion is one of the final parts of your research paper process.
• It ties everything back to the research question.

Definition: Research discussion

The research discussion comes just before the conclusion. It informs readers about what they can learn from the experiment or research, and it also offers context for the research results.

In the discussion chapter, you can interpret the data included in the research results section of the study.

Key findings in the research discussion

You should start the research discussion by summarizing the key findings of the study. Instead of repeating all the data you have reported, you should write a concise statement that answers the main research question. The summary should only cover one paragraph.

• The data suggests that…
• The study results indicate that…
• The study shows a correlation between…
• The results support the hypothesis that…

Interpretations in the research discussion

After stating your research results, you need to explain to your readers why the results are significant to the study. You should show how they answer the research question.

Here are some methods of interpreting the results of the research:

• Determine if the data shows relationships like correlations
• Explain whether the data collected supported your hypothesis
• Use previous research and theories to put your findings into context
• Evaluate the unexpected findings
• Find other explanations for your findings
• Contrary to the hypothesized association…
• In contrast to the claims by Jacob (1992)….
• In line with the hypothesis…
• While the results might suggest x, findings by similar studies suggest that a more realistic explanation is y…

Implications in the research discussion

One of the biggest mistakes people make when writing research discussions is failing to indicate how the research results fill a gap in the field. You should show how the results relate back to the scholarly works that were used in the study.

You can even simply show that the results reinforce the current edge of knowledge. It is worth noting that the research gap needs to also be mentioned in the introduction, as this will make the study logical.

The discussion chapter will help to show readers what the research has contributed to the field.

To write this section of the research discussion effectively, you can ask the following questions:

• Are there any practical implications?
• Do the study results add further evidence to support existing scientific consensus?
• Do the results further the comprehension of the topic?
• How do the study results advance knowledge in the field?
• The results do not fit with the theory that…
• The results provide further evidence that…
• Past studies have mostly focused on x, but our results indicate that y.
• The results have advanced our knowledge on…
• This study provides further understanding of the relationship between…
• The results challenge the scientific consensus that…

Limitations of the research discussion

Next, in the research discussion chapter, you have to point out any limitations in the study. It is important to avoid apologizing or undermining your study, even if it contains significant limitations. You should simply state the limitations in an objective way so that the reader gets a complete understanding of the study results. Some common limitations include bias, threats to internal validity or external validity, and confounding variables that you couldn’t control in the study. You should only mention limitations that are relevant to the research objectives. At the end of it all, reiterate why the study results are still valid and that they can be used to improve our understanding of the research question.

• It is beyond the scope of this study to…
• The team couldn’t get access to x, so the study couldn’t confirm that…
• The generalizability of the study was impacted by…
• The choice of methodology was limited by…
• The reliability of the research results was limited by…

Recommendations in the research discussion

In this section of the research discussion, you should make recommendations for further research or practical implementations. It is common for researchers to make recommendations based on their limitations. When giving recommendations, you should state exactly how future researchers can fill in the gaps in your study.

• Our research opens up new avenues of research in…
• Extra research is necessary to prove…
• The study points out the need for…

Research Discussion: Dos and Don’ts

What is included in the discussion chapter of a dissertation.

The research discussion covers the actual meaning of your study, as well as its implications in other areas of research.

You can also suggest improvements that can be made to further develop the concerns of your study.

Is the research discussion chapter the same as the conclusion?

No, the research discussion interprets the results and answers the research question. On the other hand, the conclusion mostly summarizes the research paper.

Which are the main parts of the research discussion?

The main sections of the research discussion are:

• Interpretation of the results
• Implication of the study
• Limitations
• Recommendations

Is the research results chapter similar to the research discussion?

No, the results chapter only covers the findings of the study. On the other hand, the research discussion interprets the results and provides recommendations.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

The Process of Writing a Research Paper Guide: The Discussion

• Types of Research Designs
• Choosing a Research Topic
• Preparing to Write
• The Abstract
• The Introduction
• The Literature Review
• The Methodology
• The Results
• The Discussion
• The Conclusion
• Proofreading Your Paper
• Citing Sources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Giving an Oral Presentation
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Writing a Book Review
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your study of the problem. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explain how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because this is where you:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and  to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation,
• Present the underlying meaning of your research, note possible implications in other areas of study, and explore possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research,
• Highlight the importance of your study and how it may be able to contribute to and/or help fill existing gaps in the field. If appropriate, the discussion section is also where you state how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described, and
• Engage the reader in thinking critically about issues based upon an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.”  Clinical Chemistry  56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.”  Journal of English for Academic Purposes  5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul.  Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive
• Be concise  and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or finding]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of results; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a result of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential  limitations and weaknesses  if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.   Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.   Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results [“why didn't I think of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.

III.   Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. IV.   Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to  discover  and not to  prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.   Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.   Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [this can be done in the overall conclusion of your paper]. Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight previously hidden questions that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE:  Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results or used to link to similar studies. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper,  but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section.  Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion] should be distinct sections of your paper. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable.  Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this; just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing . Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University;  Discussion . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion."  Respiratory Care  49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul.  Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008;  The Lab Report . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?”  The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery  74 (June 2013): 1599-1602;  Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012;  Summary: Using it Wisely . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S.  Writing the Discussion . Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L.  A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

• << Previous: The Results
• Next: The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Oct 1, 2019 1:26 PM
• URL: https://midlakes.libguides.com/c.php?g=972151

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a discussion section?

Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a “divide and conquer” approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

Introduction

Sharing knowledge produced during academic life is achieved through writing manuscripts. However writing manuscripts is a challenging endeavour in that we physicians have a heavy workload, and English which is common language used for the dissemination of scientific knowledge is not our mother tongue.

The objective of this review is to summarize the method of writing ‘Discussion’ section which is the most important, but probably at the same time the most unlikable part of a manuscript, and demonstrate the easy ways we applied in our practice, and finally share the frequently made relevant mistakes. During this procedure, inevitably some issues which concerns general concept of manuscript writing process are dealt with. Therefore in this review we will deal with topics related to the general aspects of manuscript writing process, and specifically issues concerning only the ‘Discussion’ section.

A) Approaches to general aspects of manuscript writing process:

1. what should be the strategy of sparing time for manuscript writing be.

Two different approaches can be formulated on this issue? One of them is to allocate at least 30 minutes a day for writing a manuscript which amounts to 3.5 hours a week. This period of time is adequate for completion of a manuscript within a few weeks which can be generally considered as a long time interval. Fundamental advantage of this approach is to gain a habit of making academic researches if one complies with the designated time schedule, and to keep the manuscript writing motivation at persistently high levels. Another approach concerning this issue is to accomplish manuscript writing process within a week. With the latter approach, the target is rapidly attained. However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.

Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1–2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study (even the during project stage). The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. Herein, at least drafts of the ‘Introduction’, and ‘Material and Methods’ can be written, and even tables containing numerical data can be constructed. These tables can be written down in the ‘Results’ section. [ 1 ]

2. How should the manuscript be written?

The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. [ 2 ] Herein, do not forget that, the objective should be to share our findings with the readers in an easily comprehensible format. Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature. Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Thus with this so-called ‘hunter’s approach’ the target can be achieved directly, and rapidly. Another approach is ‘collectioner’s approach. [ 3 ] In this approach, firstly, potential data, and literature studies are gathered, read, and then selected ones are used. Since this approach suits with surgical point of view, probably ‘hunter’s approach’ serves our purposes more appropriately. However, in parallel with academic development, our novice colleague ‘manuscripters’ can prefer ‘collectioner’s approach.’

On the other hand, we think that research team consisting of different age groups has some advantages. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields (ie. research methods, contact with patients, preparation of a project, fund-raising, statistical analysis etc.) will determine task sharing, and make a favourable contribution to the perfection of the manuscript. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data.

According to our point of view, ‘Abstract’ section of the manuscript should be written after completion of the manuscript. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.

On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment. Indeed, it might be very difficult to remember relevant references to be placed in the ‘Discussion’ section. For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach.

3. Which target journal should be selected?

In essence, the methodology to be followed in writing the ‘Discussion’ section is directly related to the selection of the target journal. Indeed, in compliance with the writing rules of the target journal, limitations made on the number of words after onset of the writing process, effects mostly the ‘Discussion’ section. Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view. Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention. However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. For example manuscripts which lead to the conclusions as “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” will not be accepted or they will be returned by the editor of the target journal to the authors with the request of critical review. Besides the target journal to be selected should be ready to accept articles with similar concept. In fact editors of the journal will not reserve the limited space in their journal for articles yielding similar conclusions.

The title of the manuscript is as important as the structured sections * of the manuscript. The title can be the most striking or the newest outcome among results obtained.

Before writing down the manuscript, determination of 2–3 titles increases the motivation of the authors towards the manuscript. During writing process of the manuscript one of these can be selected based on the intensity of the discussion. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand. For example an article bearing the title “Use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time” should not be sent to “Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology” Indeed the topic of the manuscript is out of the agenda of this journal.

4. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript?

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. [ 1 ] Internal referees can be considered in 2 categories as “General internal referees” and “expert internal referees” General internal referees (ie. our colleagues from other medical disciplines) are not directly concerned with your subject matter but as mentioned above they critically review the manuscript as for simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness of its writing style. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript (ie. our senior colleagues more experienced than us). External referees are our colleagues who did not contribute to data collection of our study in any way, but we can request their opinions about the subject matter of the manuscript. Since they are unrelated both to the author(s), and subject matter of the manuscript, these referees can review our manuscript more objectively. Before sending the manuscript to internal, and external referees, we should contact with them, and ask them if they have time to review our manuscript. We should also give information about our subject matter. Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively. 1) Does the manuscript contribute to the literature?; 2) Does it persuasive? 3) Is it suitable for the publication in the selected journal? 4) Has a simple, clear, and effective language been used throughout the manuscript? In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. [ 1 ]**

Following receival of the opinions of internal, and external referees, one should concentrate priorly on indicated problems, and their solutions. Comments coming from the reviewers should be criticized, but a defensive attitude should not be assumed during this evaluation process. During this “incubation” period where the comments of the internal, and external referees are awaited, literature should be reviewed once more. Indeed during this time interval a new article which you should consider in the ‘Discussion’ section can be cited in the literature.

5. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript?

Probably the most important mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript include lack of a clear message of the manuscript , inclusion of more than one main idea in the same text or provision of numerous unrelated results at the same time so as to reinforce the assertions of the manuscript. This approach can be termed roughly as “loss of the focus of the study” In conclusion, the author(s) should ask themselves the following question at every stage of the writing process:. “What is the objective of the study? If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.

One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision. The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not. Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process. Thus, evaluation of the “cooled” manuscript will be made from a more objective perspective, and assessment process of its integrity will be facilitated.

Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information. [ 4 ]

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1. how should the main points of ‘discussion’ section be constructed.

Generally the length of the ‘Discussion ‘ section should not exceed the sum of other sections (ıntroduction, material and methods, and results), and it should be completed within 6–7 paragraphs.. Each paragraph should not contain more than 200 words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The ‘Discussion’ section can be generally divided into 3 separate paragraphs as. 1) Introductory paragraph, 2) Intermediate paragraphs, 3) Concluding paragraph.

The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. Without repeating ‘Introduction’ section of the manuscript, the problem to be addressed, and its updateness are analysed. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1) On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate? 2) What solutions can be recommended to solve this problem? 3) What will be the new, different, and innovative issue? 4) How will our study contribute to the solution of this problem An introductory paragraph in this format is helpful to accomodate reader to the rest of the Discussion section. However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. [ 5 ]

In the last paragraph of the Discussion section “strong points” of the study should be mentioned using “constrained”, and “not too strongly assertive” statements. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal. On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.

2. How should the intermediate paragraphs of the Discussion section be formulated?

The reader passes through a test of boredom while reading paragraphs of the Discussion section apart from the introductory, and the last paragraphs. Herein your findings rather than those of the other researchers are discussed. The previous studies can be an explanation or reinforcement of your findings. Each paragraph should contain opinions in favour or against the topic discussed, critical evaluations, and learning points.

Our management approach for intermediate paragraphs is “divide and conquer” tactics. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding ( Figure 1 ). Each paragraph begins with an “indisputable” introductory sentence about the topic to be discussed. This sentence basically can be the answer to the question “What have we found?” Then a sentence associated with the subject matter to be discussed is written. Subsequently, in the light of the current literature this finding is discussed, new ideas on this subject are revealed, and the paragraph ends with a concluding remark.

Divide and Conquer tactics

In this paragraph, main topic should be emphasized without going into much detail. Its place, and importance among other studies should be indicated. However during this procedure studies should be presented in a logical sequence (ie. from past to present, from a few to many cases), and aspects of the study contradictory to other studies should be underlined. Results without any supportive evidence or equivocal results should not be written. Besides numerical values presented in the Results section should not be repeated unless required.

Besides, asking the following questions, and searching their answers in the same paragraph will facilitate writing process of the paragraph. [ 1 ] 1) Can the discussed result be false or inadequate? 2) Why is it false? (inadequate blinding, protocol contamination, lost to follow-up, lower statistical power of the study etc.), 3) What meaning does this outcome convey?

3. What are the common mistakes made in writing the Discussion section?:

Probably the most important mistake made while writing the Discussion section is the need for mentioning all literature references. One point to remember is that we are not writing a review article, and only the results related to this paragraph should be discussed. Meanwhile, each word of the paragraphs should be counted, and placed carefully. Each word whose removal will not change the meaning should be taken out from the text.” Writing a saga with “word salads” *** is one of the reasons for prompt rejection. Indeed, if the reviewer thinks that it is difficult to correct the Discussion section, he/she use her/ his vote in the direction of rejection to save time (Uniform requirements for manuscripts: International Comittee of Medical Journal Editors [ http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf ])

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. [ 3 ] While referring these studies, (excl. introductory sentences linking indisputable sentences or paragraphs) original articles should be cited. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much.

4. What points should be paid attention about writing rules, and grammar?

As is the case with the whole article, text of the Discussion section should be written with a simple language, as if we are talking with our colleague. [ 2 ] Each sentence should indicate a single point, and it should not exceed 25–30 words. The priorly mentioned information which linked the previous sentence should be placed at the beginning of the sentence, while the new information should be located at the end of the sentence. During construction of the sentences, avoid unnecessary words, and active voice rather than passive voice should be used.**** Since conventionally passive voice is used in the scientific manuscripts written in the Turkish language, the above statement contradicts our writing habits. However, one should not refrain from beginning the sentences with the word “we”. Indeed, editors of the journal recommend use of active voice so as to increase the intelligibility of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the major point to remember is that the manuscript should be written complying with principles of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. In the light of these principles, as is the case in our daily practice, all components of the manuscript (IMRAD) can be written concurrently. In the ‘Discussion’ section ‘divide and conquer’ tactics remarkably facilitates writing process of the discussion. On the other hand, relevant or irrelevant feedbacks received from our colleagues can contribute to the perfection of the manuscript. Do not forget that none of the manuscripts is perfect, and one should not refrain from writing because of language problems, and related lack of experience.

Instead of structured sections of a manuscript (IMRAD): Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion

Instead of in the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine posters to be submitted in congresses are time to time discussed in Wednesday meetings, and opinions of the internal referees are obtained about the weak, and strong points of the study

Instead of a writing style which uses words or sentences with a weak logical meaning that do not lead the reader to any conclusion

Instead of “white color”; “proven”; nstead of “history”; “to”. should be used instead of “white in color”, “definitely proven”, “past history”, and “in order to”, respectively ( ref. 2 )

Instead of “No instances of either postoperative death or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period” use “There were no deaths or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period.

Instead of “Measurements were performed to evaluate the levels of CEA in the serum” use “We measured serum CEA levels”

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 7. The Results
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The results section is where you report the findings of your study based upon the methodology [or methodologies] you applied to gather information. The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research.

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070.

Importance of a Good Results Section

When formulating the results section, it's important to remember that the results of a study do not prove anything . Findings can only confirm or reject the hypothesis underpinning your study. However, the act of articulating the results helps you to understand the problem from within, to break it into pieces, and to view the research problem from various perspectives.

The page length of this section is set by the amount and types of data to be reported . Be concise. Use non-textual elements appropriately, such as figures and tables, to present findings more effectively. In deciding what data to describe in your results section, you must clearly distinguish information that would normally be included in a research paper from any raw data or other content that could be included as an appendix. In general, raw data that has not been summarized should not be included in the main text of your paper unless requested to do so by your professor.

Avoid providing data that is not critical to answering the research question . The background information you described in the introduction section should provide the reader with any additional context or explanation needed to understand the results. A good strategy is to always re-read the background section of your paper after you have written up your results to ensure that the reader has enough context to understand the results [and, later, how you interpreted the results in the discussion section of your paper that follows].

Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Brett, Paul. "A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles." English for Specific Speakers 13 (1994): 47-59; Go to English for Specific Purposes on ScienceDirect;Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008; Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit; "Reporting Findings." In Making Sense of Social Research Malcolm Williams, editor. (London;: SAGE Publications, 2003) pp. 188-207.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Organization and Approach

For most research papers in the social and behavioral sciences, there are two possible ways of organizing the results . Both approaches are appropriate in how you report your findings, but use only one approach.

• Present a synopsis of the results followed by an explanation of key findings . This approach can be used to highlight important findings. For example, you may have noticed an unusual correlation between two variables during the analysis of your findings. It is appropriate to highlight this finding in the results section. However, speculating as to why this correlation exists and offering a hypothesis about what may be happening belongs in the discussion section of your paper.
• Present a result and then explain it, before presenting the next result then explaining it, and so on, then end with an overall synopsis . This is the preferred approach if you have multiple results of equal significance. It is more common in longer papers because it helps the reader to better understand each finding. In this model, it is helpful to provide a brief conclusion that ties each of the findings together and provides a narrative bridge to the discussion section of the your paper.

NOTE:   Just as the literature review should be arranged under conceptual categories rather than systematically describing each source, you should also organize your findings under key themes related to addressing the research problem. This can be done under either format noted above [i.e., a thorough explanation of the key results or a sequential, thematic description and explanation of each finding].

II.  Content

In general, the content of your results section should include the following:

• Introductory context for understanding the results by restating the research problem underpinning your study . This is useful in re-orientating the reader's focus back to the research problem after having read a review of the literature and your explanation of the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.
• Inclusion of non-textual elements, such as, figures, charts, photos, maps, tables, etc. to further illustrate key findings, if appropriate . Rather than relying entirely on descriptive text, consider how your findings can be presented visually. This is a helpful way of condensing a lot of data into one place that can then be referred to in the text. Consider referring to appendices if there is a lot of non-textual elements.
• A systematic description of your results, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation . Not all results that emerge from the methodology used to gather information may be related to answering the " So What? " question. Do not confuse observations with interpretations; observations in this context refers to highlighting important findings you discovered through a process of reviewing prior literature and gathering data.
• The page length of your results section is guided by the amount and types of data to be reported . However, focus on findings that are important and related to addressing the research problem. It is not uncommon to have unanticipated results that are not relevant to answering the research question. This is not to say that you don't acknowledge tangential findings and, in fact, can be referred to as areas for further research in the conclusion of your paper. However, spending time in the results section describing tangential findings clutters your overall results section and distracts the reader.
• A short paragraph that concludes the results section by synthesizing the key findings of the study . Highlight the most important findings you want readers to remember as they transition into the discussion section. This is particularly important if, for example, there are many results to report, the findings are complicated or unanticipated, or they are impactful or actionable in some way [i.e., able to be pursued in a feasible way applied to practice].

NOTE:   Always use the past tense when referring to your study's findings. Reference to findings should always be described as having already happened because the method used to gather the information has been completed.

III.  Problems to Avoid

When writing the results section, avoid doing the following :

• Discussing or interpreting your results . Save this for the discussion section of your paper, although where appropriate, you should compare or contrast specific results to those found in other studies [e.g., "Similar to the work of Smith [1990], one of the findings of this study is the strong correlation between motivation and academic achievement...."].
• Reporting background information or attempting to explain your findings. This should have been done in your introduction section, but don't panic! Often the results of a study point to the need for additional background information or to explain the topic further, so don't think you did something wrong. Writing up research is rarely a linear process. Always revise your introduction as needed.
• Ignoring negative results . A negative result generally refers to a finding that does not support the underlying assumptions of your study. Do not ignore them. Document these findings and then state in your discussion section why you believe a negative result emerged from your study. Note that negative results, and how you handle them, can give you an opportunity to write a more engaging discussion section, therefore, don't be hesitant to highlight them.
• Including raw data or intermediate calculations . Ask your professor if you need to include any raw data generated by your study, such as transcripts from interviews or data files. If raw data is to be included, place it in an appendix or set of appendices that are referred to in the text.
• Be as factual and concise as possible in reporting your findings . Do not use phrases that are vague or non-specific, such as, "appeared to be greater than other variables..." or "demonstrates promising trends that...." Subjective modifiers should be explained in the discussion section of the paper [i.e., why did one variable appear greater? Or, how does the finding demonstrate a promising trend?].
• Presenting the same data or repeating the same information more than once . If you want to highlight a particular finding, it is appropriate to do so in the results section. However, you should emphasize its significance in relation to addressing the research problem in the discussion section. Do not repeat it in your results section because you can do that in the conclusion of your paper.
• Confusing figures with tables . Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper. Don't call a chart an illustration or a figure a table. If you are not sure, go here .

Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." Clinical Chemistry 56 (July 2010): 1066-1070; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. and Sneha Chandak. "Results: Unraveling the Findings." Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 63 (September 2015): 44-46; Burton, Neil et al. Doing Your Education Research Project . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2008;  Caprette, David R. Writing Research Papers. Experimental Biosciences Resources. Rice University; Hancock, Dawson R. and Bob Algozzine. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers . 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011; Introduction to Nursing Research: Reporting Research Findings. Nursing Research: Open Access Nursing Research and Review Articles. (January 4, 2012); Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Results Section. San Francisco Edit ; Ng, K. H. and W. C. Peh. "Writing the Results." Singapore Medical Journal 49 (2008): 967-968; Reporting Research Findings. Wilder Research, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Human Services. (February 2009); Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Results. Thesis Writing in the Sciences. Course Syllabus. University of Florida.

Writing Tip

Why Don't I Just Combine the Results Section with the Discussion Section?

It's not unusual to find articles in scholarly social science journals where the author(s) have combined a description of the findings with a discussion about their significance and implications. You could do this. However, if you are inexperienced writing research papers, consider creating two distinct sections for each section in your paper as a way to better organize your thoughts and, by extension, your paper. Think of the results section as the place where you report what your study found; think of the discussion section as the place where you interpret the information and answer the "So What?" question. As you become more skilled writing research papers, you can consider melding the results of your study with a discussion of its implications.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn and Aleksandra Kasztalska. Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: Insiderness
• Next: Using Non-Textual Elements >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 21 August 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 25 October 2022.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion . It should not be a second results section .

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary: A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarise your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasise weaknesses or failures.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Start this section by reiterating your research problem  and concisely summarising your major findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported – aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main  research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that …
• The study demonstrates a correlation between …
• This analysis supports the theory that …
• The data suggest  that …

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualising your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organise your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis …
• Contrary to the hypothesised association …
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2007) that …
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is x .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of …
• The results do not fit with the theory that …
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between …
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to …
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of …
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalisability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analysing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalisability of the results is limited by …
• The reliability of these data is impacted by …
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm …
• The methodological choices were constrained by …
• It is beyond the scope of this study to …

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done – give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish …
• Future studies should take into account …
• Avenues for future research include …

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a results section | tips & examples, research paper appendix | example & templates, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Chemical Biology and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
• Computational Biology
• Critical Reviews and Perspectives
• Data Resources and Analyses
• Gene Regulation, Chromatin and Epigenetics
• Genome Integrity, Repair and Replication
• Methods Online
• Molecular Biology
• Nucleic Acid Enzymes
• RNA and RNA-protein complexes
• Structural Biology
• Synthetic Biology and Bioengineering
• Advance Articles
• Breakthrough Articles
• Special Collections
• Scope and Criteria for Consideration
• Author Guidelines
• Data Deposition Policy
• Database Issue Guidelines
• Web Server Issue Guidelines
• Submission Site
• About Nucleic Acids Research
• Editors & Editorial Board
• Information of Referees
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, materials and methods, ppi3d web server description, data availability, supplementary data, ppi3d: a web server for searching, analyzing and modeling protein–protein, protein–peptide and protein–nucleic acid interactions.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Justas Dapkūnas, Albertas Timinskas, Kliment Olechnovič, Miglė Tomkuvienė, Česlovas Venclovas, PPI3D: a web server for searching, analyzing and modeling protein–protein, protein–peptide and protein–nucleic acid interactions, Nucleic Acids Research , 2024;, gkae278, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae278

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Structure-resolved protein interactions with other proteins, peptides and nucleic acids are key for understanding molecular mechanisms. The PPI3D web server enables researchers to query preprocessed and clustered structural data, analyze the results and make homology-based inferences for protein interactions. PPI3D offers three interaction exploration modes: (i) all interactions for proteins homologous to the query, (ii) interactions between two proteins or their homologs and (iii) interactions within a specific PDB entry. The server allows interactive analysis of the identified interactions in both summarized and detailed manner. This includes protein annotations, structures, the interface residues and the corresponding contact surface areas. In addition, users can make inferences about residues at the interaction interface for the query protein(s) from the sequence alignments and homology models. The weekly updated PPI3D database includes all the interaction interfaces and binding sites from PDB, clustered based on both protein sequence and structural similarity, yielding non-redundant datasets without loss of alternative interaction modes. Consequently, the PPI3D users avoid being flooded with redundant information, a typical situation for intensely studied proteins. Furthermore, PPI3D provides a possibility to download user-defined sets of interaction interfaces and analyze them locally. The PPI3D web server is available at https://bioinformatics.lt/ppi3d .

Proteins drive most biological processes, but they rarely act alone. Most often, proteins perform molecular functions by forming stable or temporary complexes with other proteins, peptides, nucleic acids and ligands. For comprehensive understanding of biological processes at the molecular level it is essential to know not only protein interaction partners, but also details of these interactions. This information can be obtained directly from the corresponding three-dimensional (3D) structures of protein complexes. These structures can be either determined experimentally or predicted computationally. A recent deep learning-driven breakthrough ( 1 ) resulted in accurately predicted structures for millions of individual proteins ( 2 ). However, predicting structures for protein–protein and protein–peptide complexes remains challenging ( 3 , 4 ), whereas prediction of protein-DNA or protein-RNA complexes is even harder ( 5 ). Therefore, the ability to utilize experimentally determined structures of protein complexes, available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) ( 6 ) is very important for both experimentalists interested in specific proteins and computational biologists aiming at developing methods for modeling protein complexes.

The number of protein complexes in the PDB is already quite large and is growing steadily, providing a rich source for structure-resolved interaction data. However, it is not always straightforward to extract, analyze and make use of these data. One of the issues with structures determined by X-ray crystallography is how to distinguish biologically relevant interactions from those resulting from crystal packing. Another confounding issue is the redundancy of interaction data. There may be multiple PDB entries for a given protein complex, and even a single PDB entry may contain several instances of this complex. This redundancy cannot be decreased by simple sequence-based filtering, usually sufficient to obtain representative monomeric structures. The interactions within the same or a closely related complex may differ depending on conditions in which the structure was solved, the presence or absence of ligands and/or additional interacting partners. Therefore, obtaining representatives for interaction interfaces necessitates involvement of structure-based comparison. This is not a trivial endeavor in itself, because the results depend on the interface definition and the interface similarity metric.

Over the years, multiple web-based tools have been developed to address these issues and to make use of PDB interaction data for better understanding protein interactions and functions. A large family of tools, exemplified by PISA ( 7 ), de facto standard in PDB, EPPIC ( 8 ), ProtCID ( 9 ) and ProtCAD ( 10 ), are aiming at identification of biologically relevant protein–protein interfaces and/or biological assemblies from crystal structures. However, still there is no foolproof method against occasional erroneous assignment of biologically relevant assemblies or interfaces ( 11 ). Many other tools are dedicated to annotate and classify PDB interaction data, and use these data to transfer 3D information to homologs or infer new interactions. They all differ greatly in user interface, the range of analyses performed and output data types. Some examples include 3did ( 12 ), which links PDB interaction data to Pfam domains, HOMCOS ( 13 ), which focuses on applying interaction data for searching and template-based modeling of homologous protein complexes, and DNAproDB ( 14 ) specializing in classification and annotation of protein-DNA complexes. There also are web servers that attempt to enrich protein–protein interaction networks with 3D structures including Interactome3D ( 15 ), LEVELNET ( 16 ) and Proteo3Dnet ( 17 ).

Here, we present the updated PPI3D server, which provides a possibility to search through a non-redundant set of pairwise interactions derived from an up-to-date set of PDB biological assemblies and to analyze the obtained results in detail. In addition, PPI3D users can make homology-based inferences regarding interaction sites of their query proteins and construct template-based models. PPI3D stands out among other similar tools by the use Voronoi tessellation to derive and analyze interaction interfaces. One of the strengths of this approach is that it unambiguously defines the contribution of each residue-residue contact to the interaction interface. Furthermore, representation of contacts via contact surface areas in PPI3D enables robust structure-based clustering of interfaces and binding sites. This step is important in detecting alternative interactions, that would be lost in clustering based only on sequence similarity. Compared with the initial version of PPI3D ( 18 ), we introduced two major improvements: (i) extended the PPI3D functionality into protein–nucleic acid interactions and (ii) provided a possibility to download customizable sets of interaction interfaces. These improvements in PPI3D open up new opportunities to study interactions for protein(s) of interest and to analyze interaction interfaces in bulk.

Analysis of structural data and definition of interaction interfaces

Main steps in data pre-processing by PPI3D are shown in Figure 1 . The Biological Assemblies for all non-NMR structures having resolution better than 4 Å are downloaded from the PDB ( 6 ). Polypeptide chains are classified into proteins and peptides. Peptides are defined as polypeptide chains with <20 structurally-resolved residues or <40 structurally-resolved residues if more than half represent non-standard amino acids. Biological assemblies containing nucleic acids are analyzed using DSSR ( 19 ), and chains that form double-stranded DNA or RNA helices are joined into a single nucleic acid entity. Next, binary protein–protein, protein–peptide and protein–nucleic acid interactions are identified and analyzed by means of Voronoi tessellation, implemented in Voronota ( 20 ). Voronoi tessellation is a space-partitioning method. When applied to molecular structures, it assigns every atom a region of space, called Voronoi cell, which encompasses all the space points that are closer to that atom than to any other atom. Adjacent Voronoi cells share a surface, called Voronoi face, which can be viewed as geometric representation of a contact between two atoms. Contacts between atoms can be aggregated into contacts between residues (see Supplementary Data and Supplementary Figure S1 for details). The interaction interface is defined as the set of contacts between residues from different chains. The binding site is defined as the set of protein residues involved in the interaction with another entity (protein, peptide or nucleic acid). Only interfaces with the surface area over 100 Å 2 and only unique interfaces within each PDB entry are retained for further analysis. Next, hydrogen bonds ( 21 ), disulfide bonds and salt bridges are assigned for each interface. The distributions of interface areas, numbers of inter-chain contacts and inter-chain hydrogen bonds for the interfaces in the PPI3D database are provided in Supplementary Figures S2 - S4 .

Structural data pre-processing in the PPI3D web server.

Clustering of interaction interfaces and binding sites

Protein-protein interaction interfaces and protein–protein, protein–peptide, protein–nucleic acid binding sites are clustered based on protein sequence and interaction interface/binding site similarity. Initially, the protein sequences are clustered with CD-HIT ( 22 ) and for every cluster a multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is generated using L-INS-i, an accuracy-oriented MAFFT algorithm ( 23 ). MSAs are needed at a later stage to assign corresponding residues in different proteins for structure-based clustering.

Next, the protein–protein interaction interfaces are clustered by grouping interfaces where both proteins are in the same respective CD-HIT clusters. Protein binding sites are grouped by assigning the proteins of the same CD-HIT cluster to a single cluster of binding sites. These sequence-based clusters are further analyzed at the structural level by considering the interaction interface or binding site similarity, defined by the variants of CAD-score ( 24 , 25 ). Definition of CAD-score variants is provided in Supplementary information . To compute CAD-score values, the one-to-one correspondence between the residues in different proteins is required. Here, residues are considered to be equivalent if they are in the same column of the MSA representing a CD-HIT cluster. In case CAD-score indicates that the sequence-based clusters display structural heterogeneity, they are further split into structurally similar clusters. This sequence- and structure-based clustering procedure ensures identification of different binding sites for a given protein and/or alternative protein–protein interaction modes. Clustering of structurally similar interfaces and binding sites is done using the Taylor-Butina algorithm ( 26 ). The algorithm uses a matrix of all pairwise similarities between objects to group those objects into clusters using a provided similarity threshold (see Supplementary data for details). One of the advantages, offered by this algorithm, is a possibility to easily update clusters.

PPI3D offers the following interface clusters: (i) identical or nearly identical interface, typically representing multiple instances of the same interacting proteins or their point mutants (sequence similarity > 95%, similarity of interface contacts > 50%), (ii) highly similar interfaces usually derived from homologous protein complexes (sequence similarity > 40%, similarity of interface contacts > 50%), and (iii) similar interfaces that correspond to similar surface patches, but tolerate rearrangement of residue-residue contacts across the interface (sequence similarity > 40%, similarity of interface areas > 50%). Likewise, protein binding sites are grouped into: (i) identical or nearly identical binding sites (sequence similarity > 95%, similarity of binding site residue areas > 50%), (ii) highly similar binding sites (sequence similarity > 40%, similarity of binding site residue areas > 50%) and (iii) similar binding sites (sequence similarity > 40%, similarity of binding site areas > 50%). Detailed statistics on data reduction upon clustering is provided in Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Figure S5 .

Web server implementation

All the pre-processed and clustered structural data on diverse protein interactions are saved in a MySQL database. Newly released PDB entries are analyzed using the same pipeline and added to the database every week to keep in sync with the newest experimental data.

The PPI3D web server was developed using the CodeIgniter framework ( https://www.codeigniter.com/ ). The interactive features were implemented using jQuery ( https://jquery.com/ ). Structures are visualized interactively in a web browser using JSmol ( http://jsmol.sourceforge.net/ ). For offline visualization, PyMOL scripts are provided. BLAST applications are used from the BLAST + package ( 27 ). Homology modeling is done by MODELLER ( 28 ). Structure alignments are generated using TM-align ( 29 ).

Web server workflow

A typical workflow of the PPI3D web server is illustrated in Figure 2 . The input into the server are protein sequences, UniProt accession codes, or PDB IDs. In the latter case, the server retrieves and displays all the binary interactions in a single PDB entry. Protein sequences (or corresponding UniProt codes) are used to find structural data on interactions of the query proteins and/or their homologs. Sequence-based search has two modes: (i) ‘single-sequence’ search to query interactions for a given protein with any proteins, peptides and nucleic acids and (ii) ‘two-sequences’ search to identify only protein–protein interactions between the first and the second proteins or their homologs.

PPI3D search and analysis workflow with examples of output features.

Query processing

When the user inputs the query sequence(s), the PPI3D server searches in its database of protein sequences associated with structural interaction data using either BLAST or PSI-BLAST ( 27 , 30 ). The PPI3D job with the BLAST option runs very fast, because the search is performed directly in the PPI3D database of protein sequences, but detects only close homologs. If the PSI-BLAST option is chosen, the server first generates a Position-Specific Scoring Matrix (PSSM) for the query sequence by searching iteratively in a local copy of the NCBI non-redundant sequence database ( https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/db/ ), and then uses the resulting PSSM to search the PPI3D database. In this case a search takes more time to complete, but more distant homologs can be detected.

The results on the interaction data are provided in a hierarchical manner. Initially, only the summarized information is shown, simply displaying how many pairwise interactions of different types (protein–protein, protein–peptide, protein–nucleic acid) are found for each of the query proteins (or protein pairs). By default, the output represents the most stringent clustering option, but the clustering stringency can be interactively adjusted. Next, the user might choose to analyze the lists of identified interactions.

The lists of identified interaction interfaces or binding sites are displayed in a table, containing protein annotations, calculated interface properties, BLAST E -values (if search by protein sequences was used), and cluster sizes. Sometimes the redundancy reduction by clustering might be insufficient, therefore, PPI3D allows selecting multiple results and summarizing them. This is done by displaying the alignment of selected results to the query sequence. The interacting residues are highlighted in the resulting multiple sequence alignment, making it easy to see whether there is a similar pattern of interacting residues at least in some of the interfaces or binding sites. To further inspect the similarities or differences between the search results, one can align selected structures with TM-align ( 29 ) and then visualize them in JSmol.

For even more in-depth analysis, PPI3D provides a very detailed page for every search result, showing the interaction properties, the structures of the binary interaction alone and in the context of the entire biological assembly, and tables listing interface residues and inter-residue contacts. The interacting residues for the user's query proteins can be inferred from the displayed highlighted sequence alignments or from generated homology models ( 31 ). The structures can be inspected using JSmol directly in the browser or could be downloaded as scripts for visualization in PyMOL. The users, interested in the analysis of interactions not only at the residue, but also at the atomic level, may choose to automatically transfer the structures to the VoroContacts server ( 32 ). VoroContacts makes it possible to analyze not only the entire interface, but also user-defined subsets of interface contacts that may be further filtered by various attributes.

Use case examples

In this section we provide several examples, illustrating how PPI3D could be used to search and analyze diverse protein interactions.

Exploring bacterial DNA sliding clamp interactions

DNA sliding clamp functions by encircling the DNA helix and serving as a mobile platform, to which various proteins involved in DNA transactions can bind. To identify interactions that the clamp participates in, we used the PPI3D ‘single-sequence’ search mode. A BLAST search with E. coli DNA sliding clamp (Uniprot AC: P0A988) revealed a large number of interactions, involving proteins, peptides and DNA ( Supplementary Table S2 ). Most homomeric protein–protein interactions fall into two large clusters representing E. coli and M. tuberculosis proteins. Summarizing clamp binding sites both at the sequence level and by superimposing cluster representatives revealed that they all bind another subunit to form a closed ring (Figure 3A ). An exception is the DNA sliding clamp from Elizabethkingia anopheles (PDB: 8DT6), which has alternative interfaces in addition to the consensus interface (Figure 3B ). The PPI3D data indicate that the alternative interfaces, resulting from two stacked rings, are outliers. Surprisingly, both PDBePISA ( 7 ) and EPPIC ( 8 ) consider the two stacked rings to represent a biological assembly. However, in such assembly the central cavity of each ring is blocked and the DNA cannot be threaded through the sliding clamp suggesting that this type of arrangement is the result of crystal packing rather than a biologically relevant structure.

Examples of analyses using PPI3D. ( A ) Homodimers of DNA sliding clamp homologs listed in Supplementary Table S2 ; ( B ) two stacked rings of sliding clamps in PDB entry 8DT6; ( C ) heteromeric interactions of DNA sliding clamps with protein linear motifs or peptides (sliding clamp, gray; DNA polymerase IV (PDB: 1UNN), orange; DnaA regulatory inactivator Hda (PDB: 5X06), yellow; 7 peptides, magenta); ( D ) DNA (dark and light blue) binds differently to sliding clamp subunits (green) (PDB: 3BEP); ( E ) viral replication inhibitors (red, PDB: 7EVP) bind to the same site of sliding clamp as DNA (blue, PDB: 3BEP); ( F ) DNA polymerases (grey) show distinct DNA binding modes in the polymerization (green) and proofreading (red) modes; ( G ) dual binding modes of cohesin-dockerin interaction; dockerin (colored) bound to cohesin (gray) is flipped by 180 degrees in different modes; ( H ) extracellular domains of human GABA B receptor heterodimer in active (magenta and green, PDB: 4MS3) and inactive (cyan and green, PDB: 4MR8) forms; heterodimers are superimposed by aligning subunit 2 (green).

Over 100 detected protein–peptide binding sites within sliding clamps can be grouped into just 7 clusters. Structure superposition of the DNA sliding clamp subunits further demonstrates that all these binding sites correspond to the same structural region. Proteins also tend to bind to the same region using linear motifs (Figure 3C ). This is indeed expected as it is known that different proteins bind to the DNA sliding clamp within a structurally conserved pocket ( 33 , 34 ).

There is only one PDB entry that has a clamp bound to DNA (PDB: 3BEP) ( 35 ). PPI3D data show that DNA is bound asymmetrically to the clamp (Figure 3D ). The detailed binding site data reveal that R24, one of the two residues important for the clamp function ( 35 ), binds DNA in both subunits, whereas Q149 only binds DNA in one of the subunits. Interestingly, viral protein Gp168 that inhibits bacterial DNA replication also binds to the same site of the sliding clamp (Figure 3E ) ( 36 ).

Detecting different DNA binding modes in DNA polymerases

DNA polymerases are essential enzymes that catalyze DNA synthesis during replication and reparation. The most widespread B-family DNA polymerases have DNA polymerase and 3′–5′ exonuclease activities that are located in different domains. To investigate how these enzymes interact with DNA, we queried PPI3D with the sequence of an unexplored DNA polymerase from Halorubrum halophilum (RefSeq: WP_050032690.1) using PSI-BLAST. The server found 271 protein–nucleic acid binding sites, grouped into 33 clusters, in polymerases from eukaryotes, archaea, bacteria, and viruses. We selected 11 representative binding sites with largest surface areas (>1800 Å 2 ) ( Supplementary Table S3 ). Using the ‘Summarize selected interactions’ feature we aligned their structures on the Thermococcus sp . DNA polymerase solved in the replicative state (PDB: 5OMV) ( 37 ). Superposition revealed that polymerases bind DNA in two different modes, corresponding to DNA synthesis and proofreading (Figure 3F ) ( 38 , 39 ).

Detecting alternative protein–protein interactions

Among the vast diversity of protein–protein interactions, alternative binding modes are occasionally observed ( 40 ). Therefore, searches for interactions in databases clustered only by protein sequences might miss some of the interfaces. Since PPI3D clusters the interaction interfaces not only by sequence, but also by structure, it allows identification of the alternative binding modes.

One of the well-known dual binding protein pairs is cohesion and dockerin, domains found in a cellulosome, an enzymatic complex of anaerobic cellulolytic microorganisms (Figure 3G ). The biological significance of this dual binding mode is still unknown ( 41 ), but it was discovered that it can be regulated by pH ( 42 ). After a PSI-BLAST search in PPI3D using the sequences of PDB entry 6KGE, we found 32 structures that can be clustered differently. A more stringent clustering (sequence identity 40%, similarity of interface residue contacts > 50%) produced 17 clusters, whereas a more lenient clustering that disregards specific residue-residue contacts (sequence identity 40%, similarity of interface areas > 50%) produced only 12 clusters ( Supplementary Table S4 ).

Changes of protein binding modes can also occur upon ligand binding. For example, the agonist binding causes large conformational changes in heterodimeric human GABA B receptor, inducing formation of additional inter-subunit contacts and doubling the total interface area (from ∼700 to ∼1400 Å 2 ) (Figure 3H ) ( 43 ). PPI3D clustering recognized these two interfaces as distinct clusters.

Downloading of the PPI3D data

The PPI3D user interface offers interactive analysis of diverse protein interactions. All the tables can be sorted by different properties and filtered using text, regular expressions or numerical values. The structures can be visualized in JSmol. Yet, in some cases it may be more convenient to analyze the data offline. Therefore, the data displayed in the PPI3D web server including tables, structures, and sequence alignments can be downloaded for local use.

In addition to the analysis of interaction data for specific protein(s), PPI3D also provides a possibility to download other user-defined subsets of the clustered structural protein interaction data in bulk. The users can select the PPI3D data subsets according to different criteria and download the data in tabular format as well as coordinate files. These data sets might be useful for detailed investigation of protein interactions at scale or for training machine learning models.

PPI3D web server offers a user-friendly environment for searching and analyzing structure-resolved protein-centered interactions. PPI3D may be especially helpful if no interaction data are available for the protein(s) of interest. Sequence searches in the ‘single-sequence’ mode may help to infer putative interaction partners based on the identified structure-resolved homologs bound to other proteins, peptides or nucleic acids. Likewise, the identified interactions in the ‘two-sequences’ search mode may suggest that two query proteins interact. In both cases, these initial hypotheses can be further explored at the residue level using both sequence alignments with the detected structural homologs and template-based models.

The server has already proved useful in both experimental ( 44 , 45 ) and computational studies ( 46 , 47 ). PPI3D also helped our group to achieve top results in the protein assemblies modeling category in recent CASP and CAPRI experiments ( 48 , 49 ). In the AlphaFold era template-based modeling is becoming less important ( 50 ), but the ability to quickly test hypotheses on whether specific residues might be involved in binding with the help of homology models and to survey the broader structural context for the query protein(s) remains very useful. In contrast to protein–protein complexes, the accurate structure prediction of protein–nucleic acid complexes is still largely refractory. Therefore, the ability of PPI3D to provide homology-based inferences related to protein-DNA or protein-RNA interactions is highly relevant.

Within the ecosystem of tools dedicated to the analysis of structure-resolved data on biomolecular interactions ( 7–10 , 12–17 ), PPI3D features a unique set of capabilities. PPI3D uses precomputed non-redundant structural data that are updated weekly to keep in sync with PDB. In contrast, most other servers, except for those directly associated with PDB ( 7 , 13 ), are usually based on PDB data that are several months or even several years old. PPI3D offers sequence-based searches that can be tuned to detect either only close or also distant interacting homologs. The user interface allows interactive analysis of diverse interactions for the proteins of interest within the common framework both at the sequence and structure levels. The analysis may range from the most general data regarding the identified interfaces/binding sites down to the properties of individual residue-residue contacts. To the best of our knowledge, PPI3D is the only server that uses rigorous Voronoi tessellation-based methodology for the clustering and analysis of interactions. A newly introduced option to download all the data on interaction interfaces might be useful for large-scale analyses. It can also be beneficial for providing well-defined up-to-date datasets for training and testing machine learning methods for predicting structures or properties of macromolecular complexes. The information about how interaction interfaces are clustered on both sequence and structure levels may be especially important for defining training/validation/testing data splits. To conclude, the PPI3D web server might be useful for both experimental and computational research involving protein interactions.

The PPI3D server and downloadable data on protein interaction interfaces are freely available at https://bioinformatics.lt/ppi3d .

Supplementary Data are available at NAR Online.

Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba [S-MIP-21-35]; Lietuvos Respublikos Švietimo, mokslo ir sporto ministerija [S-A-UEI-23-11]. Funding for open access charge: Lithuanian Research Library Consortium LMBA affiliated.

Conflict of interest statement . None declared.

Jumper   J. , Evans   R. , Pritzel   A. , Green   T. , Figurnov   M. , Ronneberger   O. , Tunyasuvunakool   K. , Bates   R. , Žídek   A. , Potapenko   A.  et al. .   Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold . Nature . 2021 ; 596 : 583 – 589 .

Google Scholar

Varadi   M. , Bertoni   D. , Magana   P. , Paramval   U. , Pidruchna   I. , Radhakrishnan   M. , Tsenkov   M. , Nair   S. , Mirdita   M. , Yeo   J.  et al. .   AlphaFold Protein Structure Database in 2024: providing structure coverage for over 214 million protein sequences . Nucleic Acids Res.   2024 ; 52 : D368 – D375 .

Kryshtafovych   A. , Schwede   T. , Topf   M. , Fidelis   K. , Moult   J.   Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XV . Proteins . 2023 ; 91 : 1539 – 1549 .

Ozden   B. , Kryshtafovych   A. , Karaca   E.   The impact of AI-based modeling on the accuracy of protein assembly prediction: insights from CASP15 . Proteins . 2023 ; 91 : 1636 – 1657 .

Baek   M. , McHugh   R. , Anishchenko   I. , Jiang   H. , Baker   D. , DiMaio   F.   Accurate prediction of protein–nucleic acid complexes using RoseTTAFoldNA . Nat. Methods . 2024 ; 21 : 117 – 121 .

Burley   S.K. , Berman   H.M. , Kleywegt   G.J. , Markley   J.L. , Nakamura   H. , Velankar   S.   Protein Data Bank (PDB): the single global macromolecular structure archive . Methods Mol. Biol.   2017 ; 1607 : 627 – 641 .

Krissinel   E. , Henrick   K.   Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline state . J. Mol. Biol.   2007 ; 372 : 774 – 797 .

Bliven   S. , Lafita   A. , Parker   A. , Capitani   G. , Duarte   J.M.   Automated evaluation of quaternary structures from protein crystals . PLoS Comput. Biol.   2018 ; 14 : e1006104 .

Xu   Q. , Dunbrack   R.L.  Jr   ProtCID: a data resource for structural information on protein interactions . Nat. Commun.   2020 ; 11 : 711 .

Xu   Q. , Dunbrack   R.L.   The protein common assembly database (ProtCAD) - a comprehensive structural resource of protein complexes . Nucleic Acids Res.   2023 ; 51 : D466 – D478 .

Xu   Q. , Dunbrack   R.L.  Jr   Principles and characteristics of biological assemblies in experimentally determined protein structures . Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.   2019 ; 55 : 34 – 49 .

Mosca   R. , Ceol   A. , Stein   A. , Olivella   R. , Aloy   P.   3did: a catalog of domain-based interactions of known three-dimensional structure . Nucleic Acids Res.   2014 ; 42 : D374 – D379 .

Kawabata   T.   HOMCOS: an updated server to search and model complex 3D structures . J. Struct. Funct. Genomics . 2016 ; 17 : 83 – 99 .

Sagendorf   J.M. , Markarian   N. , Berman   H.M. , Rohs   R.   DNAproDB: an expanded database and web-based tool for structural analysis of DNA-protein complexes . Nucleic Acids Res.   2020 ; 48 : D277 – D287 .

Mosca   R. , Ceol   A. , Aloy   P.   Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks . Nat. Methods . 2013 ; 10 : 47 – 53 .

Mohseni Behbahani   Y. , Saighi   P. , Corsi   F. , Laine   E. , Carbone   A   LEVELNET to visualize, explore, and compare protein–protein interaction networks . Proteomics . 2023 ; 23 : e2200159 .

Postic   G. , Andreani   J. , Marcoux   J. , Reys   V. , Guerois   R. , Rey   J. , Mouton-Barbosa   E. , Vandenbrouck   Y. , Cianferani   S. , Burlet-Schiltz   O.  et al. .   Proteo3Dnet: a web server for the integration of structural information with interactomics data . Nucleic Acids Res.   2021 ; 49 : W567 – W572 .

Dapkūnas   J. , Timinskas   A. , Olechnovič   K. , Margelevičius   M. , Dičiūnas   R. , Venclovas   Č.   The PPI3D web server for searching, analyzing and modeling protein–protein interactions in the context of 3D structures . Bioinformatics . 2017 ; 33 : 935 – 937 .

Lu   X.J. , Bussemaker   H.J. , Olson   W.K.   DSSR: an integrated software tool for dissecting the spatial structure of RNA . Nucleic Acids Res.   2015 ; 43 : e142 .

Olechnovič   K. , Venclovas   Č.   Voronota: a fast and reliable tool for computing the vertices of the Voronoi diagram of atomic balls . J. Comput. Chem.   2014 ; 35 : 672 – 681 .

McDonald   I.K. , Thornton   J.M.   Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins . J. Mol. Biol.   1994 ; 238 : 777 – 793 .

Li   W. , Godzik   A.   Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences . Bioinformatics . 2006 ; 22 : 1658 – 1659 .

Katoh   K. , Standley   D.M.   MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability . Mol. Biol. Evol.   2013 ; 30 : 772 – 780 .

Olechnovič   K. , Kulberkytė   E. , Venclovas   Č.   CAD-score: a new contact area difference-based function for evaluation of protein structural models . Proteins . 2013 ; 81 : 149 – 162 .

Olechnovič   K. , Venclovas   Č.   Contact area-based structural analysis of proteins and their complexes using CAD-score . Methods Mol. Biol.   2020 ; 2112 : 75 – 90 .

Butina   D.   Unsupervised data base clustering based on Daylight's fingerprint and Tanimoto similarity: a fast and automated way to cluster small and large data sets . J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci.   1999 ; 39 : 747 – 750 .

Camacho   C. , Coulouris   G. , Avagyan   V. , Ma   N. , Papadopoulos   J. , Bealer   K. , Madden   T.L.   BLAST+: architecture and applications . BMC Bioinf.   2009 ; 10 : 421 .

Sali   A. , Blundell   T.L.   Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints . J. Mol. Biol.   1993 ; 234 : 779 – 815 .

Zhang   Y. , Skolnick   J.   TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score . Nucleic Acids Res.   2005 ; 33 : 2302 – 2309 .

Altschul   S.F. , Madden   T.L. , Schaffer   A.A. , Zhang   J. , Zhang   Z. , Miller   W. , Lipman   D.J.   Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs . Nucleic Acids Res.   1997 ; 25 : 3389 – 3402 .

Dapkūnas   J. , Venclovas   Č.   Template-based modeling of protein complexes using the PPI3D web server . Methods Mol. Biol.   2020 ; 2165 : 139 – 155 .

Olechnovič   K. , Venclovas   Č.   VoroContacts: a tool for the analysis of interatomic contacts in macromolecular structures . Bioinformatics . 2021 ; 37 : 4873 – 4875 .

Dalrymple   B.P. , Kongsuwan   K. , Wijffels   G. , Dixon   N.E. , Jennings   P.A.   A universal protein–protein interaction motif in the eubacterial DNA replication and repair systems . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.   2001 ; 98 : 11627 – 11632 .

Wijffels   G. , Johnson   W.M. , Oakley   A.J. , Turner   K. , Epa   V.C. , Briscoe   S.J. , Polley   M. , Liepa   A.J. , Hofmann   A. , Buchardt   J.  et al. .   Binding inhibitors of the bacterial sliding clamp by design . J. Med. Chem.   2011 ; 54 : 4831 – 4838 .

Georgescu   R.E. , Kim   S.S. , Yurieva   O. , Kuriyan   J. , Kong   X.P. , O’Donnell   M   Structure of a sliding clamp on DNA . Cell . 2008 ; 132 : 43 – 54 .

Liu   B. , Li   S. , Liu   Y. , Chen   H. , Hu   Z. , Wang   Z. , Zhao   Y. , Zhang   L. , Ma   B. , Wang   H.  et al. .   Bacteriophage twort protein Gp168 is a beta-clamp inhibitor by occupying the DNA sliding channel . Nucleic Acids Res.   2021 ; 49 : 11367 – 11378 .

Kropp   H.M. , Betz   K. , Wirth   J. , Diederichs   K. , Marx   A.   Crystal structures of ternary complexes of archaeal B-family DNA polymerases . PLoS One . 2017 ; 12 : e0188005 .

Killelea   T. , Ghosh   S. , Tan   S.S. , Heslop   P. , Firbank   S.J. , Kool   E.T. , Connolly   B.A.   Probing the interaction of archaeal DNA polymerases with deaminated bases using X-ray crystallography and non-hydrogen bonding isosteric base analogues . Biochemistry . 2010 ; 49 : 5772 – 5781 .

Gouge   J. , Ralec   C. , Henneke   G. , Delarue   M.   Molecular recognition of canonical and deaminated bases by P. abyssi family B DNA polymerase . J. Mol. Biol.   2012 ; 423 : 315 – 336 .

Hamp   T. , Rost   B.   Alternative protein–protein interfaces are frequent exceptions . PLoS Comput. Biol.   2012 ; 8 : e1002623 .

Bule   P. , Pires   V.M. , Fontes   C.M. , Alves   V.D.   Cellulosome assembly: paradigms are meant to be broken! . Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.   2018 ; 49 : 154 – 161 .

Yao   X. , Chen   C. , Wang   Y. , Dong   S. , Liu   Y.J. , Li   Y. , Cui   Z. , Gong   W. , Perrett   S. , Yao   L.  et al. .   Discovery and mechanism of a pH-dependent dual-binding-site switch in the interaction of a pair of protein modules . Sci. Adv.   2020 ; 6 : eabd7182 .

Geng   Y. , Bush   M. , Mosyak   L. , Wang   F. , Fan   Q.R.   Structural mechanism of ligand activation in human GABA(B) receptor . Nature . 2013 ; 504 : 254 – 259 .

Manoharan   J. , Rana   R. , Kuenze   G. , Gupta   D. , Elwakiel   A. , Ambreen   S. , Wang   H. , Banerjee   K. , Zimmermann   S. , Singh   K.  et al. .   Tissue factor binds to and inhibits interferon-alpha receptor 1 signaling . Immunity . 2024 ; 57 : 68 – 85 .

Laan   M. , Kasak   L. , Timinskas   K. , Grigorova   M. , Venclovas   Č. , Renaux   A. , Lenaerts   T. , Punab   M.   NR5A1 c.991-1G >C splice-site variant causes familial 46,XY partial gonadal dysgenesis with incomplete penetrance . Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf) . 2021 ; 94 : 656 – 666 .

Bret   H. , Gao   J. , Zea   D.J. , Andreani   J. , Guerois   R.   From interaction networks to interfaces, scanning intrinsically disordered regions using AlphaFold2 . Nat. Commun.   2024 ; 15 : 597 .

Farajzadeh-Dehkordi   M. , Mafakher   L. , Harifi   A. , Haghdoost-Yazdi   H. , Piri   H. , Rahmani   B.   Unraveling the function and structure impact of deleterious missense SNPs in the human OX1R receptor by computational analysis . Sci. Rep.   2024 ; 14 : 833 .

Dapkūnas   J. , Olechnovič   K. , Venclovas   Č.   Modeling of protein complexes in CASP14 with emphasis on the interaction interface prediction . Proteins . 2021 ; 89 : 1834 – 1843 .

Lensink   M.F. , Brysbaert   G. , Mauri   T. , Nadzirin   N. , Velankar   S. , Chaleil   R.A.G. , Clarence   T. , Bates   P.A. , Kong   R. , Liu   B.  et al. .   Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: the CASP14-CAPRI experiment . Proteins . 2021 ; 89 : 1800 – 1823 .

Olechnovič   K. , Valančauskas   L. , Dapkūnas   J. , Venclovas   Č.   Prediction of protein assemblies by structure sampling followed by interface-focused scoring . Proteins . 2023 ; 91 : 1724 – 1733 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Editorial Board

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1362-4962
• Print ISSN 0305-1048
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.