commentary in a research paper

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

How To Write a Commentary on a Research Paper

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Apr 25, 2021 | How To Get Published | 0 |

How To Write a Commentary on a Research Paper Academics and scientists are frequently reminded that an online presence is essential to share research and be a member of today’s scholarly communities. University web pages, social and professional media platforms, and personal blogs and web sites are all used to report and discuss research. It is clear on larger venues such as university sites and academic platforms that readers are making good use of this access to cutting-edge scholarship, and even small blogs dedicated to research processes and findings enjoy audiences of varying sizes. If the research you post online is being read, you are probably both thrilled and grateful, but you may be seeking more than silent readers who may or may not cite you in their future publications. Perhaps you would like to generate commentary and debate on the topic or problem you are investigating, but have discovered that it can be notoriously difficult to break the silence barrier and learn what your readers are thinking. If so, you may want to consider the following suggestions.

• Ask open questions about the topics and problems associated with your research. If you always provide answers, the most outspoken of your readers may comment to agree or disagree, but most readers will not. If, however, you ask direct questions and leave them unanswered, you may find that more of your readers will offer answers or at least their thoughts about the questions. Your questions will be most effective if you ask or repeat them close to the end of the relevant article or blog post. • Question your own research. This can be a little tricky because you do not want to undermine sound work, but every researcher has doubts, makes decisions, deals with complications and the like, so these can provide fodder for discussion if you present them as matters open for debate. Let us say, for instance, that two different methodologies were possible and you chose the one that seemed most promising, but still wonder what sort of results the other would have produced. Explain your choices, your decision and your curiosity to your readers, inviting them to share their opinions and experiences. You may be surprised by the commentary such a strategy can inspire. • Reply to comments your readers make and especially to any answers they may offer to the questions you have asked. Working to inspire comments and answers from your readers only to leave a silence when they do offer feedback may make them wonder whether you read their answers at all and certainly whether you appreciated them. It is also a matter of courtesy to reply even if the comments and answers you receive are simplistic, erroneous or completely off topic. Diplomacy may be needed to provide a kind and thoughtful response in every instance, but you wanted the input, so you should grace the responses of your readers with the attention they deserve. • Expand or elaborate on any content that seems to have been particularly successful in generating reader interest. Perhaps a certain article earned twice as many likes as most of your articles do and also received some comments and questions. As you are reading the feedback and responding to your audience, try to think of other articles that you may be able to develop from the content in that successful article, especially from concepts or procedures that your readers found particularly interesting or troubling. You might even mention that you plan to write more on the topic, but if you do, be sure that you produce what you have promised.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Journal editing and proofreading services

Thesis Editing

Dissertation & thesis editing & proofreading 

Scientific editing services for publication success

Professional book editing & proofreading services

Expert Editing for all academic & scientific papers

Report Editing

Research paper editing & proofreading services

Grant Editing

Grant editing and proofreading services

Related Posts

Choosing the Right Journal

September 10, 2021

Example of a Quantitative Research Paper

September 4, 2021

What Is a Good H-Index Required for an Academic Position?

September 3, 2021

Acknowledgements Example for an Academic Research Paper

September 1, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 10, Issue 4
• How to write a commentary—an editor’s perspective
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Andrew Jull , RN, MA
• Co-Editor, Evidence-Based Nursing Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.10.4.100

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• language arts

Ever been trapped in the reader’s equivalent of Groundhog Day , stuck reading the same paragraph over and over? Some research papers can tie up the reader for unnecessary periods of time. Synoptic sources, such as Evidence-Based Nursing , reduce the effort needed to be well-informed by selecting high quality studies from a wide range of journals, abstracting the studies, and adding value with an expert commentary. A commentary is an extended note that sets forth an expert’s take on the meaning of a study. At issue is whether the evidence from the study or review is sufficient to inform practice. Any study or review offers only a provisional truth, and a commentary is always based on imperfect knowledge. While caution may be justified, practitioners still need to integrate the new knowledge. An expert commentary is an opportunity to help readers with the integration process. This Notebook aims to provide some useful pointers on writing commentaries for Evidence-Based Nursing .

ON BEGINNING

Commenting on an abstracted study may appear, at first glance, to be a relatively simple task. Evidence-Based Nursing commentaries are short, and experienced nurses are likely to have views on many subjects within their fields. But talking among a group of colleagues and writing are quite different activities.

The role of an EBN commentator is to translate the findings into guidance for readers. To do this, the commentator needs to shift perspective from study content, as described in the abstract, to its clinical meaning. However, the clinical meaning may prove illusive and expressing an expert opinion, overwhelming. Margaret Atwood 1 writes of stories as being in the dark, and the writer having to go into a downward hole, needing that flash of light to bring stories in from the dark. Such a process reveals just how much thinking and reflection is involved in writing. Writing narrative for science may be a somewhat simpler process than writing fiction, but a blank page is no less daunting.

Weak approaches to writing involve waiting for inspiration or trying to write a perfect first draft. These strategies will create more pressure on the writer as the deadline for submission approaches. A more productive strategy involves breaking down the work into achievable steps, such as reading and generating ideas, organising ideas, preparing a first draft, revising drafts, and submitting a final draft. These steps can be taken one at a time, or several at a time, depending on the time available. The steps are not necessarily linear but may be cyclical as you become more involved in writing your commentary.

Reading always begins the process of writing a commentary, whether that means starting with the study itself or the background material provided with the study. A common example of background material is an editorial that may accompany the original study article and addresses the study and its implications. However, you might feel that such information could bias your first impressions of the study. If so, then your starting point will be the original article reporting on the study. Familiarity with the study is essential. A brief first read will help to identify the key message of the study. Reading the opening sentence of the discussion section in a paper can help by drawing your attention to the study’s meaning. For instance, regarding their study on the cost-effectiveness of 2 different pressure-relieving surfaces, Iglesias et al 2 stated the following in their discussion:

Alternating pressure mattresses to prevent pressure ulceration in patients admitted to hospital are associated with lower costs and greater benefits and are more likely to be cost-saving than alternating pressure overlays.

Such sentences are similar to the beginning of a newspaper lead. A lead answers the “ who, what, when, where, why, and how” in an article. This heuristic can provide the essence of a commentary. Sentences, such as the above example, provide the what, where, and some of the who , but the remaining elements must also be considered. A typical newspaper lead is not the only rule of thumb to follow when writing a commentary. An alternative heuristic might be “ what is already known , what is new, and what now .” This heuristic can also provide the structural beginnings of a commentary. Some general questions to consider when writing a commentary are listed in the box ⇓ .

Questions to consider when writing a commentary

What is the best way share this information with patients?

How would this evidence assist with integration of services?

What is the best way to embed this evidence in everyday practice so that it can be easily applied?

Who would benefit from knowing this evidence (consider both practitioners and patients)?

Where might this evidence be best applied (which practice settings, what type of country)?

Which subgroups of patients that might benefit most from knowing this evidence?

What impact does the evidence have on practitioners’ roles?

What impact does this information have on performance monitoring?

What are the specific barriers to implementing this evidence?

What other information needs to be known?

Whichever heuristic is followed, a commentator needs to focus on what he or she believes is essential before beginning writing. Ideas will come to you as you read, and it is worth noting these as you read, rather than waiting until you have finished reading. Don’t censor these thoughts, even if they appear irrelevant or inarticulate. They are an important first step in getting into the zone of writing. A second more detailed read of the study will generate more ideas and start to firm up your thoughts about the study. This process can be assisted by suggestions provided by the EBN Associate Editor. An Associate Editor is assigned to each study that is abstracted in Evidence-Based Nursing. The role of the Associate Editor is to provide clinical and methodological perspective and direction in the preparation of the abstract and commentary. The Associate Editor will have reviewed the original article and the structured abstract prepared by the journal staff. As such, he or she will have formed a view on the direction a commentator should pursue. Such views are not necessarily prescriptive but are often intended to provoke thoughtful responses. The Associate Editor’s views should be considered during second and third readings of the original article, as you move towards the specifics of your commentary.

The cycle of reading and thinking is only the first of 3 phases involved in completing a final draft. The remaining phases involve creating a first draft and then making revisions to a final draft.

ON FIRST DRAFTS

It is very rare to be inspired to write. Writing is quite simply the discipline of “getting on with it.” Awaiting inspiration will inevitably lead to blocking and avoidable stress. In a first draft, it matters little how you start. What matters is that you start and that you set aside regular sessions for writing until you have finished.

When you are getting ready to write a first draft, you may be full of inklings about what you might say, but you need to transform these unformed ideas into a more concrete view of the study. To focus in on your responses to a study, you can engage in some simple exercises such as the following:

Consider how you would describe the study in 1 sentence to your best friend.

Consider what would be the most convincing finding for a sceptical colleague.

Describe the findings to yourself in 5 words, then 3 words, then 1 word.

These exercises can also help you to formulate your conclusion.

A first draft is a fuller exposition of your ideas than simple notes. Generating a plan from the list of ideas you jotted down as you read the study is a good start. Such a plan can be a simple mind map of your notes rather than an outline of what you write. Such maps may also expose gaps in your thinking and lead to further notes. To move beyond notes, your ideas need to be translated into sentences. Your first sentences do not have to relate to the structure of your commentary. Begin at the beginning, the middle, or the conclusion of your commentary. Just start writing. Put sentences with meaningful links alongside each other. If you have an overall view of the study that you can describe in a single sentence, you may have the conclusion of your commentary at hand. Write on paper, or on computer, whichever is most familiar to you. Some may find it difficult to compose directly onto a computer screen and prefer to write it out on paper first. It matters not where the writing begins, so long as it begins.

Do not censor or revise during your first draft. This draft is the gravel, not the polished gem. A first draft is written only for yourself, and nobody else need see your first efforts. Stephen King believes that first drafts are best written behind closed doors. 3 Only later drafts escape for others’ purview. Do not revise even if you change you point of view during writing. Keep going until you reach your conclusion. It may take a couple of sessions to get to a completed first draft, but then stop writing. Rest and incubation are essential parts of writing. Sleep on it.

ON REVISION

Once you have a first draft, your work is 70% complete. In the light of a new day, your first draft may seem awful, but revision is not a new start. There will be phrases and sentences that you will keep in your second draft. If writing on paper, this is a good time to enter your writing into a computer. Such a process will promote revision. The best writers go through the same process. John Maxwell Coetzee, a Nobel Prize winner, has a character describe the process:

Surely you don’t scribble down the first thing that comes into your head and email it off to your publisher. Surely you wait for second thoughts. Surely you revise. Isn’t the whole of writing a matter of second thoughts—second thoughts and third thoughts and further thoughts? 4

Once you have a second draft that captures your thoughts about the study, some final polishing is necessary.

Your most important consideration should be to make every word meaningful. Search out and remove fluff. Be ruthless. Fluff does not contribute, it annoys. Meaningless words and phrases litter bad writing. Check the dictionary if unsure of a word’s meaning. No matter how proud you are of a word, if it is not accurately used, it is fluff. Delete it. Clichéd phrases are fluff: “Further research is needed,” “The reality of clinical practice is…” and “In actuality …” Adverbs are fluff. Adverbs often end in “…ly.” “Nurses care deeply…” is a bumper sticker, not part of a commentary. Hunt out jargon. Technical language is fine, but jargon will exclude the very readers you are trying to inform.

Commentaries are non-fiction and thus need complete sentences, not fragments. A complete sentence uses a noun and a verb. It need not be long. “Nurses care” is a complete sentence. Whether such sentiments are accurate is another question. Vary your sentence length to keep readers interested. By now you may be thoroughly sick of revising your draft. That’s a good sign. You now have a final draft.

ON STRUCTURE

Earlier, I mentioned that the heuristic “ what is already known , what is new , and what now” can provide a structural outline for commentaries. Such a structure is linear and not the only possible structure. It is relatively easy to experiment with form in a commentary. Cinematic film provides instruction on how to vary structure. Just as an opening shot might be a pan of the wider landscape that focuses in on a detail that opens the story, a commentary might move from context to specific details. For instance, Peter Griffiths introduces his commentary of a study investigating early discharge and home-based rehabilitation for stroke by stating:

Stroke is a major cause of long term disability. Much research has been done to determine the best way of delivering care after a stroke. 5

Thus, the context is set, with stroke being identified as a major health issue, and the organisation of care being a topic of considerable research. Griffiths then goes on to address what is new about the particular study he is considering.

Another approach to an opening is to move from specific to wider concerns, much like a very tight shot pulls back from the detail to pan the scene. David Thompson provides such an example by first describing the study and its key finding when commenting on a study of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease:

The landmark 10 year study by Ridker et al of nearly 40 000 initially healthy women found that taking prophylactic low dose (100 mg) aspirin every other day did not confer the same benefits to women as it did to men. Few therapies have separately analysed effects by sex, and the findings lead us to ponder why many of the therapies used for women are not effective or are even harmful. 6

By first stating the study’s findings, Thompson can emphasise important details and then draw back to consider the wider implications of this study and others that have conducted sex-specific analyses.

While the opening needs to keep readers engaged and draw readers through the middle of your commentary, the ending is the most important part of a commentary. It is your final opportunity to make a lasting impact on readers. A good ending will reinforce your points and resonate in the minds of readers. Margaret Heaton, commenting on a review of pre-operative hair removal, wrote:

Practitioners should ask why evidence should not be applied, rather than why it should be applied. Policies can create room for such questioning by promoting the use of clipping or depilatory cream when individual practitioners believe it is appropriate. Shaving, whether wet or dry, should always be avoided. 7

Heaton’s concluding sentence is so forceful, it is difficult to see how she avoided using an exclamation mark. The “take home” message is very clear and will stay with readers.

The choice of whether to advise practitioners to use the evidence is at the centre of every commentary. We encourage commentators to make such choices. Many studies will merit a more diffident conclusion than that offered by Heaton, but that should not preclude clarity. In studies where there are gaps in the evidence, use of consensus statements and guidelines offer commentators a sensible conclusion. Julie Betts took just this approach to conclude her commentary on a review of dressings for venous leg ulcers:

Given the current absence of evidence, clinical choice of dressing should initially be that which is simple, inexpensive, and acceptable to patients. 8

An important element of any writing is its flow. Flow and structure are inseparable. The ideas a commentator wants to convey are crucial to the structure and flow of a commentary. Flow is built out of the linking and logic of your ideas. It is likely that you will use 2–4 paragraphs in your commentary. Each successive paragraph must build upon the preceding paragraph, and within each paragraph, each sentence must build upon the preceding sentence. Linda Patrick demonstrates superb linking between sentences following an opening about the burden of disease management:

Achieving optimal glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes can be complicated by the progressive nature of the disease, warranting more treatment over time to minimise complications. Patients are often reluctant to move to insulin injections, perceiving them as punitive for failed attempts at diabetes management. Alternatives such as inhaled insulin are seductive because of their potential to improve patient acceptance of treatment options, but the need for clinical trials to establish their safety and effectiveness cannot be understated. Studies such as the one by Rosenstock et al are necessary before we can promote widespread use of inhaled insulin. 9

The first sentence establishes the need for vigilant monitoring and increased treatment. The second sentence reveals why some patients are reluctant to change their regimen to injected insulin, setting the scene for the alternative regimen raised by the third sentence and the need for evidence before promoting such regimens in the fourth sentence. The variations in sentence length and internal structure also serve to produce a consistent flow in the commentary toward the concluding sentences.

Reading from hard copy rather than the computer screen and reading the commentary out loud are exercises that will help you to improve flow.

ON WRITING STYLE

Good science writing keeps the audience at the fore. Your readers will include other experienced clinicians, people new to the field, and curious generalists. A commentary must cater to all of these readers, and it is important to use language that promotes understanding. The commentary by Dawn Kingston on a smoking cessation intervention is a good example:

Tobacco smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Interventions to prevent the uptake of smoking are urgently needed. The study by Hollis et al is an important addition to the evidence. 10

The extent and urgency of the problem is outlined, and the importance of the study findings is asserted in brief, clear sentences. The style is akin to that of a newspaper editorial, and its staccato approach creates an urgency that reinforces Kingston’s points. This commentary reflects passionately held views.

A more academic style can also be used. Jane Joy, commenting on a review of therapies for constipation, employs technical terms, but without reducing clarity or excluding readers:

Constipation is defined by the passage of infrequent hard stool and is associated with bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, and a feeling of incomplete evacuation. Specific patient groups, such as those with terminal illness, are at high risk of constipation, but the condition is also a common reason for consultation in general practice, especially for the young and old. 11

The term is defined, symptoms reviewed, and the patient populations identified, so that readers learn in the first sentence whether they need continue. The stylistic differences between Kingston and Joy also reflect the personal voice of the commentators. For instance, the tone in Joy’s passage is gentler as it courses towards a conclusion, perhaps reflecting a little more authorial distance from the topic.

Once you have submitted your commentary to the EBN editorial office, it will undergo several levels of editing. First, all commentaries are edited for journal style and format. Evidence-Based Nursing is publication of the BMJ Publishing Group and the Royal College of Nursing Publishing. It follows BMJ house style, which includes, for example, UK spelling. As well, because Evidence-Based Nursing is an abstract journal and each abstract and accompanying commentary must fit on a single printed page, there are several style conventions that are unique to Evidence-Based Nursing . For example, because of space restrictions, numbers within the narrative text of the abstract and commentary are almost always written out as numerals, even if they appear at the beginning of a sentence. Given the space limitations of the journal, commentaries that are too long must be edited for length. This is usually done within the context of the next level of editing described below.

Each commentary will also be reviewed and edited for content, structure, and writing. During this process, members of the editorial team (ie, the Research Associate, Associate Editor, and Co-Editor) act as representatives of the readers of the journal. 12 That is, they read the commentary from the perspective of a naïve reader and consider the various points that were raised throughout this Notebook. Look for more on editing of commentaries in future Notebooks. For now, the main point is to expect that your commentary will be edited—try not to be disheartened by these edits. All commentaries submitted to Evidence-Based Nursing , even in final draft, are still just that—drafts, which can be polished and crafted. The structured abstracts that are written by the journal staff also go through similar levels of editing. This doesn’t diminish the efforts of the commentator to put pen to paper—we respect those efforts and only want to help to make your message clearer.

Every commentary is ultimately about choice—it seeks to address the question “What is the value of this evidence?” Clinical practice will proceed without perfect knowledge, but we believe that expert commentaries are a useful opportunity to help clinicians synthesise evidence in the face of imperfect information. Commentaries that, in simple prose, lay out a few key ideas in clear sentences that flow from one to the next with a clear take-home message will be good commentaries. Commentaries require some effort to produce, but when approached by Evidence-Based Nursing , we hope that you will take the opportunity to help us and your colleagues.

• ↵ Atwood M. Negotiating with the dead: a writer on writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 .
• ↵ Iglesias C, Nixon J, Cranny G, et al. Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2006 ; 332 : 1416 –20. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ King S. On writing: a memoir of the craft . London: Hodder and Soughton, 2000 .
• ↵ Coetzee J M. Slow man . Sydney: Knopf, 2005 .
• ↵ Griffiths P. Commentary on: “Early discharge plus home based rehabilitation reduced length of initial hospital stay but did not improve health related quality of life in patients with acute stroke.” Evid Based Nurs 2000;3:127. Comment on: Anderson C, Rubenach S, Ni Nhurchu C, et al . Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial. I: health outcomes at 6 months. Stroke 2000 ; 31 : 1024 –31. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Thompson D R. Commentary on: “Low dose aspirin lowered stroke risk but not risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death in women. Evid Based Nurs . 2006;9:76. Comment on: Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al, A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med 2005 ; 352 : 1293 –304. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Heaton M. Commentary on “Review: evidence from ⩽2 low quality studies suggests no difference in surgical site infection with or without preoperative hair removal; depilatory cream and clipping are better than shaving. Evid Based Nurs . 2007;10:17. Comment on: Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K, Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 ; ( 3 ) : CD004122 . OpenUrl PubMed
• ↵ Betts J. Commentary on: “Review: insufficient evidence exists for any one dressing type (used beneath compression) for venous leg ulcer healing.” Evidence-Based Nursing 2007;10:21. Comment on: Palfreyman SJ, Nelson EA, Lochiel R, et al . Dressings for healing venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 ; ( 3 ) : CD001103 . OpenUrl PubMed
• ↵ Patrick L. Commentary on: “Inhaled insulin added to or replacing 2 oral agents reduced haemoglobin A 1c concentrations in type 2 diabetes.” Evid Based Nurs 2006;9:49. Comment on: Rosenstock J, Zinman B, Murphy LJ, et al . Inhaled insulin improves glycemic control when substituted for or added to oral combination therapy in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2005 ; 143 : 549 –58. OpenUrl PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Kingston D. Commentary on: “Clinician advice, an interactive computer program, and motivational counselling during routine medical visits increased reported smoking abstinence among teens.” Evid Based Nurs 2005;8:105. Comment on: Hollis JF, Polen MR, Whitlock EP, et al . Teen reach: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of a tobacco reduction program for teens seen in primary medical care. Pediatrics 2005 ; 115 : 981 –9. OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text
• ↵ Joy J P. Commentary on: “Review: good evidence supports use of polyethylene glycol and tegaserod for constipation.” Evid Based Nurs 2005;8:109. Comment on: Ramkumar D, Rao SS. Efficacy and safety of traditional medical therapies for chronic constipation: systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2005 ; 100 : 936 –71. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
• ↵ Kramer M, Call W, editors. Telling true stories: a non-fiction writer’s guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University . USA: Plume, 2007 .

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Occupations
• Media Careers

How to Write a Commentary

Last Updated: May 19, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 677,547 times.

At some point in your life, you'll probably have to write a commentary. Whether you're a teacher, editor, student, or amateur critic, knowing how to constructively analyze someone's work is a useful skill. There isn't a magical formula for writing a commentary. The commentary you write depends upon what you're reviewing, why you're giving feedback, and what you think about the work. No matter what you’re working on, having a clear goal and strong writing will help make your commentary successful.

Writing a Literary Commentary

• Your thesis is your argument or your point of view. This is where you take a stance, and spend the rest of the essay supporting your thesis.
• Maybe you are writing a commentary on Great Expectations . Your thesis could be, “Not only is Dickens’ tale engaging, it is also an insightful commentary on the differences between social classes in industrial Britain.”

• You might write at the top of your outline, “Important Themes in Great Expectations”. You could then make bullet points such as “Setting”, “Ambition”, “Class”, etc.

• You might start by saying, “ Great Expectations is full of imagery that makes the reader feel as if they are in 19th century England with Pip. Dickens’ novel about class, ambition, and love sheds important light on the social divides of the time.”
• You could then list the themes that you will discuss in the body of your commentary.

• An excellent specific example to illustrate this theme is pointing out that the character remains in her wedding dress, despite being jilted decades before.

• You might write something like, “Miss Havisham is an example of the theme that love can sometimes go terribly wrong. This is also an important theme when examining the relationship between Pip and Estella.”
• Make sure to use smooth transitions. When you move to a new example, use a good transition word or phrase. Some examples are “similarly”, “conversely”, and “again”.

• In your commentary on Great Expectations , you would want to make sure that you emphasize your summary again: this is a good example of class divisions and how ambition is not always the best quality.
• You might also choose to compare it to another book from the same period to illustrate why the work by Dickens is significant. However, you generally shouldn’t introduce new information in your conclusion.

Creating Data Commentary

• You might also be asked by your boss or teacher to write a data commentary. Make sure to ask about their expectations, such as length.

• For example, if the research is about the graduation rate in the Chicago Public Schools, you need to explain the numbers and illustrate why the results are important.

• You might say something like, “As shown in Figure 1.2, the costs of healthcare have risen at a steady rate since 2000.”

• As in the rest of your data commentary, your conclusion should refer to specific pieces of data.

• You should include a specific section for resources at the end of your data commentary.
• Any time you cite numbers or a quote, make sure to provide a reference.

Commentary Outlines

Expert Q&A

• If you are writing a commentary for a class, make sure to carefully follow the instructions. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Make sure to carefully edit and polish your writing. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.bucks.edu/media/bcccmedialibrary/pdf/HOWTOWRITEALITERARYANALYSISESSAY_10.15.07_001.pdf
• ↑ Richard Perkins. Writing Coach & Academic English Coordinator. Expert Interview. 1 September 2021.
• ↑ http://www.udc.edu/docs/asc/Outline_Structure_for_Literary_Analysis_Essay_HATMAT.pdf
• ↑ https://www.germanna.edu/wp-content/uploads/tutoring/handouts/Literary-Analysis.pdf
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/writing-data-commentary/
• ↑ https://ebooks.hslu.ch/academicwriting/chapter/4-5-results/
• ↑ https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/modernlanguages/intranet/undergraduate/skills/commesswriting/commentarywriting/
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789530/

About This Article

To write a commentary, write about your observations and analysis of the text you read. You should craft a clear and specific thesis statement about the novel, poem, or play you are evaluating. Your thesis statement should explain your stance or argument about the text. Use this thesis statement to build a brief outline of your commentary and then choose specific details from the text to support your argument. Then, add an introduction to give your reader some context for the themes you will discuss. For tips from our Education reviewer on how to write a data commentary, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Nov 15, 2016

Did this article help you?

Eserbellra Marylao

Mar 20, 2016

Abee Victory

Sep 17, 2020

Aug 19, 2022

Prudence Orji

May 5, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Commentaries are short, narrowly focused articles of contemporary interest and usually take one of two forms:

• The first form is a discussion of an article or trial that was recently published or that is soon to be published, and that is interesting enough to warrant further comment or explanation. This type of commentary discusses specific issues within a subject area rather than the whole field, explains the implications of the article and puts it in context. Opinions are welcome as long as they are factually based.
• The second form is more editorial in nature and covers an aspect of an issue that is relevant to the journal's scope, for example discussion of the impact of new technology on research and treatment.

Preparing your manuscript

The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.

Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review"
• or for non-clinical or non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript
• indicate the corresponding author

The Abstract should not exceed 350 words and should be structured with a background, main body of the abstract and short conclusion. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract.

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

The Background section should explain the background to the article, its aims, a summary of a search of the existing literature and the issue under discussion.

This should contain the body of the article, and may also be broken into subsections with short, informative headings.

Conclusions

This should state clearly the main conclusions and include an explanation of their relevance or importance to the field.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section. 

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.

See our editorial policies for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Authors are also encouraged to preserve search strings on searchRxiv https://searchrxiv.org/ , an archive to support researchers to report, store and share their searches consistently and to enable them to review and re-use existing searches. searchRxiv enables researchers to obtain a digital object identifier (DOI) for their search, allowing it to be cited. 

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .

BioMed Central strongly encourages the citation of any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]  

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.

Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data). Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols.

Always use footnotes instead of endnotes.

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below.

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

Figures, tables and additional files

See  General formatting guidelines  for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Manuscript editing services
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 3.7 - 2-year Impact Factor 3.8 - 5-year Impact Factor 1.561 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 1.269 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 88 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 296 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  3,531,065 downloads 3,533 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

How to read a paper, critical review

Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook—reading from title to literature cited, digesting every word along the way without any reflection or criticism.

A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article.

How to Read a Scientific Article

You should begin by skimming the article to identify its structure and features. As you read, look for the author’s main points.

• Generate questions before, during, and after reading.
• Draw inferences based on your own experiences and knowledge.
• To really improve understanding and recall, take notes as you read.

What is meant by critical and evaluation?

• To be critical does not mean to criticise in an exclusively negative manner.   To be critical of a text means you question the information and opinions in the text, in an attempt to evaluate or judge its worth overall.
• An evaluation is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a text.   This should relate to specific criteria, in the case of a research article.   You have to understand the purpose of each section, and be aware of the type of information and evidence that are needed to make it convincing, before you can judge its overall value to the research article as a whole.

Useful Downloads

• How to read a scientific paper
• How to conduct a critical review

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.