Dergiler / Journal of education and research in nursing (Online) / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Criticism of a Scientific Article, Discussion: Review

Sayfa
431–435
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In this review, it is aimed to emphasize the elements that should be included in the discussion section of a quantitative research article in line with the literature, and some important points to make the article attractive and acceptable for publication, especially for researchers who are just starting out in research writing.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In the developing and changing world, it is very important to present information to the service of humanity.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The writing of a scientific research paper is a professional nature but very difficult task that requires significant knowledge, experience, and skill.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In this review, it is aimed to emphasize the elements that should be included in the discussion section of a quantitative research article in line with the literature, and some important points to make the article attractive and acceptable for publication, especially for researchers who are just starting out in research writing.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

In the developing and changing world, it is very important to present information to the service of humanity. Scientific articles, one of the ways of conveying information in written form, are defined as a written and published report describing original research results. The writing of a scientific research paper is a professional nature but very difficult task that requires significant knowledge, experience, and skill. The most important point that the researcher should know for scientific articles is that the article is scientific in nature and clear that the readers can understand. The accepted order in a scientific research article written in accordance with the writing criteria is title, abstract, introduction, material-method, results, discussion, and references, and each section has its own specific writing rules. The discussion section, which is among the article sections, is the most difficult part to write, although it is easy to write in terms of content. In this section, the researcher should critically investigate his own results and those of other researchers and interpret his conclusions from a scientific point of view. In this section, the researcher conveys his views, acceptances, and criticisms on the subject to the reader and the scientific world. In this review, it is aimed to emphasize the elements that should be included in the discussion section of a quantitative research article in line with the literature, and some important points to make the article attractive and acceptable for publication, especially for researchers who are just starting out in research writing.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DOLGUN, G., KARAAHMET, A. Y. (2022). Criticism of a Scientific Article, Discussion: Review. Journal of education and research in nursing (Online), Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 431–435. https://ajindex.com/articles/652379

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Gastel B, Day AR. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood; 2017. 8-28
  2. Karaçam Z. Systematic review methodology: A guide to preparing systematic reviews. Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Nursing Electronic Journal. 2013;6(1):26-33
  3. Woodford FP, ed. Scientific Writing for Graduate Students. A Council of Biology Editorsmanual. New York, NY: The Rockefeller University Press London: Macmillan; 1968. 79-87
  4. O’Connor TR, Holmquist GP. Algorithm for writing a scientific manuscript. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2009;37(6):344-348. [Crossref] 5. Grindstaff TL, Saliba SA. Avoiding manuscript mistakes. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(5):518-524
  5. Hoogenboom BJ, Manske RC. How to write a scientific article. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(5):512-517. PMCID: PMC3474301 7. Davidson A, McD Taylor D, Babl FE. Review article: A primer for clinical researchers in the emergency department: Part III: How to write a scientific paper. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(4):357-362. [Crossref] 8. Puhan MA, Akl EA, Bryant D, Xie F, Apolone G, Ter Riet G. Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;23:10-23
  6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926. [Crossref] 10. Lin PY, Kuo UR. A guide to write a scientific paper for new writers. Microsurgery. 2012;32(1):80-85. [Crossref] 11. Ioannidis JP. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(4):324-329. [Crossref] 12. Montori VM, Jaeschke R, Schunemann HJ, et al. Users’ guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ. 2004;329(7474):1093- 1096. [Crossref] 13. Foote M. The proof of the pudding: How to report results and write a good discussion. Chest. 2009;135(3):866-868. [Crossref] 14. Annesley TM. The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clin Chem. 2010;56(11):1671-1674. [Crossref] 15. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. British MedicalJournal. 1999;318(7193):1224-1225. [Crossref] 16. Yılmaz E, Muslu A, Özcan E. Quality of Life in Women with Urinary Incontinence. Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Health Sciences. 2014;2(2):1-14
  7. Smith HD. Bogenschutz ED Bayliss AJA ltenburger PA Warden SJ. Fulltext publication of abstract‐presented work in physical therapy: