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

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. 

example of scientific report discussion

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:

example of scientific report 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! 

What to do

  • 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. 

What not to do

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…

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Scientific Reports

What this handout is about.

This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.

Background and pre-writing

Why do we write research reports.

You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?

To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.

So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:

  • They want to gather the information presented.
  • They want to know that the findings are legitimate.

Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.

How do I do that?

Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:

  • Introduction

Methods and Materials

This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.

The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.

Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.

Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.

What should I do before drafting the lab report?

The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:

  • What are we going to do in this lab? (That is, what’s the procedure?)
  • Why are we going to do it that way?
  • What are we hoping to learn from this experiment?
  • Why would we benefit from this knowledge?
  • Consult your lab supervisor as you perform the lab. If you don’t know how to answer one of the questions above, for example, your lab supervisor will probably be able to explain it to you (or, at least, help you figure it out).
  • Plan the steps of the experiment carefully with your lab partners. The less you rush, the more likely it is that you’ll perform the experiment correctly and record your findings accurately. Also, take some time to think about the best way to organize the data before you have to start putting numbers down. If you can design a table to account for the data, that will tend to work much better than jotting results down hurriedly on a scrap piece of paper.
  • Record the data carefully so you get them right. You won’t be able to trust your conclusions if you have the wrong data, and your readers will know you messed up if the other three people in your group have “97 degrees” and you have “87.”
  • Consult with your lab partners about everything you do. Lab groups often make one of two mistakes: two people do all the work while two have a nice chat, or everybody works together until the group finishes gathering the raw data, then scrams outta there. Collaborate with your partners, even when the experiment is “over.” What trends did you observe? Was the hypothesis supported? Did you all get the same results? What kind of figure should you use to represent your findings? The whole group can work together to answer these questions.
  • Consider your audience. You may believe that audience is a non-issue: it’s your lab TA, right? Well, yes—but again, think beyond the classroom. If you write with only your lab instructor in mind, you may omit material that is crucial to a complete understanding of your experiment, because you assume the instructor knows all that stuff already. As a result, you may receive a lower grade, since your TA won’t be sure that you understand all the principles at work. Try to write towards a student in the same course but a different lab section. That student will have a fair degree of scientific expertise but won’t know much about your experiment particularly. Alternatively, you could envision yourself five years from now, after the reading and lectures for this course have faded a bit. What would you remember, and what would you need explained more clearly (as a refresher)?

Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.

Introductions

How do i write a strong introduction.

For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.

The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.

For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.

As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.

Not a hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”

Hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”

Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.

Justify your hypothesis

You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?

Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.

Background/previous research

This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.

Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.

Organization of this section

Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:

“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”

Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.

How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?

As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.

Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.

With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.

Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:

  • How much detail? Be precise in providing details, but stay relevant. Ask yourself, “Would it make any difference if this piece were a different size or made from a different material?” If not, you probably don’t need to get too specific. If so, you should give as many details as necessary to prevent this experiment from going awry if someone else tries to carry it out. Probably the most crucial detail is measurement; you should always quantify anything you can, such as time elapsed, temperature, mass, volume, etc.
  • Rationale: Be sure that as you’re relating your actions during the experiment, you explain your rationale for the protocol you developed. If you capped a test tube immediately after adding a solute to a solvent, why did you do that? (That’s really two questions: why did you cap it, and why did you cap it immediately?) In a professional setting, writers provide their rationale as a way to explain their thinking to potential critics. On one hand, of course, that’s your motivation for talking about protocol, too. On the other hand, since in practical terms you’re also writing to your teacher (who’s seeking to evaluate how well you comprehend the principles of the experiment), explaining the rationale indicates that you understand the reasons for conducting the experiment in that way, and that you’re not just following orders. Critical thinking is crucial—robots don’t make good scientists.
  • Control: Most experiments will include a control, which is a means of comparing experimental results. (Sometimes you’ll need to have more than one control, depending on the number of hypotheses you want to test.) The control is exactly the same as the other items you’re testing, except that you don’t manipulate the independent variable-the condition you’re altering to check the effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you’re testing solubility rates at increased temperatures, your control would be a solution that you didn’t heat at all; that way, you’ll see how quickly the solute dissolves “naturally” (i.e., without manipulation), and you’ll have a point of reference against which to compare the solutions you did heat.

Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:

“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”

Structure and style

Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.

  • Subsections: Occasionally, researchers use subsections to report their procedure when the following circumstances apply: 1) if they’ve used a great many materials; 2) if the procedure is unusually complicated; 3) if they’ve developed a procedure that won’t be familiar to many of their readers. Because these conditions rarely apply to the experiments you’ll perform in class, most undergraduate lab reports won’t require you to use subsections. In fact, many guides to writing lab reports suggest that you try to limit your Methods section to a single paragraph.
  • Narrative structure: Think of this section as telling a story about a group of people and the experiment they performed. Describe what you did in the order in which you did it. You may have heard the old joke centered on the line, “Disconnect the red wire, but only after disconnecting the green wire,” where the person reading the directions blows everything to kingdom come because the directions weren’t in order. We’re used to reading about events chronologically, and so your readers will generally understand what you did if you present that information in the same way. Also, since the Methods section does generally appear as a narrative (story), you want to avoid the “recipe” approach: “First, take a clean, dry 100 ml test tube from the rack. Next, add 50 ml of distilled water.” You should be reporting what did happen, not telling the reader how to perform the experiment: “50 ml of distilled water was poured into a clean, dry 100 ml test tube.” Hint: most of the time, the recipe approach comes from copying down the steps of the procedure from your lab manual, so you may want to draft the Methods section initially without consulting your manual. Later, of course, you can go back and fill in any part of the procedure you inadvertently overlooked.
  • Past tense: Remember that you’re describing what happened, so you should use past tense to refer to everything you did during the experiment. Writers are often tempted to use the imperative (“Add 5 g of the solid to the solution”) because that’s how their lab manuals are worded; less frequently, they use present tense (“5 g of the solid are added to the solution”). Instead, remember that you’re talking about an event which happened at a particular time in the past, and which has already ended by the time you start writing, so simple past tense will be appropriate in this section (“5 g of the solid were added to the solution” or “We added 5 g of the solid to the solution”).
  • Active: We heated the solution to 80°C. (The subject, “we,” performs the action, heating.)
  • Passive: The solution was heated to 80°C. (The subject, “solution,” doesn’t do the heating–it is acted upon, not acting.)

Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.

How do I write a strong Results section?

Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.

Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.

Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.

This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:

“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”

“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”

If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.

Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:

“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”

This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.

As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)

You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.

Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?

A table labeled Effect of Temperature on Rate of Solubility with temperature of solvent values in 10-degree increments from -20 degrees Celsius to 80 degrees Celsius that does not show a corresponding rate of solubility value until 50 degrees Celsius.

As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.

As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:

A table labeled Oxygen requirements of various species of Streptomyces showing the names of organisms and two columns that indicate growth under aerobic conditions and growth under anaerobic conditions with a plus or minus symbol for each organism in the growth columns to indicate value.

As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.

When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:

  • Number your table. Then, when you refer to the table in the text, use that number to tell your readers which table they can review to clarify the material.
  • Give your table a title. This title should be descriptive enough to communicate the contents of the table, but not so long that it becomes difficult to follow. The titles in the sample tables above are acceptable.
  • Arrange your table so that readers read vertically, not horizontally. For the most part, this rule means that you should construct your table so that like elements read down, not across. Think about what you want your readers to compare, and put that information in the column (up and down) rather than in the row (across). Usually, the point of comparison will be the numerical data you collect, so especially make sure you have columns of numbers, not rows.Here’s an example of how drastically this decision affects the readability of your table (from A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry , by Herbert Beall and John Trimbur). Look at this table, which presents the relevant data in horizontal rows:

A table labeled Boyle's Law Experiment: Measuring Volume as a Function of Pressure that presents the trial number, length of air sample in millimeters, and height difference in inches of mercury, each of which is presented in rows horizontally.

It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:

A table labeled Boyle's Law Experiment: Measuring Volume as a Function of Pressure that presents the trial number, length of air sample in millimeters, and height difference in inches of mercury, each of which is presented in columns vertically.

The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.

  • Make sure to include units of measurement in the tables. Readers might be able to guess that you measured something in millimeters, but don’t make them try.
  • Don’t use vertical lines as part of the format for your table. This convention exists because journals prefer not to have to reproduce these lines because the tables then become more expensive to print. Even though it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll be sending your Biology 11 lab report to Science for publication, your readers still have this expectation. Consequently, if you use the table-drawing option in your word-processing software, choose the option that doesn’t rely on a “grid” format (which includes vertical lines).

How do I include figures in my report?

Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.

When should you use a figure?

Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.

If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.

Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.

Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.

At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.

Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:

  • Keep it as simple as possible. You may be tempted to signal the complexity of the information you gathered by trying to design a graph that accounts for that complexity. But remember the purpose of your graph: to dramatize your results in a manner that’s easy to see and grasp. Try not to make the reader stare at the graph for a half hour to find the important line among the mass of other lines. For maximum effectiveness, limit yourself to three to five lines per graph; if you have more data to demonstrate, use a set of graphs to account for it, rather than trying to cram it all into a single figure.
  • Plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on the vertical (y) axis. Remember that the independent variable is the condition that you manipulated during the experiment and the dependent variable is the condition that you measured to see if it changed along with the independent variable. Placing the variables along their respective axes is mostly just a convention, but since your readers are accustomed to viewing graphs in this way, you’re better off not challenging the convention in your report.
  • Label each axis carefully, and be especially careful to include units of measure. You need to make sure that your readers understand perfectly well what your graph indicates.
  • Number and title your graphs. As with tables, the title of the graph should be informative but concise, and you should refer to your graph by number in the text (e.g., “Figure 1 shows the increase in the solubility rate as a function of temperature”).
  • Many editors of professional scientific journals prefer that writers distinguish the lines in their graphs by attaching a symbol to them, usually a geometric shape (triangle, square, etc.), and using that symbol throughout the curve of the line. Generally, readers have a hard time distinguishing dotted lines from dot-dash lines from straight lines, so you should consider staying away from this system. Editors don’t usually like different-colored lines within a graph because colors are difficult and expensive to reproduce; colors may, however, be great for your purposes, as long as you’re not planning to submit your paper to Nature. Use your discretion—try to employ whichever technique dramatizes the results most effectively.
  • Try to gather data at regular intervals, so the plot points on your graph aren’t too far apart. You can’t be sure of the arc you should draw between the plot points if the points are located at the far corners of the graph; over a fifteen-minute interval, perhaps the change occurred in the first or last thirty seconds of that period (in which case your straight-line connection between the points is misleading).
  • If you’re worried that you didn’t collect data at sufficiently regular intervals during your experiment, go ahead and connect the points with a straight line, but you may want to examine this problem as part of your Discussion section.
  • Make your graph large enough so that everything is legible and clearly demarcated, but not so large that it either overwhelms the rest of the Results section or provides a far greater range than you need to illustrate your point. If, for example, the seedlings of your plant grew only 15 mm during the trial, you don’t need to construct a graph that accounts for 100 mm of growth. The lines in your graph should more or less fill the space created by the axes; if you see that your data is confined to the lower left portion of the graph, you should probably re-adjust your scale.
  • If you create a set of graphs, make them the same size and format, including all the verbal and visual codes (captions, symbols, scale, etc.). You want to be as consistent as possible in your illustrations, so that your readers can easily make the comparisons you’re trying to get them to see.

How do I write a strong Discussion section?

The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.

Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:

Explain whether the data support your hypothesis

  • Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected

Derive conclusions, based on your findings, about the process you’re studying

  • Relate your findings to earlier work in the same area (if you can)

Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings

Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.

This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,

“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”

Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.

Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).

Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected

You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.

Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.

If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.

This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.

Relate your findings to previous work in the field (if possible)

We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.

If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)

This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.

Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.

Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.

Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Writing Studio

Writing a lab report: introduction and discussion section guide.

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF:   Writing a Lab Report Return to Writing Studio Handouts

Part 1 (of 2): Introducing a Lab Report

The introduction of a lab report states the objective of the experiment and provides the reader with background information. State the topic of your report clearly and concisely (in one or two sentences). Provide background theory, previous research, or formulas the reader should know. Usually, an instructor does not want you to repeat whatever the lab manual says, but to show your understanding of the problem.

Questions an Effective Lab Report Introduction Should Answer

What is the problem.

Describe the problem investigated. Summarize relevant research to provide context, key terms, and concepts so that your reader can understand the experiment.

Why is it important?

Review relevant research to provide a rationale for the investigation. What conflict, unanswered question, untested population, or untried method in existing research does your experiment address? How will you challenge or extend the findings of other researchers?

What solution (or step toward a solution) do you propose?

Briefly describe your experiment : hypothesis , research question , general experimental design or method , and a justification of your method (if alternatives exist).

Tips on Composing Your Lab Report’s Introduction

  • Move from the general to the specific – from a problem in research literature to the specifics of your experiment.
  • Engage your reader – answer the questions: “What did I do?” “Why should my reader care?”
  • Clarify the links between problem and solution, between question asked and research design, and between prior research and the specifics of your experiment.
  • Be selective, not exhaustive, in choosing studies to cite and the amount of detail to include. In general, the more relevant an article is to your study, the more space it deserves and the later in the introduction it appears.
  • Ask your instructor whether or not you should summarize results and/or conclusions in the Introduction.
  • “The objective of the experiment was …”
  • “The purpose of this report is …”
  • “Bragg’s Law for diffraction is …”
  • “The scanning electron microscope produces micrographs …”

Part 2 (of 2): Writing the “Discussion” Section of a Lab Report

The discussion is the most important part of your lab report, because here you show that you have not merely completed the experiment, but that you also understand its wider implications. The discussion section is reserved for putting experimental results in the context of the larger theory. Ask yourself: “What is the significance or meaning of the results?”

Elements of an Effective Discussion Section

What do the results indicate clearly? Based on your results, explain what you know with certainty and draw conclusions.

Interpretation

What is the significance of your results? What ambiguities exist? What are logical explanations for problems in the data? What questions might you raise about the methods used or the validity of the experiment? What can be logically deduced from your analysis?

Tips on the Discussion Section

1. explain your results in terms of theoretical issues..

How well has the theory been illustrated? What are the theoretical implications and practical applications of your results?

For each major result:

  • Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships that your results show.
  • Explain how your results relate to expectations and to literature cited in your Introduction. Explain any agreements, contradictions, or exceptions.
  • Describe what additional research might resolve contradictions or explain exceptions.

2. Relate results to your experimental objective(s).

If you set out to identify an unknown metal by finding its lattice parameter and its atomic structure, be sure that you have identified the metal and its attributes.

3. Compare expected results with those obtained.

If there were differences, how can you account for them? Were the instruments able to measure precisely? Was the sample contaminated? Did calculated values take account of friction?

4. Analyze experimental error along with the strengths and limitations of the experiment’s design.

Were any errors avoidable? Were they the result of equipment?  If the flaws resulted from the experiment design, explain how the design might be improved. Consider, as well, the precision of the instruments that were used.

5. Compare your results to similar investigations.

In some cases, it is legitimate to compare outcomes with classmates, not in order to change your answer, but in order to look for and to account for or analyze any anomalies between the groups. Also, consider comparing your results to published scientific literature on the topic.

The “Introducing a Lab Report” guide was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

The “Writing the Discussion Section of a Lab Report” resource was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

Last revised: 07/2008 | Adapted for web delivery: 02/2021

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

How to Write a Thoughtful Scientific Discussion Section for Your Paper

Image of typewriter and blank piece of paper to represent writing a scientific discussion

Listen to one of our scientific editorial team members read this article. Click here to access more audio articles or subscribe.

Writing a scientific discussion is crucial for disseminating research on your field of study, but it can be challenging. Follow the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and focus on summarizing results, contextualizing findings, and proposing future research. Emphasize the importance of your results, acknowledge study limitations, and discuss implications. Choose tone and tense wisely and adopt the style of your target journal. Avoid reiterating results, over-interpreting findings, introducing new data, and excessive jargon.

Let’s accept this: writing a good scientific paper, and writing an effective discussion, in particular, is daunting, and learning to write well is a skill that needs to be honed with plenty of practice.

If you’re a scientist, writing effective papers is essential: disseminating your work is crucial if anyone—from other researchers to the general public—is to benefit from your scientific endeavors.

But if you are someone for whom writing is about as easy as getting your PCR to work on a Friday afternoon when you have weekend plans, don’t panic. Bitesize Bio is here to help.

So, if you have got as far as writing up the results for your scientific paper and formatting and putting together your publication-worthy figures , too, then congratulations. You’re doing really well!

But now you need to write the scientific discussion. Eek. This is often the most difficult and thought-provoking part of any scientific manuscript (or thesis) to write.

It is the penultimate part of your paper, in which you summarize your key findings in light of the existing literature, and explain the significance and value of your work.

You also need to suggest some new directions for future research and address what research questions remain.

Unlike the abstract , the discussion section of a paper does not have a broad readership per se, but is written for both beginners to that particular area of science and experts of the same.

How to Structure a Scientific Paper

Most scientific papers follow the hourglass IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure, which means that the sections at the top and bottom of the hourglass (the Introduction and Discussion) occupy more space than the Methods and Results sections.

This means that your discussion wants to have a little more meat on its bones than the two sections that immediately precede it.

The discussion needs to be just that—a discussion. It isn’t enough to simply rehash your results; you need to situate your research in the context of previous studies, draw out the practical implications of your own research, address limitations, and suggest areas for future study.

Only then will your paper be ready for submission to a journal and the peer-review process.

So, what are the keys to success when writing a scientific discussion? We’ve pulled together a few do’s and don’ts to keep in mind.

What To Do When Writing A Scientific Discussion

1. do summarize your results and outline their interpretation in light of the published literature.

This is the first thing that you need to do when writing a scientific discussion section. Use the first paragraph to describe very briefly the conclusion from your results, and then explain what it means with respect to what is already known from previous studies.

Try to highlight the practical implications of your findings, and ensure that you demonstrate your ability to think critically about your main findings.

Remember to emphasize how your results support or refute the current hypotheses in the field, if any. Try to offer alternative explanations of the results.

This is also a good place to address if your data conflict with what is established in the field. By addressing these conflicts, other researchers in your field will re-examine and rebuild hypotheses/models to then test.

Keep in mind that all results should be discussed, and all parts of the discussion should relate to your results; don’t ignore any results, and don’t discuss anything that doesn’t relate to the results obtained.

2. Do Explain the Importance of Your Results

Be sure to advocate for your findings and underline how your results significantly move the field forward. Remember to give your results their due and don’t undermine them.

Make sure you mention the most important finding first; this is what people will remember.

3. Do Acknowledge the Shortcomings of the Study

In this section, explicitly state any potential limitations that your hypothesis or experimental approach might have and the reasoning behind them.

This will help the field to generate hypotheses and new approaches without facing the same challenges.

No study is perfect, and the discussion becomes well-rounded when you emphasize not only the impact of the study but also where it may fall short.

4. Do Discuss Any Future Directions

Depending on which journal you are publishing in , you might have to provide a separate “future directions” section, rather than having it tied into the discussion.

Nonetheless, you should think about the questions that your study might lead to while you are writing the discussion.

Consider posing a few questions, preferably in the form of a hypothesis, to provide a launchpad for future research, especially if your paper contains unexpected findings.

5. Do Decide Between the Active or Passi ve Voice

Lots of journals stipulate writing in the active voice, as it is more immediate and concise. And because the active voice is more personal, it also creates a better connection with the reader:

            We analyzed the samples.

Sometimes, however, the passive voice will be more appropriate if you wish to foreground the research rather than the researcher:

            The samples were analyzed.

The passive voice is widely used in scientific communication as it creates a kind of objective distance between the researcher and their research. But at the same time, it can come across as a bit dry and impersonal.

The key to writing engaging scientific papers is to vary your choice of the active and passive voice to best suit the point you’re trying to make.

Make sure you also check the preferences of your target journal and follow their style guide.

Use the active voice if the people performing an action are important, but opt for the passive voice if it is the action rather than those who performed it that is key. Check out our Grammar 101 webinar for more on this and other top scientific writing tips.

6. Do Pick Your Tenses Carefully

Scientific papers generally switch tenses between different sections of the paper. In the discussion section, a good rule of thumb is to stick to the past tense for describing completed actions (e.g., to summarize your findings):

            We measured the volumes of X and Y.

You should use the present tense to interpret your results or to discuss the significance of your research findings:

            This is significant because X and Y are…

Use the future tense to outline any work that is still to be done:

In a follow-up study, we will measure Z.

What NOT To Do While Writing a Scientific Discussion

Now that we’ve outlined the important features of an authoritative discussion section, here are a few pointers about things to avoid.

1. Don’t Reiterate Your Results

You can open the discussion with a sentence that contains a snapshot of the main conclusion, but make sure you stop right there!

You’ve already written a separate “results” section, so you don’t want to go into too much detail or repeat yourself by describing your results again. Rather, swiftly transition into what these results mean and explain their impact.

2. Don’t Over-Interpret Your Findings

I mentioned giving your results their proper due and underscoring their significance. But be careful not to extrapolate your results and interpret something that is beyond the scope of the study.

Keep in mind the difference between what your results suggest at a given point versus what more can be known from them. You can do this by asking more questions and applying other experimental approaches.

Importantly, you must draw conclusions commensurate with your results.

3. Don’t Introduce a New Piece of Data

Don’t make the discussion confusing by introducing any new results or research questions. Present all of your data in the results section, separate from the scientific discussion section.

4. Don’t Use Too Much Jargon

Although readers in your field of expertise would probably understand any jargon, try to minimize its use to make your paper accessible to a broader audience and to enable a larger impact.

If you need to use abbreviations, for example, make sure that they’re defined on the first mention. Even if a technique or reagent is more commonly known by an abbreviation, provide the full term in brackets.

You’re trying to share knowledge, so your discussion should be as easy to read as possible. Try to use plain English and bear in mind that English may not be the mother tongue of many of your readers, so it’s probably a good idea to avoid lots of idioms.

If you can use a shorter word for something, make sure you use it. Good writing is clear, concise, and simple, and this applies to science writing too. So choose “use” rather than “utilize”, or “ask” rather than “enquire”, for example.

This has nothing to do with dumbing down, and everything to do with clarity; there’s nothing to be gained from trying to make your writing sound overly scholarly or inaccessible.

Check out the resources of the Plain English Campaign for more help.

This also shows why gathering feedback on your writing and editing your work are such important steps in the process of writing scientific manuscripts.

You need to check how your paper sounds to someone else; if something doesn’t make sense to one of your readers, it probably needs to be rewritten.

Writing a Discussion in Summary

Writing and publishing papers is the main way we contribute to scientific knowledge, and the discussion section is a key part. 

In a nutshell, remember that the primary goal of writing a scientific discussion is to emphasize your results. Therefore, take the time to ensure that it is well-rounded, succinct, and relevant.

Do all that, and your paper should sail through peer review !

What are your top tips for writing a scientific discussion? We’d love to hear from you, so leave us a comment below.

If you want to become better at effective writing, check out our webinar on consistent, error-free writing .

An image that represents a scientists drowning in papers because they are struggling to write a scientific disucussion.

Originally published December 7, 2016. Reviewed and updated on December 22, 2020. Reviewed and updated in October 2021. Reviewed and updated again in November 2023 .

' src=

omg yess thanks, you helped me so much!!! 😉

' src=

I use Mega 7 to align raw sequence primer forward and reverse, where the nucleotide sequence to start cutting weight and stop taking the final part of the sequence.

example of scientific report discussion

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Forgot your password?

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive mail with link to set new password.

Back to login

Banner

  • Phoenix College

Lab Report Writing

  • Discussion/Conclusion
  • Lab Report Style
  • Lab Report Format
  • Introduction
  • Materials and Methods

Discussion or Conclusion

Test yourself (discussion).

Once you've discussed the most important findings of your study in the Results section, you will use the Discussion section to interpret those findings and talk about why they are important (some instructors call this the Conclusion section). You might want to talk about how your results agree, or disagree, with the results from similar studies. Here you can also mention areas ways you could have improved your study or further research to be done on the topic. Do not just restate your results - talk about why they are significant and important. Here's a paragraph taken from the Discussion from the bone fracture paper. Notice how the authors relate their results to what is already known about the topic. The numbers in brackets refer to references listed at the end of their paper (not shown here).

The data indicate that avoiding a low level of physical activity substantially reduces the risk of all fractures, particularly hip fractures—the most devastating of osteoporotic fractures—in men. Even changes in physical activity during the follow-up affected hip fracture risk. As expected, those who maintained a high physical activity level had the lowest risk of hip fracture, but there was also a tendency towards a lower risk of fracture for those who increased their level of activity compared with those who reduced their level of activity, or compared with those who reported constant low activity. This observation has previously been made in women [8,16]. There are several possible mechanisms, related to muscle performance and balance as well as to bone architecture and strength, whereby physical activity can reduce the risk of fractures [28,29].

Which of the following is a good example of a sentence you would find in the Discussion section of a lab report?

a. Ten dogs with no previous training were selected for the study. b. Unlike in previous studies on dog training, most of the dogs in this study retained the ability to perform tricks for up to six weeks after the initial training sessions. c. Seven of the ten dogs learned how to "sit" after three training sessions. d. It was hypothesized that the dogs would be able to retain all of the training commands for six weeks after the initial training sessions.

B The Discussion should interpret the findings from the study and relate them to other similar studies. It is not the place to talk about the results, the methods use, or the original hypothesis.

Click on the question, to see the answer.

  • << Previous: Results
  • Next: References >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 13, 2022 10:50 AM
  • URL: https://phoenixcollege.libguides.com/LabReportWriting

Guide to Writing the Results and Discussion Sections of a Scientific Article

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing ( Bordage, 2001 ). In addition, a research paper must be clear, concise, and effective when presenting the information in an organized structure with a logical manner ( Sandercock, 2013 ).

In this article, we will take a closer look at the results and discussion section. Composing each of these carefully with sufficient data and well-constructed arguments can help improve your paper overall.

Guide to writing a science research manuscript e-book download

The results section of your research paper contains a description about the main findings of your research, whereas the discussion section interprets the results for readers and provides the significance of the findings. The discussion should not repeat the results.

Let’s dive in a little deeper about how to properly, and clearly organize each part.

How to Organize the Results Section

Since your results follow your methods, you’ll want to provide information about what you discovered from the methods you used, such as your research data. In other words, what were the outcomes of the methods you used?

You may also include information about the measurement of your data, variables, treatments, and statistical analyses.

To start, organize your research data based on how important those are in relation to your research questions. This section should focus on showing major results that support or reject your research hypothesis. Include your least important data as supplemental materials when submitting to the journal.

The next step is to prioritize your research data based on importance – focusing heavily on the information that directly relates to your research questions using the subheadings.

The organization of the subheadings for the results section usually mirrors the methods section. It should follow a logical and chronological order.

Subheading organization

Subheadings within your results section are primarily going to detail major findings within each important experiment. And the first paragraph of your results section should be dedicated to your main findings (findings that answer your overall research question and lead to your conclusion) (Hofmann, 2013).

In the book “Writing in the Biological Sciences,” author Angelika Hofmann recommends you structure your results subsection paragraphs as follows:

  • Experimental purpose
  • Interpretation

Each subheading may contain a combination of ( Bahadoran, 2019 ; Hofmann, 2013, pg. 62-63):

  • Text: to explain about the research data
  • Figures: to display the research data and to show trends or relationships, for examples using graphs or gel pictures.
  • Tables: to represent a large data and exact value

Decide on the best way to present your data — in the form of text, figures or tables (Hofmann, 2013).

Data or Results?

Sometimes we get confused about how to differentiate between data and results . Data are information (facts or numbers) that you collected from your research ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

Research data definition

Whereas, results are the texts presenting the meaning of your research data ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

Result definition

One mistake that some authors often make is to use text to direct the reader to find a specific table or figure without further explanation. This can confuse readers when they interpret data completely different from what the authors had in mind. So, you should briefly explain your data to make your information clear for the readers.

Common Elements in Figures and Tables

Figures and tables present information about your research data visually. The use of these visual elements is necessary so readers can summarize, compare, and interpret large data at a glance. You can use graphs or figures to compare groups or patterns. Whereas, tables are ideal to present large quantities of data and exact values.

Several components are needed to create your figures and tables. These elements are important to sort your data based on groups (or treatments). It will be easier for the readers to see the similarities and differences among the groups.

When presenting your research data in the form of figures and tables, organize your data based on the steps of the research leading you into a conclusion.

Common elements of the figures (Bahadoran, 2019):

  • Figure number
  • Figure title
  • Figure legend (for example a brief title, experimental/statistical information, or definition of symbols).

Figure example

Tables in the result section may contain several elements (Bahadoran, 2019):

  • Table number
  • Table title
  • Row headings (for example groups)
  • Column headings
  • Row subheadings (for example categories or groups)
  • Column subheadings (for example categories or variables)
  • Footnotes (for example statistical analyses)

Table example

Tips to Write the Results Section

  • Direct the reader to the research data and explain the meaning of the data.
  • Avoid using a repetitive sentence structure to explain a new set of data.
  • Write and highlight important findings in your results.
  • Use the same order as the subheadings of the methods section.
  • Match the results with the research questions from the introduction. Your results should answer your research questions.
  • Be sure to mention the figures and tables in the body of your text.
  • Make sure there is no mismatch between the table number or the figure number in text and in figure/tables.
  • Only present data that support the significance of your study. You can provide additional data in tables and figures as supplementary material.

How to Organize the Discussion Section

It’s not enough to use figures and tables in your results section to convince your readers about the importance of your findings. You need to support your results section by providing more explanation in the discussion section about what you found.

In the discussion section, based on your findings, you defend the answers to your research questions and create arguments to support your conclusions.

Below is a list of questions to guide you when organizing the structure of your discussion section ( Viera et al ., 2018 ):

  • What experiments did you conduct and what were the results?
  • What do the results mean?
  • What were the important results from your study?
  • How did the results answer your research questions?
  • Did your results support your hypothesis or reject your hypothesis?
  • What are the variables or factors that might affect your results?
  • What were the strengths and limitations of your study?
  • What other published works support your findings?
  • What other published works contradict your findings?
  • What possible factors might cause your findings different from other findings?
  • What is the significance of your research?
  • What are new research questions to explore based on your findings?

Organizing the Discussion Section

The structure of the discussion section may be different from one paper to another, but it commonly has a beginning, middle-, and end- to the section.

Discussion section

One way to organize the structure of the discussion section is by dividing it into three parts (Ghasemi, 2019):

  • The beginning: The first sentence of the first paragraph should state the importance and the new findings of your research. The first paragraph may also include answers to your research questions mentioned in your introduction section.
  • The middle: The middle should contain the interpretations of the results to defend your answers, the strength of the study, the limitations of the study, and an update literature review that validates your findings.
  • The end: The end concludes the study and the significance of your research.

Another possible way to organize the discussion section was proposed by Michael Docherty in British Medical Journal: is by using this structure ( Docherty, 1999 ):

  • Discussion of important findings
  • Comparison of your results with other published works
  • Include the strengths and limitations of the study
  • Conclusion and possible implications of your study, including the significance of your study – address why and how is it meaningful
  • Future research questions based on your findings

Finally, a last option is structuring your discussion this way (Hofmann, 2013, pg. 104):

  • First Paragraph: Provide an interpretation based on your key findings. Then support your interpretation with evidence.
  • Secondary results
  • Limitations
  • Unexpected findings
  • Comparisons to previous publications
  • Last Paragraph: The last paragraph should provide a summarization (conclusion) along with detailing the significance, implications and potential next steps.

Remember, at the heart of the discussion section is presenting an interpretation of your major findings.

Tips to Write the Discussion Section

  • Highlight the significance of your findings
  • Mention how the study will fill a gap in knowledge.
  • Indicate the implication of your research.
  • Avoid generalizing, misinterpreting your results, drawing a conclusion with no supportive findings from your results.

Aggarwal, R., & Sahni, P. (2018). The Results Section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 21-38): Springer.

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Zadeh-Vakili, A., Hosseinpanah, F., & Ghasemi, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Results. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(2).

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic medicine, 76(9), 889-896.

Cals, J. W., & Kotz, D. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(10), 1064.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: Much the same as that for structuring abstracts. In: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.

Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental press journal of orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117.

Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2018). The discussion section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 39-48): Springer.

Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N., & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(3).

Hofmann, A. H. (2013). Writing in the biological sciences: a comprehensive resource for scientific communication . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(9), 945.

Mack, C. (2014). How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: Structure and Organization. Journal of Micro/ Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13. doi:10.1117/1.JMM.13.4.040101

Moore, A. (2016). What's in a Discussion section? Exploiting 2‐dimensionality in the online world…. Bioessays, 38(12), 1185-1185.

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2013). Scientific writing: easy when you know how: John Wiley & Sons.

Sandercock, P. M. L. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific article. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 45(1), 1-5.

Teo, E. K. (2016). Effective Medical Writing: The Write Way to Get Published. Singapore Medical Journal, 57(9), 523-523. doi:10.11622/smedj.2016156

Van Way III, C. W. (2007). Writing a scientific paper. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 636-640.

Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C. d., & Mizubuti, E. S. G. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 41.

Related Articles

example of scientific report discussion

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing (Bordage, 200...

example of scientific report discussion

How to Survive and Complete a Thesis or a Dissertation

Writing a thesis or a dissertation can be a challenging process for many graduate students. There ar...

example of scientific report discussion

12 Ways to Dramatically Improve your Research Manuscript Title and Abstract

The first thing a person doing literary research will see is a research publication title. After tha...

example of scientific report discussion

15 Laboratory Notebook Tips to Help with your Research Manuscript

Your lab notebook is a foundation to your research manuscript. It serves almost as a rudimentary dra...

Join our list to receive promos and articles.

NSF Logo

  • Competent Cells
  • Lab Startup
  • Z')" data-type="collection" title="Products A->Z" target="_self" href="/collection/products-a-to-z">Products A->Z
  • GoldBio Resources
  • GoldBio Sales Team
  • GoldBio Distributors
  • Duchefa Direct
  • Sign up for Promos
  • Terms & Conditions
  • ISO Certification
  • Agarose Resins
  • Antibiotics & Selection
  • Biochemical Reagents
  • Bioluminescence
  • Buffers & Reagents
  • Cell Culture
  • Cloning & Induction
  • Competent Cells and Transformation
  • Detergents & Membrane Agents
  • DNA Amplification
  • Enzymes, Inhibitors & Substrates
  • Growth Factors and Cytokines
  • Lab Tools & Accessories
  • Plant Research and Reagents
  • Protein Research & Analysis
  • Protein Expression & Purification
  • Reducing Agents

example of scientific report discussion

BioScience Writers LLC

How to Write a Strong Discussion in Scientific Manuscripts

Release Date: May 3, 2014 Category: Manuscript Writing Author: Rita N., Ph.D.

A strong Discussion section provides a great deal of analytical depth. Your goal should be to critically analyze and interpret the findings of your study. You should place your findings in the context of published literature and describe how your study moves the field forward.

It is often easy to organize the key elements of a Discussion section into distinct paragraphs (or groups of paragraphs).

  • Summarize the major gap in understanding that your work is attempting to fill. What was the overarching hypothesis? In the first few sentences of the Discussion, state the main problem that you were trying to address. Although this should relate to the information that you provided in the Introduction, this paragraph should not repeat statements that have already been made.
  • Why is filling this gap important? How will answering this question move the field forward? After identifying the problem, state the main reason that this study was needed. Describe how answering this specific research question will make a significant contribution to your field.
  • In the following example, we state the problem (bold) as well as the significance (underline) , the ultimate “big picture” reason for performing the study.
  • What was your overall approach for studying the gap? In one or two sentences, state the main models or strategies that you used to study this specific research question. This should recapitulate whether the work included animals, cell culture, human subjects, or other novel techniques. (Some investigators prefer to place this section at the end of the first paragraph. This decision may vary depending on the specific study.)
  • What was the most important result of your study? The focus of this paragraph is to highlight the most important contribution that your study has made. Explicitly state this result. Additional findings (major and minor) can be described in subsequent paragraphs. Do not repeat detailed results that can be found in the Results section. In general, specific figure numbers do not need to be re-stated in the Discussion unless you feel that doing so would substantially enhance your argument or discussion point. A schematic of your proposed mechanism or model can often be helpful for clearly and concisely summarizing your major result(s).
  • How does your result(s) fit with existing literature? This is an important part of the paragraph and may require multiple paragraphs depending on the number of key studies that exist on your topic. This paragraph should be well-rounded, meaning that contrary reports must also be discussed. In the case of a contrary report, you should state your interpretation of how and why the results of the two studies differed. For example, did the approaches differ or were there major differences in sample sizes that may have affected results? (Depending on how much information is available in the literature, a critical analysis of your major finding may require multiple paragraphs.)
  • In the following example, we state the approach (bold) and the main result (underline).
  • What major follow up studies are indicated based on your results? Most studies yield new discoveries that prompt additional studies. Consider what new directions are supported by your findings. For example, do your experiments suggest that a specific molecule should be tested as a new drug target or that tissue-based studies or clinical investigations should be performed to translate your animal studies to patients? Making recommendations for follow-up studies is an important part of a Discussion.
  • What is the main take-home message of your study?
  • What is the main contribution that your study makes to your field?
  • Relate this section to the first paragraph of the Discussion. In other words, how does your study fill “the gap” or address the problem that you presented in the Introduction and re-stated earlier in paragraph 1 of the Discussion?

In summary, a strong Discussion includes a concise summary of the problem you are investigating and a critical discussion of major and minor findings in the context of published literature. The limitations should also be acknowledged, and future directions should be discussed. A strong ending is important; discuss the significance, overall conclusion, and major impact of your study.

Scientific Writing Workshops

If you like our articles, try our workshops! Our articles are based on the material from our scientific writing workshops, which cover these and many other topics more thoroughly, with more examples and discussion.

We offer our workshops in-person, as self-paced eCourses, or as virtual live workshops via Zoom, Teams or a similar platform. Our scientific writing workshops can range from 1-2 hours to several days in length. We can tailor the length and content to suit your needs.

Our scientific writing workshops consistently receive high praise from participants including graduate students, post-docs, and faculty in diverse fields. Please see our scientific writing workshop page for details.

If you found this article helpful or if there is a topic you want us to address in a future article, please use our online comment submission form , or contact us directly. Your comments and suggestions are valuable! Click here to return to our scientific editing article library .

UCI Libraries Mobile Site

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

Libaries home page

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

  • Writing a lab report
  • INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" results section

Figures and Captions in Lab Reports

"Results Checklist" from: How to Write a Good Scientific Paper. Chris A. Mack. SPIE. 2018.

Additional tips for results sections.

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

This is the core of the paper. Don't start the results sections with methods you left out of the Materials and Methods section. You need to give an overall description of the experiments and present the data you found.

  • Factual statements supported by evidence. Short and sweet without excess words
  • Present representative data rather than endlessly repetitive data
  • Discuss variables only if they had an effect (positive or negative)
  • Use meaningful statistics
  • Avoid redundancy. If it is in the tables or captions you may not need to repeat it

A short article by Dr. Brett Couch and Dr. Deena Wassenberg, Biology Program, University of Minnesota

  • Present the results of the paper, in logical order, using tables and graphs as necessary.
  • Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the Introduction. Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained. 
  • Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed;  presenting results in chronological order rather than logical order; ignoring results that do not support the conclusions; 
  • Number tables and figures separately beginning with 1 (i.e. Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, etc.).
  • Do not attempt to evaluate the results in this section. Report only what you found; hold all discussion of the significance of the results for the Discussion section.
  • It is not necessary to describe every step of your statistical analyses. Scientists understand all about null hypotheses, rejection rules, and so forth and do not need to be reminded of them. Just say something like, "Honeybees did not use the flowers in proportion to their availability (X2 = 7.9, p<0.05, d.f.= 4, chi-square test)." Likewise, cite tables and figures without describing in detail how the data were manipulated. Explanations of this sort should appear in a legend or caption written on the same page as the figure or table.
  • You must refer in the text to each figure or table you include in your paper.
  • Tables generally should report summary-level data, such as means ± standard deviations, rather than all your raw data.  A long list of all your individual observations will mean much less than a few concise, easy-to-read tables or figures that bring out the main findings of your study.  
  • Only use a figure (graph) when the data lend themselves to a good visual representation.  Avoid using figures that show too many variables or trends at once, because they can be hard to understand.

From:  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/imrad-results-discussion

  • << Previous: METHODS
  • Next: DISCUSSION >>
  • 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.

Formatting Science Reports

This section describes an organizational structure commonly used to report experimental research in many scientific disciplines, the IMRAD format: I ntroduction, M ethods, R esults, And D iscussion.

When and when not to use the IMRAD format

Although most scientific reports use the IMRAD format, there are some exceptions.

This format is usually not used in reports describing other kinds of research, such as field or case studies, in which headings are more likely to differ according to discipline. Although the main headings are standard for many scientific fields, details may vary; check with your instructor, or, if submitting an article to a journal, refer to the instructions to authors.

Developing a Title

Titles should.

  • Describe contents clearly and precisely, so that readers can decide whether to read the report
  • Provide key words for indexing

Titles should NOT

  • Include wasted words such as “studies on,” “an investigation of”
  • Use abbreviations and jargon
  • Use “cute” language

Good Titles

The Relationship of Luteinizing Hormone to Obesity in the Zucker Rat

Poor Titles

An Investigation of Hormone Secretion and Weight in Rats Fat Rats: Are Their Hormones Different?

The Abstract

The guidelines below address issues to consider when writing an abstract.

What is the report about, in miniature and without specific details?

  • State main objectives. (What did you investigate? Why?)
  • Describe methods. (What did you do?)
  • Summarize the most important results. (What did you find out?)
  • State major conclusions and significance. (What do your results mean? So what?)

What to avoid:

  • Do not include references to figures, tables, or sources.
  • Do not include information not in report.

Additional tips:

  • Find out maximum length (may vary from 50 to 300+ words).
  • Process: Extract key points from each section. Condense in successive revisions.

The Introduction

Guidelines for effective scientific report introductions.

What is the problem?

  • Describe the problem investigated.
  • Summarize relevant research to provide context, key terms, and concepts so your reader can understand the experiment.

Why is it important?

  • Review relevant research to provide rationale. (What conflict or unanswered question, untested population, untried method in existing research does your experiment address? What findings of others are you challenging or extending?)

What solution (or step toward a solution) do you propose?

  • Briefly describe your experiment: hypothesis(es), research question(s); general experimental design or method; justification of method if alternatives exist.
  • Move from general to specific: problem in real world/research literature –> your experiment.
  • Engage your reader: answer the questions, “What did you do?” “Why should I care?”
  • Make clear the links between problem and solution, question asked and research design, prior research and your experiment.
  • Be selective, not exhaustive, in choosing studies to cite and amount of detail to include. (In general, the more relevant an article is to your study, the more space it deserves and the later in the Introduction it appears.)
  • Ask your instructor whether to summarize results and/or conclusions in the Introduction.

Methods Section

Below are some questions to consider for effective methods sections in scientific reports.

How did you study the problem?

  • Briefly explain the general type of scientific procedure you used.

What did you use?

(May be subheaded as Materials)

  • Describe what materials, subjects, and equipment (chemicals, experimental animals, apparatus, etc.) you used. (These may be subheaded Animals, Reagents, etc.)

How did you proceed?

(May be subheaded as Methods or Procedures)

  • Explain the steps you took in your experiment. (These may be subheaded by experiment, types of assay, etc.)
  • Provide enough detail for replication. For a journal article, include, for example, genus, species, strain of organisms; their source, living conditions, and care; and sources (manufacturer, location) of chemicals and apparatus.
  • Order procedures chronologically or by type of procedure (subheaded) and chronologically within type.
  • Use past tense to describe what you did.
  • Quantify when possible: concentrations, measurements, amounts (all metric); times (24-hour clock); temperatures (centigrade)
  • Don’t include details of common statistical procedures.
  • Don’t mix results with procedures.

Results Section

The section below offers some questions asked for effective results sections in scientific reports.

What did you observe?

For each experiment or procedure:

  • Briefly describe experiment without detail of Methods section (a sentence or two).
  • Representative: most common
  • Best Case: best example of ideal or exception
  • from most to least important
  • from simple to complex
  • organ by organ; chemical class by chemical class
  • Use past tense to describe what happened.
  • Don’t simply repeat table data; select .
  • Don’t interpret results.
  • Avoid extra words: “It is shown in Table 1 that X induced Y” –> “X induced Y (Table 1).”

Discussion Section

The table below offers some questions effective discussion sections in scientific reports address.

What do your observations mean?

  • Summarize the most important findings at the beginning.

What conclusions can you draw?

For each major result:

  • Describe the patterns, principles, relationships your results show.
  • Explain how your results relate to expectations and to literature cited in your Introduction. Do they agree, contradict, or are they exceptions to the rule?
  • Explain plausibly any agreements, contradictions, or exceptions.
  • Describe what additional research might resolve contradictions or explain exceptions.

How do your results fit into a broader context?

  • Suggest the theoretical implications of your results.
  • Suggest practical applications of your results?
  • Extend your findings to other situations or other species.
  • Give the big picture: do your findings help us understand a broader topic?
  • Move from specific to general: your finding(s) –> literature, theory, practice.
  • Don’t ignore or bury the major issue. Did the study achieve the goal (resolve the problem, answer the question, support the hypothesis) presented in the Introduction?
  • Give evidence for each conclusion.
  • Discuss possible reasons for expected and unexpected findings.
  • Don’t overgeneralize.
  • Don’t ignore deviations in your data.
  • Avoid speculation that cannot be tested in the foreseeable future.

example of scientific report discussion

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

  • Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
  • Guided brainstorming exercises
  • Get more help with your essay
  • Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

  • Current Students
  • News & Press
  • Exam Technique for In-Person Exams
  • Revising for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
  • Introduction to 24 Hour Take Home Exams
  • Before the 24 Hour Take Home Exam
  • Exam Technique for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
  • Structuring a Literature Review
  • Writing Coursework under Time Constraints
  • Reflective Writing
  • Writing a Synopsis
  • Structuring a Science Report
  • Presentations
  • How the University works out your degree award
  • Personal Extenuating Circumstances (PEC)
  • Accessing your assignment feedback via Canvas
  • Inspera Digital Exams
  • Writing Introductions and Conclusions
  • Paragraphing
  • Reporting Verbs
  • Signposting
  • Proofreading
  • Working with a Proofreader
  • Writing Concisely
  • The 1-Hour Writing Challenge
  • Apostrophes
  • Semi-colons
  • Run-on sentences
  • How to Improve your Grammar (native English)
  • How to Improve your Grammar (non-native English)
  • Independent Learning for Online Study
  • Reflective Practice
  • Academic Reading
  • Strategic Reading Framework
  • Note-taking Strategies
  • Note-taking in Lectures
  • Making Notes from Reading
  • Using Evidence to Support your Argument
  • Integrating Scholarship
  • Managing Time and Motivation
  • Dealing with Procrastination
  • How to Paraphrase
  • Quote or Paraphrase?
  • How to Quote
  • Referencing
  • Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity
  • Use and limitations of generative AI
  • Acknowledging use of AI
  • Numeracy, Maths & Statistics
  • Library Search
  • Search Techniques
  • Keeping up to date
  • Evaluating Information
  • Managing Information
  • Thinking Critically about AI
  • Using Information generated by AI
  • Digital Capabilities
  • SensusAccess
  • Develop Your Digital Skills
  • Digital Tools to Help You Study

example of scientific report discussion

Learn how to prepare, write and structure a science report.

  • Newcastle University
  • Academic Skills Kit
  • Assignment Types

The purpose of a scientific report is to talk the reader through an experiment or piece of research you’ve done where you’ve generated some data, the decisions you made, what you found and what it means.

Lab or experimental reports in the Sciences have a very specific structure, which is often known as IMRAD :

  • I ntroduction
  • R esults and
  • D iscussion.

Video introduction slide

Sorry, you need JavaScript to view this video

Whether it’s a shorter lab report or a longer research project or dissertation, science writing of this kind tends to be structured into those sections (or chapters, if it’s a long project or thesis). Empirical research in the Social Sciences which is based on data collection might also use this structure. You’ll probably recognise it too in many of the journal articles you’re reading. There are sometimes variations from this pattern – sometimes results and discussion are combined into one section, sometimes in a longer research project there is a separate literature review in addition to the introduction, or there might be a conclusion as well as the discussion. Social sciences reports might have a theory section too. Always look at the brief for the assignment you have been set, or ask your lecturer or supervisor if you aren’t sure.

As there is a conventional set structure to follow for scientific reports, the main issue tends to be not how to structure it, but knowing what to write in each section, and making sure the right things are in the right places. Each section is clearly marked out with subheadings with a distinct purpose and role in the report, and the reader will expect to find particular things in each part. To help you follow this structure and know which of your points goes where, it might be useful to think about what question each section answers for your reader, and also what type of writing is characteristic of that section – more descriptive (factual), or more analytical (interpretation).

Introduction

The introduction answers two questions, and is mostly descriptive, with more analysis if you’re writing up a research project rather than a lab report:

“What’s the issue here? What do we know about it?” DESCRIPTIVE

The introduction is usually around 15-20% of the report. It offers the reader some context and background information about the issue you’re exploring or the principle you’re verifying, to establish what we’re talking about and to outline what is known about the topic. In a shorter lab report, this is where you might use references to scientific literature, to show you have read about the subject and what you’re basing your understanding on. Keep this part as tightly focussed as you can and don’t be tempted to include lots of detail or go too broad. Think about what the reader needs to know to follow your report, rather than showing everything you’ve learned about the topic. The kind of writing you’re doing here is descriptive – mostly factual statements, backed up with references, to demonstrate your understanding of the background of your experiment or research.

“What are you trying to do and why?” ANALYTICAL

The introduction quickly moves on to the nature of the problem you’re trying to solve, hypothesis you are testing or research question you’re trying to answer. Again, you might want to make reference to other people’s research to demonstrate why this is a problem, what the debate might be or what exactly we don’t know. This kind of writing is higher level, as you’re analysing a problem and evaluating why this research needs to be done. In a research project, this is a very important section, as it’s the justification for your research, but in a lab experiment, you are demonstrating that you understand why this activity has been set rather than just following instructions. You would also state briefly what model, theory, approach or method you have chosen to take and why, what kind of research this is, but not in any detail yet.

Literature review

“What is the current state of knowledge and what don’t we know?” ANALYTICAL

If you are writing up a longer research project or dissertation, you will be doing far more reading with much more critical analysis of existing research and discussion of why yours needs to be undertaken. The introduction might therefore contain so much reference to the literature and so much more analysis that it’s better to add it as a separate section in its own right – the literature review. In a shorter lab report, the references to the literature are integrated within the introduction and tend to be more descriptive -what the literature says rather than what you think about it. In a social sciences report, the literature review might also contain a discussion of the theory you’re using.

“How did you do the research?” DESCRIPTIVE

The methods section really is a pretty straightforward description of what you did to perform the experiment, or collect and process the data. It is often relatively short, about 15-20% of the report, and because it describes what you did, it is written in the past tense, whereas the rest of the report is in the present tense. In a lab resport, it might even be largely based on the experiment brief you were given. Its purpose is to allow your research to be replicated, so it needs to be clear and detailed enough to let another researcher follow it and reproduce what you did, like a recipe. This allows the reader to know exactly how you gathered and processed your data and judge whether your method was appropriate, or if it has any limitations or flaws. The methods section describes what you actually did rather than what you ideally intended to do, so it also includes any places where you departed from your planned approach and things might have gone a bit wrong or unexpectedly. This will help you explain any unusual elements in your results. Depending on the kind of research you are doing, a methods section might list equipment or software used, describe a set up or process, list steps you took, detail models, theories or parameters you employed, describe experiment design, outline survey questions or explain how you chose the sample you studied. 

In a longer research project, you might include some more analytical discussion of why you chose those methods over alternative options, perhaps with some references to other studies which have used those approaches, but this would be part of your introduction or literature review.

“What did you find?​ What do the findings say?” DESCRIPTIVE

This section is where you present your findings, or data. This could take a number of forms, depending on the kind of research you’re doing -it could be text, but very often the data is presented as graphs, tables, images, or other kinds of figure. You might choose to include representative data, rather than all of the results. The results section is a meaty one, perhaps 30-40% of the report in terms of space and importance, but it is dense rather than long and wordy, as figures are often richer and more concise than words. How you represent your data is up to you, and depends on the observations you want to draw out of it.

The results section is one which many people find confusing to write. Its purpose is to present the data, but in a form which is easy for the reader to digest. The results section therefore has some explanation, so the reader knows what they are looking at. For example, it isn’t enough simply to give them a graph or table; there needs to be an explanation of what the figure is, what it contains and how to read it (for example, what the image is of and its scale, what the graph axes are or what the columns and rows in the table represent). You might also draw the reader’s attention to the main features of the data that you want them to notice, such as trends, patterns, correlations, noteworthy aspects or significant areas. However, the results section is mostly descriptive – it’s a slightly digested form of your raw data. It says what the findings are, what the data says, but it doesn’t tell the reader what the results mean – that’s the job of the discussion.

“What do the findings mean?” ANALYSIS

Results in themselves aren’t the full story. Two people can look at the same data, see two different things and interpret it in two different ways. The discussion is where you explain what you think the data means and what it proves. In doing so, you are making an argument, explaining the reasons why you think your interpretation of the data is correct, so this section is very analytical and therefore substantial, about 15-20%. In a discussion, you might be arguing that something is significant, or that it shows a connection, or is due to particular causes. You could comment on the impact of any limitations, how far the findings support your hypothesis, or what further work needs to be done and speculate on what it might find. You might also bring some references to the literature in here, to help support your arguments, explain your findings or show how they are consistent with other studies. The discussion section is likely to be one of the longer ones, as this is where your main argument is.

In some reports, the results and discussion sections are combined, but in general, resist the temptation to comment on your results as you present them, and save this for the later discussion section. Keep the factual results and the more subjective interpretation separate. If you are writing up a longer project, dissertation or thesis, you might have more than one results or discussion chapter to cover different aspects of your research.

“What’s the overall point you’re making? So what?”​  ANALYTICAL

If you have been asked to write a conclusion separately to the discussion, this is where you take a big step back from the detailed analysis of the data in your discussion, and summarise overall what you think your research has shown. You might comment on its significance or implications for our understanding of the topic you outlined in the introduction, or where it agrees or disagrees with other literature. You are making a judgement statement about the validity, quality and significance of your study and how it fits with existing knowledge. Some reports combine this with the discussion though. The conclusion is fairly short, about 5%, as you’re not adding new information, just summing it all up into your main overall message. It is analytical though, so although you are restating the points you’ve already made, you are synthesising it in a new way so your reader understands what the research has demonstrated and what has been learned from it.

Other elements

If you are writing a longer research project, dissertation or thesis, you would include an abstract at the beginning, summarising the whole report for the reader. The abstract is read separately from the report itself, as it helps the reader get a sense of what it contains and whether they want to read the whole thing.

At the end of the main report, you would include elements such as your reference list, and any appendices if you are using them. An appendix is generally used for elements which are long and detailed information, but which are not central to your points and which would disrupt the flow of the report if you included them in the main body.

Writing an IMRAD report

Although this order is the way a science report is structured, you don’t have to write it in this order. Many people begin with the more descriptive elements, the methods and results, and then write the more analytical sections around them. The method and results can be written up at an earlier stage of the research too, as you go, whereas the discussion can only be written once you’ve done the research and collected and analysed the data.

Checking your structure

When planning your writing or editing a draft, you could use this approach to help you check that you are following this structure.

  • Take the question that each section poses. Is there anything in the section which does not directly answer this question? This will help you decide if there’s anything irrelevant you need to delete. Is there anything which answers the question raised by a different section? In this case, it’s in the wrong place and needs moving.
  • Highlight which parts of your writing are more descriptive and factual, and which are more analytical, justifying or interpreting. Does that fit with the kind of writing expected in each section? If not, you may need to move some of your points around or change the balance of the kinds of points you’re making.

Download this guide as a PDF

Structuring a science report.

Learn how to prepare, write and structure a science report. **PDF Download**

example of scientific report discussion

The Do’s & Do Not’s of How To Write a Scientific Discussion

How To Write a Scientific Discussion for a Research Paper The part of a scientific manuscript dedicated to discussion offers the author a unique opportunity to move beyond the strict report of facts and results to in-depth interpretation of those results. The immediate goal of a scientific discussion is to explain the meaning and value of the research findings to readers, but an excellent discussion is also a demonstration of the investigator’s critical, analytical and logical acumen that eagerly invites the reader to think in similar ways. A very fine balance must be negotiated between writing too little and writing too much to achieve the main purposes of a scientific discussion. The following tips include advice not only on what should be done in an effective scientific discussion, but also on what should not be done. They can be usefully applied to scientific discussions of all kinds, but do remember to prioritise any specific publisher or instructor guidelines that must be followed as the decisions about how to write a scientific discussion are made. Restating Results Do offer succinct restatements of results, especially of major and unexpected findings that are closely related to the main research problem or question and require explanation and discussion to clarify their importance. Wording and content should go beyond the earlier report of results in the manuscript by focussing on the interpretation of those results, their connection with the research objectives presented in the manuscript’s introductory material, their relationship to the published findings of previous studies, and their implications for future research and practice. Do not simply repeat information and sentences from the report of results and assume that they will serve as interpretation and explanation. They will not, but they will create a highly repetitious and unnecessary chunk of text that will leave the reader – the reader, that is, who is patient enough to slog through such a discussion – free to interpret the findings without the experience and informed perspective that the researcher should provide in a scientific discussion. PhD Thesis Editing Services Revisiting the Introduction Do revisit key ideas and especially research questions, problems and hypotheses that were presented in the introduction or background for the manuscript. Indeed, the relevance of these elements to the discussion is part of the reason for their inclusion in the introductory material in the first place, and a scientific discussion tends to pick up where the introduction left off. The point in the discussion, however, is to relate the results to the questions, problems and hypotheses in an interpretive manner, providing answers, resolutions and explanations. Do not repeat information already available in the introduction or background except briefly as a bridge to interpretation and further discussion. Introducing entirely new ideas, questions and problems is also inadvisable in a scientific discussion, although interpretations and explanations can lead to lines of thought and other developments that involve unexpected concepts and directions. In such cases, the usual strategy is to turn back to the introduction and adjust the text there to accommodate background information for the new material. Interpreting Results Do explicitly interpret the results obtained from the research and make it absolutely clear to readers exactly how and why they are important to researchers, practitioners and society as a whole. A logical argument should be constructed, but alternative explanations must also be considered, particularly in terms of how they might relate to or alter the principal interpretations and their implications. Keep in mind that unexpected results often require a good deal more explanation and discussion than anticipated results do, but they can also lead to the most significant contributions to knowledge. Do not over-interpret the results or inflate their importance for the sake of a good scientific discussion. When pondering how to write the scientific discussion, remember that wringing meaning from evidence that does not actually support it only detracts from the presentation of the truly significant findings and implications of a study. Avoid focussing too narrowly on proving or disproving a particular hypothesis or even on providing a single definitive answer for a complex research question, as this sort of approach can blind a researcher to new and surprising discoveries. Citing Published Studies Do discuss the results in relation to the published literature in the field. Citing studies similar to the one reported in the manuscript is the key here, and the focus should be on the results of those studies. Comparison of the current research with previous studies that confirm the present findings will always be appealing, with the earlier results both supporting and being supported by the new research, but contradictory results must also be considered. Like unexpected results, previous findings that do not agree with the current results can lead to some of the most thoughtful and engaging interpretations and discussions. Do not write a literature review or general introduction to scholarship on the topic. If one is required for the manuscript, it should appear earlier (usually before methods are described and results are reported) and should not play a major part in decisions about how to write the scientific discussion. The point of citing previously published studies in a scientific discussion is to compare and contrast earlier results and interpretations with the current findings and explanations. While the most relevant studies should therefore inform the discussion, the ideas and arguments of other scientists should not guide or dominate the discussion. PhD Thesis Editing Services Exploring Implications Do explore the implications of the research and especially the findings. Be specific and consider the potential impact in several directions – the implications not only for other researchers, for instance, but also for practitioners, clients, patients, communities and decision makers in a range of fields. Most scientific papers will not stretch beyond a few key implications, but explaining the real value of meaningful results is part of the goal of writing a scientific discussion, so serious reflection is necessary. A return to introductory material about why the research was needed is standard practice and can help clarify the implications of the results. Do not exaggerate the significance of the results and their implications. While some implications may be speculative and still make useful and engaging discussion material for readers and researchers, most implications should be more firmly rooted, whether they affect the research procedures of future investigators, the practices of healthcare workers or the daily lives of single parents. Explaining a real impact, even if it is small, is of much greater value than wasting words on an unconvincing large one that will only serve to undermine a scientific discussion in the eyes of instructors, proofreaders and peer reviewers. Acknowledging Limitations Do acknowledge the weaknesses and limitations of the research design. All scientific research has limitations, whether intentional or unintentional, and they must be discussed in relation to the results and their validity. Limitations affect the way in which findings can be interpreted, applied and generalised, so clearly explaining them can be useful for other researchers, and so can suggesting possible improvements and modifications to the research design. A scientist demonstrates the ability to think critically and objectively about his or her own research by acknowledging its limitations, and new directions for future research often grow from limitations discovered or clarified during the research process. Do not make the limitations and weaknesses of a study the central or focal point in the discussion. On the other hand, do not ignore or negate weaknesses, errors or any kind of limitations, both those that are inherent to the research design and those that arise during the research process. Remember that if the author does not acknowledge the limitations, a professor, peer reviewer or alert reader can and usually will spot them. While planning how to write a scientific discussion it is also wise not to declare limitations at the end of the discussion, which should instead leave the reader with the valuable contributions of the research. PhD Thesis Editing Services Concluding the Discussion Do finish the discussion with insightful concluding thoughts. Unless a separate conclusion is required, the discussion will end a scientific manuscript, so a final paragraph or two should be dedicated to the key take-home messages for readers. The most important elements of the discussion such as primary interpretations and implications can be briefly reiterated and synthesised into overall conclusions. Keep in mind that scientists, like the readers of novels, often turn to the end first to see how it all worked out, so be sure to make this final part of the discussion as informative, engaging and memorable as possible. Do not fall into the trap of stretching or inflating the meaning and importance of the research and its findings for the sake of a punchy, provocative or surprising conclusion for a scientific discussion. On the other hand, do not neglect to make the most of the results and their meaning. If the author does not clarify the value of his or her research, that value may be missed by readers. Although conclusions should be brief and memorable, the thoughts themselves should not be over-simplified for the sake of brevity. Finally, do not copy sentences from earlier in the manuscript and paste them together to form concluding paragraphs. Conclusions are challenging to write, but they are what remain with the reader, so new sentences and compelling ideas are advisable. Achieving a Scholarly Style Do pay special attention to achieving a scholarly style when writing a scientific discussion. Always cite the sources used and treat the words and ideas of their authors with respect. Follow a clear line of argumentation, but do not forget to consider contradictory evidence and alternative interpretations. Write with authority and confidence as an expert in the field. Stick to the facts – the results and other evidence gleaned from the research – as the basis of the discussion, but use critical, analytical and even creative skills to follow speculative lines of thought and interpretation when productive. Do not load a scientific discussion with discipline-specific terminology and unexplained abbreviations that may be unfamiliar to readers. Keep such material to a minimum and be sure to explain it carefully whenever it is used. While confidence is an asset for a scientific author, arrogance is not, so a scientist should never be boastful about research achievements or clever ideas. Readers should be informed and persuaded with convincing facts and insightful interpretations, but never be preached at or bullied. Finally, do not produce a scientific discussion riddled with grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Proofread and edit to ensure clear and accurate communication at all times.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services? At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing , phd thesis editing and proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication. Many of the carefully trained members of our expert editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal’s instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress acquisitions proofreaders and achieve publication.

Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them. We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services , and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to PhD proofreading and master’s proofreading , offering research students the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and dissertation proofreading practices. Whether you are preparing a conference paper for presentation, polishing a progress report to share with colleagues, or facing the daunting task of editing and perfecting any kind of scholarly document for publication, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.

If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in a new book, Guide to Journal Publication , which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.

Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication

How to get your writing published in scholarly journals.

It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

PhD Success

How to write a doctoral thesis.

If you are in the process of preparing a PhD thesis for submission, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in the book, How to Write a Doctoral Thesis , which is available on our thesis proofreading website.

PhD Success: How to Write a Doctoral Thesis provides guidance for students familiar with English and the procedures of English universities, but it also acknowledges that many theses in the English language are now written by candidates whose first language is not English, so it carefully explains the scholarly styles, conventions and standards expected of a successful doctoral thesis in the English language.

Why Is Proofreading Important?

To improve the quality of papers.

Effective proofreading is absolutely vital to the production of high-quality scholarly and professional documents. When done carefully, correctly and thoroughly, proofreading can make the difference between writing that communicates successfully with its intended readers and writing that does not. No author creates a perfect text without reviewing, reflecting on and revising what he or she has written, and proofreading is an extremely important part of this process.

topbanner errow

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • J Med Radiat Sci
  • v.60(3); 2013 Sep

Tips for writing a case report for the novice author

A case report is a description of important scientific observations that are missed or undetectable in clinical trials. This includes a rare or unusual clinical condition, a previously unreported or unrecognized disease, unusual side effects to therapy or response to treatment, and unique use of imaging modalities or diagnostic tests to assist diagnosis of a disease. Generally, a case report should be short and focussed, with its main components being the abstract, introduction, case description, and discussion. This article discusses the essential components of a case report, with the aim of providing guidelines and tips to novice authors to improve their writing skills.

Introduction

For many doctors and other healthcare professionals, writing a case report represents the first effort at getting articles published in medical journals and it is considered a useful exercise in learning how to write scientifically due to similarity of the basic methodology. 1 Case reports aim to convey a clinical message. 2 , 3 Despite different types of case reports, they all aim to enhance the reader's knowledge on the clinical manifestations, the diagnostic approach (with a focus on imaging modalities for case reports published in medical imaging/radiology journals), or the therapeutic alternatives of a disease. 2 – 4 Thus, a case report worthy of reading should contain both useful practical messages and educational purpose. 2 – 5

Although case reports are regarded by some as the lowest (some even do not list the case reports at all) in the hierarchy of evidence in the medical literature, publishing case reports allow for anecdotal sharing of individual experiences, providing essential sources of information for the optimum care of patients. In the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials are placed at the top, superseded by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, followed by prospective experimental trials, then observational studies, case–control studies, and case series at the bottom. 1 , 6 – 8 Most authors are now aware of the impact factor of journals to which they submit their studies. Case reports are infrequently cited, and therefore, publishing case reports is likely to decrease the journal's impact factor. 9 This has led many editors to remove case report sections from their journals. 10

On the other hand, it has been pointed out by others that case reports that are carefully prepared and interpreted with appropriate caution play a valuable role in both the advancement of medical knowledge and the pursuit of education. 11 – 16 Vandenbroucke 17 listed five roles of potential contribution to defend the publication of case reports:

  • Recognition and description of a new disease
  • Recognition of rare manifestations of a known disease
  • Elucidation of the mechanisms of a disease
  • Detection of adverse or beneficial side effects of drugs (and other treatments)
  • Medical education and audit

Two main roles are recognized for case reports published in medical imaging and radiology journals: as sources of new knowledge and as important means for education and learning. The case report as a source of new knowledge refers to visualization of a new manifestation or finding, or clearer demonstration of a known feature of a disease, using a new imaging technology or an imaging method. 18 , 19 Figure 1 is an example showing 3D virtual endoscopy and the unique intraluminal views of the coronary lumen provided by this new visualization tool. 18 The case report as a means for teaching and learning can be manifested as publication of characteristic and instructive cases for educational features. An example is that British Journal of Radiology (BJR) used to publish six to seven case reports in its monthly issue; however, it has changed the format to publishing “Case of the Month” since May 2012. Educational value instead of extreme rarity is the main virtue of a case report worthy of publication. 2 , 3

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jmrs0060-0108-f1.jpg

Multiplanar reformatted image showing the left coronary artery with coronary stent implanted (arrows) at the ostium of left main stem (A). Virtual endoscopy views of the proximal segment of left coronary artery (B), left anterior descending (C), and left circumflex (D). The internal wall of these coronary branches looks smooth on virtual endoscopy images with no sign of intraluminal irregularity. (Reprint with permission from Reference. 18 )

Writing a case report can be educational for the author as well as for potential readers. 13 Whether in the context of reporting something potentially new or presenting an instructive example of something well known, the author's first and most important task is to search and read extensively on the topic. 20 This article aims to provide guidance on the novice author for writing case reports. Although it is recognized that these guidelines and tips for writing case reports are insufficient for making a successful author, they do help inexperienced authors to exercise and develop basic skills needed in medical writing.

The structure of the case report

Case reports are shorter than most other types of articles. Case reports should encompass the following five sections: an abstract, an introduction with a literature review, a description of the case report, a discussion that includes a detailed explanation of the literature review, and a brief summary of the case and a conclusion. 21 , 22 Tables, figures, graphs, and illustrations comprise the supplementary parts and will enhance the case report's flow and clarity. Unlike original articles, case reports do not follow the usual IMRAD (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) format of manuscript organization. As the format for case reports varies greatly among different journals, it is important for authors to read carefully and follow the target journal's instructions to authors.

The title is the first component of a case report that will be read by readers. Therefore, it should be concise, informative, and relevant to the subject. The ideal title should attract the reader's attention and state the focus on a particular issue, without being too cumbersome or artificial. 23 Redundant words such as “case reports” or “review of the literature” should be omitted, and ostentatious words such as “unique case” or “first report of” should be avoided. 1 , 5 Table 1 lists the titles of case reports that were published in BJR ( British Journal of Radiology ) and JMIRO ( Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology ) between 2012 and 2013.

A list of case reports published in BJR and JMIRO between 2012 and 2013

IVC, inferior vena cava; CPD, continuing professional development.

The abstract

Like other types of articles, it is necessary to include a short summary that gives an overall idea about the content of the case report. The abstract is usually quite brief and generally shorter than that for other types of articles, and it typically has a word limit of 100 words or less. The abstract should be unstructured, pose the clinical question or diagnostic problem, and provide essential information which allows for easier retrieval from electronic database and helps researchers determine their levels of interest in the case report. 5

The introduction

The introduction should be concise and immediately attract the attention and interest of the reader. The introduction should provide background information on why the case is worth reading and publishing, and provides an explanation of the focus of the case report, for example: “We present/report a case of ….” Merit of the case report needs to be explained in light of the previous literature, thus, a focussed comprehensive literature review is required to corroborate the author's claim in this section. The author should bear in mind that a more detailed literature review belongs to the discussion, although critical evaluation of the literature is still required. 5 For some journals, such as BJR (case of the month), there is no Introduction section and the body of the case reports starts immediately with a description of the case.

The case description/summary

The case description or summary is the focus of the case report. The case is best presented in chronological order and in enough detail for the reader to establish his or her own conclusions about the case's validity. 5 , 21 The current medical condition and medical history, including relevant family history, should be clearly described in chronological order, typically comprising clinical history, physical examination findings, investigative results, including imaging and laboratory results, differential diagnosis, management, follow-up, and final diagnosis. 1 , 24 The following paragraph is an example of describing the patient's history:

A 34-year-old female was admitted to the outpatient department due to an increasing lump on the right thigh, which she stated as having been present for 5 years. A painful feeling sometimes occurred in the right upper leg. There was no complaint of lower limb weakness, no history of trauma and the patient was otherwise in good health. On physical examination, a deep seated round mass was detected and located on the right thigh with a size of 25 × 25 × 15 cm, showing hard consistency and non-mobile features ( Fig. 2 A). 25 Open in a separate window Figure 2 (A) Photograph showing a huge lump in the anterior part of the right thigh. (B) Radiographs revealed a bulged soft tissue mass in anterior compartment of right lower thigh showing predominantly radiolucent density with multiple chondroid matrix of calcification. Bone structure is still intact. (Reprint with permission from Reference. 25 )

All important negative findings should also be provided. The author's own interpretation or inferences should be avoided in the body of a case report. Tables/figures should be used to reveal chronological findings or to compare observations using different methods. The following paragraph is another example on the detailed description of using different methods both imaging and diagnostic:

Radiographs showed a bulge soft tissue mass in the right lower thigh having predominantly radiolucent density with multiple chondroid matrix of calcification ( Fig. 2 B), but the bone cortex is still intact. An MRI was obtained to further define the extent and nature of the lesion, confirming heterogeneous soft tissue mass in the anterior compartment of the muscle of the right lower thigh which mostly consisted of fat tissue, thick septation and some nodular non-adipose components. T2-weighted images through the tumour demonstrated high signal intensity comparable with the signal intensity of fat. Fat-suppressed T2-weighted images through the distal part of the tumour showed suppression of the signal through the central fatty components and lobular high signal intensity component at the peripheral rim. 25

In particular, figures need a brief but clear description. In the case of surgery and pathology specimens, the author is advised to provide a comprehensive summary of the surgical procedure and detailed pathologist's report. 5 , 25 The following paragraph is an excerpt from the case report published in the Australasian Medical Journal (AMJ):

The patient was admitted to the surgical ward with preparation for open surgery. The abdomen was opened through the site of the previous incision, and an abscess was observed and drained. A hole was detected in the peritoneal fascia. The anterior duodenum was oedematous and thickened with coverage of fibrin. A small perforated duodenal ulcer was seen. Graham patch procedure was performed to repair the perforated duodenal ulcer with two drains put in place and then the abdomen was closed. The patient was managed with intravenous fluids, as well as analgesics and antibiotics. 26

It is worth noting that patient confidentiality must be preserved. Patient demographics such as age and gender, and occasionally, race and occupation are referred to in the first sentence. In order to reduce the possibility of identifying the patient, the patient's initials, date of birth, and other identifiers such as hospital number must not be used.

The discussion

The discussion is the most important section of the case report. The discussion serves to summarize and interpret the key findings of the case report, to contrast the case report with what is already known in the literature and justify its uniqueness, to derive new knowledge and applicability to practice, and to draw clinically useful conclusions. 2 , 21 In comparing the new case with prior knowledge, the author should briefly summarize the published literature and show in what aspect the present case differs from those previously published, and thus deserves to be read and published. The discussion section of a case report is not designed to provide a comprehensive literature review and citation of all references; therefore, all the references cited should be critically evaluated.

Any limitations of the case should be stated and the significance of each limitation described. The value that the case adds to the current literature should be highlighted, so should the lessons that may be learnt from the case presented, especially if new recommendations for patient diagnosis (with use of an imaging modality) or management, could be put forward. 2 , 5 , 21 The following paragraph is an excerpt from a case report with regard to the concluding statement in the discussion:

This case report highlights the importance of using CT in making accurate diagnosis in patients with abdominal pain due to suspected GI tract perforation. In particular, appropriate selection of CT scanning protocol, such as with oral contrast administration is necessary to ensure timely diagnosis and improve patient management. 26

In the last paragraph, the author should provide the main conclusion of the case report based on the evidence reviewed in the discussion section. A concise statement of the lesson to be learnt from the case could be stated with justifiable evidence-based recommendations. This section should be concise and not exceed one paragraph. 14 , 21

The references

The references listed at the end of the case report should be carefully chosen by virtue of their relevance. References should provide additional information for readers interested in more detail than can be found in the case report, and they should support any specific points highlighted. 14 Some journals restrict the number of references to no more than 15 for a case report.

A case report will not have as much potential impact on the clinical practice of healthcare as randomized controlled trials or other research articles. However, case reports provide valuable sources of new and unusual information for clinicians to share their anecdotal experiences with individual cases, make others aware of unusual presentations or complications, and deliver the educational and teaching message. Well-written and appropriately structured case reports with meticulous attention to the very minute details will contribute to the medical literature and can still enrich our knowledge in today's evidence-based medical world. Table 2 provides the suggested checklist for reporting case reports. Guidelines and tips for writing case reports are not enough for becoming a successful author; however, they are considered helpful for inexperienced or novice authors to exercise and improve their skills needed in medical writing.

Checklist for writing case reports (based on advice in existing literature). 27

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Find Study Materials for

  • Business Studies
  • Combined Science
  • Computer Science
  • Engineering
  • English Literature
  • Environmental Science
  • Human Geography
  • Macroeconomics
  • Microeconomics
  • Social Studies
  • Browse all subjects
  • Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

Writing up the results from an experiment can be difficult, as the nature of scientific research requires rigorous testing techniques and accurate recordings of data. The scientific report allows researchers to record their findings and publish them out into the world, expanding on the area of expertise. So, what comprises a scientific report?

Mockup Schule

Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.

  • Scientific Report
  • Explanations
  • StudySmarter AI
  • Textbook Solutions
  • Approaches in Psychology
  • Basic Psychology
  • Biological Bases of Behavior
  • Biopsychology
  • Careers in Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Cognition and Development
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Data Handling and Analysis
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Eating Behaviour
  • Emotion and Motivation
  • Famous Psychologists
  • Forensic Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • Individual Differences Psychology
  • Issues and Debates in Psychology
  • Personality in Psychology
  • Psychological Treatment
  • Relationships
  • Aims and Hypotheses
  • Causation in Psychology
  • Coding Frame Psychology
  • Correlational Studies
  • Cross Cultural Research
  • Cross Sectional Research
  • Ethical Issues and Ways of Dealing with Them
  • Experimental Designs
  • Features of Science
  • Field Experiment
  • Independent Group Design
  • Lab Experiment
  • Longitudinal Research
  • Matched Pairs Design
  • Meta Analysis
  • Natural Experiment
  • Observational Design
  • Online Research
  • Paradigms and Falsifiability
  • Peer Review and Economic Applications of Research
  • Pilot Studies and the Aims of Piloting
  • Quality Criteria
  • Questionnaire Construction
  • Repeated Measures Design
  • Research Methods
  • Sampling Frames
  • Sampling Psychology
  • Scientific Processes
  • Scientific Research
  • Self-Report Design
  • Self-Report Techniques
  • Semantic Differential Rating Scale
  • Snowball Sampling
  • Schizophrenia
  • Scientific Foundations of Psychology
  • Scientific Investigation
  • Sensation and Perception
  • Social Context of Behaviour
  • Social Psychology

Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken

Nie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.

  • We are going to establish and explore scientific reports in psychological research.
  • We will start by looking at scientific reports in psychology and how scientific report writing should be conducted.
  • Then we will explore the scientific report structure, including the introduction, method, results, scientific report conclusion and discussion.
  • Finally, we will delve into scientific report examples.

Scientific Reports: Psychology

Research can be identified as primary or secondary research; whether the researcher collects the data used for analysis or uses previously published findings determines this. The different types of research produce different types of scientific reports, such as:

Primary research is data collected from the researcher, e.g., when carrying out an experiment.

For example, a laboratory produces a primary scientific psychology report.

Scientific Report, Types of data on a sheet, StudySmarter

On the other hand, secondary research is carried out using previously published research.

For example, a meta-analysis uses statistical means to combine and analyse data from similar studies.

Or, a systematic review uses a systematic approach (clearly defining variables and creating extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria to find research in databases) to gather empirical data to answer a research question.

Scientific Report: Importance

The reason why research should follow the APA recommendations for writing up psychological scientific research is that:

  • It ensures the researcher adds enough information to replicate and peer-review the study.
  • It makes it easier to read and find relevant information.
  • It ensures the report is written to a good standard.
  • It ensures any secondary research used acknowledges and credits the original author.

Scientfic Report: Writing

When conducting scientific report writing, several things must be kept in mind. A scientific report aims to help readers understand the study's procedure, findings and what this means for psychology. A scientific report should be clear and logical to make it easier to understand the research.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has created guidelines on how a scientific report should be written, including the scientific report structure and format.

APA suggests several headings for use in psychology reports. The scientific report structure and details included in the report will vary based on the researcher's experiment. However, a general framework is used as a template for research.

Scientific Report Structure

Psychology research should always start with an abstract. This section briefly summarises the whole study, typically 150-200 words. The crucial details the abstract should give include an overview of the hypothesis, sample, procedure, results, details regarding data analysis, and the conclusions drawn.

This section allows readers to read the summary and decide if the research is relevant to them.

The purpose of the introduction is to justify why the research is carried out. This is usually done by writing a literature review of relevant information to the phenomena and showing that your study will fill a gap in research.

The information described in the literature review must show how the researcher it was used to formulate and derived the hypothesis investigated.

The literature review will reflect research supporting and negating the hypothesis.

In this section, the investigated hypotheses should be reported.

The introduction should consist of a third of the psychology research report.

Scientific Report Structure: Method

The method consists of multiple subsections to ensure the report covers enough details to replicate the research. It is important to replicate investigations to identify if it is reliable. The details included in the methodology are important for peer-reviewing the quality of the study.

It allows the person peer-reviewing it to determine if the research is scientific, reliable, and valid and if it should be published in a psychological journal.

The subsections written in the methods section of a scientific report are:

State the experimental design.

State all of the (operationalised) variables investigated.

If multiple conditions are investigated, e.g., people treated for one, two, and four weeks, researchers should report it.

It is also important to note how researchers allocated participants into groups and whether they used counterbalancing methods.

The research design used, e.g., correlational research.

Counterbalancing is used to combat order effects. In some designs, participants repeat the same experiment counterbalancing techniques deal with these.

Sample/ Participants

The sampling method should be noted, e.g., opportunity.

Researchers should state the number of participants and the number of males and females participating in the study.

They should state the demographics of the participants used in the research, e.g., age (including the mean and standard deviation), ethnicity, nationality, and any other details relevant to the investigation.

Materials/Apparatus

This section should state all the relevant equipment used in the study, i.e., equipment/materials used to measure the variables, e.g., questionnaires (researchers should include a copy of this in the appendix).

Some research does not use this subsection if it does not use any specialised materials, e.g., researchers do not need to state if participants used pens or a stopwatch.

This section should describe what researchers did in the research in the order they conducted it.

They should include details about standardised instruction, informed consent, and debriefing.

This section should be concise but provide enough details so it is replicable.

This section states which ethical committee reviewed and granted the research.

It should state any ethical issues that could have occurred in the research and how researchers dealt with them.

Scientific Report Conclusion and Results

The results section is where you state your findings. This section only states what you have found and does not discuss or explain it. You can present the data found through numerical values, tables, and figures. However, there are specific guidelines on reporting data per APA guidelines when reporting or adding these.

Researchers should not use the raw data collected. Instead, it should be analysed first. The results should start with descriptive data followed by inferential statistics (the type of statistical test used to identify whether a hypothesis should be accepted or rejected).

These statistics should include effect size and significance level (p).

Researchers should report data regardless of whether it is significant or not. They should report the p-value to three decimal places but everything else to two.

After the results, the scientific report conclusion should be reported; this summarises what was found in the study.

  • The scientific report conclusion provides a less detailed summary of the study's results which is built on in the discussion section.

Scientific Report: Discussion

This section should discuss and conclude with the research results. The first thing researchers should write about in the discussion is whether the findings support the proposed hypothesis.

If the results support the hypothesis, researchers should compare the findings to previously published findings in the introduction that also found the same results.

You should add very little new research to the discussion section. If the hypothesis is not supported, the discussion should explain from research why this may be. Here, adding new research to present the findings is acceptable (perhaps another theory better explains it).

Critiquing this research, such as its strengths and weaknesses, how it contributed to the psychology field, and its next direction is essential. In the discussion, researchers should not add statistical values.

Scientific Report Example

An example of a scientific report includes any of those seen in studies, such as when a laboratory produces a primary scientific psychology report, or a meta-analysis which uses statistical means to combine and analyse data from similar studies.

The purpose of the reference section is to give credit to all the research used in writing the report. Researchers list this section in alphabetical order based on the author's last name – t he references listed need to be reported per the APA format.

Researchers use background information, e.g. data or theories from previous publications, to form hypotheses, support, criticise findings and learn how research should progress.

The two most common secondary sources used in scientific reports are findings from published journals or books.

Let's look at some scientific report examples of how books and journals should be referenced following APA guidelines.

Book : Author, initial (year of publication). Book title in italics. Publisher. DOI if available (digital object identifier).

Example: Comer, R. J. (2007). Abnormal psychology . New York: Worth Publishers.

Journal: Author, initial (year). Article title. Journal title in italics, volume number in italics , issue number, page range. DOI if available.

Example: Fjell, A. M., Walhovd, K. B., Fischl, B., & Reinvang, I. (2007). Cognitive function, P3a/P3b brain potentials, and cortical thickness in ageing. Human Brain Mapping, 28 (11), 1098-1116. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20335

Scientific Report - Key takeaways

A scientific report consists of details regarding scientists reporting what their research entailed and reporting the results and conclusions drawn from the study.

  • Researchers should write scientific psychology reports per the APA format to ensure the scientists report enough information. It makes the report easier to read and find relevant information and ensures that the original authors of the research are acknowledged and credited.
  • The scientific report structure should use the following subheadings: abstract, introduction, method (design, participants, materials, procedure and ethics), results, discussion, references and occasionally appendix, in this order.

Frequently Asked Questions about Scientific Report

--> how do you write a scientific report in psychology.

When psychologists carry out research, an essential part of the process involves reporting what the research entails and the results and conclusions drawn from the study. The American Psychological Association (APA) provides guidelines for the correct format researchers should use when writing psychology research reports.

--> How do you write a scientific introduction to a report?

It is usually done by writing a literature review of relevant information to the phenomena and showing that your study will fill a gap in research.

--> How do you structure a scientific report?

The structure of a scientific report should use the following subheadings: abstract, introduction, method (design, participants, materials, procedure and ethics), results, discussion, references and occasionally appendix, in this order. 

--> What is a scientific report?

A scientific report consists of details regarding scientists reporting what their research entailed and reporting the results and conclusions drawn from the study. 

--> What are the types of a scientific report?

Scientific reports can be primary or secondary. A primary scientific report is produced when the researchers conduct the research themselves. However, secondary scientific reports such as peer reviews, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are a type of scientific report that scientists produce when the researcher answers their proposed research question using previously published findings.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Meta-analyses and systematic reports are both examples of           research.

According to APA, six main headings should be included in a report, true or false? 

According to APA, the way to reference a book and journal is the same, true or false? 

Your score:

Smart Exams

Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Learn with 24 scientific report flashcards in the free studysmarter app.

Already have an account? Log in

What is a scientific report?

Why is scientific research reported per APA in psychology?

  • It ensures the scientists report enough information.
  • It makes the report easier to read and find relevant information.
  • It ensures the original research authors are acknowledged and credited.

How should the following book be reported per APA guidelines? The book is called Abnormal psychology, Worth Publishers published it in New York in 2007. Ronald J Comer wrote the book. 

Comer, R. J. (2007). Abnormal psychology . New York: Worth Publishers.

What structure should a scientific report follow?

The structure of a scientific report should use the following subheadings: 

  • Introduction.
  • Discussion.
  • References.
  • Occasionally appendix.

What are potential subheadings we can find in the methods section of a scientific report? 

  • Participants.

Where can readers find the hypothesis of research? 

In the abstract and introduction.

Flashcards

of the users don't pass the Scientific Report quiz! Will you pass the quiz?

How would you like to learn this content?

Free psychology cheat sheet!

Everything you need to know on . A perfect summary so you can easily remember everything.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

  • Flashcards & Quizzes
  • AI Study Assistant
  • Study Planner
  • Smart Note-Taking

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

This is still free to read, it's not a paywall.

You need to register to keep reading, start learning with studysmarter, the only learning app you need..

Illustration

Create a free account to save this explanation.

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Entdecke Lernmaterial in der StudySmarter-App

Privacy overview.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

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

How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples

Published on August 30, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

A results section is where you report the main findings of the data collection and analysis you conducted for your thesis or dissertation . You should report all relevant results concisely and objectively, in a logical order. Don’t include subjective interpretations of why you found these results or what they mean—any evaluation should be saved for the discussion section .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

How to write a results section, reporting quantitative research results, reporting qualitative research results, results vs. discussion vs. conclusion, checklist: research results, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about results sections.

When conducting research, it’s important to report the results of your study prior to discussing your interpretations of it. This gives your reader a clear idea of exactly what you found and keeps the data itself separate from your subjective analysis.

Here are a few best practices:

  • Your results should always be written in the past tense.
  • While the length of this section depends on how much data you collected and analyzed, it should be written as concisely as possible.
  • Only include results that are directly relevant to answering your research questions . Avoid speculative or interpretative words like “appears” or “implies.”
  • If you have other results you’d like to include, consider adding them to an appendix or footnotes.
  • Always start out with your broadest results first, and then flow into your more granular (but still relevant) ones. Think of it like a shoe store: first discuss the shoes as a whole, then the sneakers, boots, sandals, etc.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

example of scientific report discussion

Try for free

If you conducted quantitative research , you’ll likely be working with the results of some sort of statistical analysis .

Your results section should report the results of any statistical tests you used to compare groups or assess relationships between variables . It should also state whether or not each hypothesis was supported.

The most logical way to structure quantitative results is to frame them around your research questions or hypotheses. For each question or hypothesis, share:

  • A reminder of the type of analysis you used (e.g., a two-sample t test or simple linear regression ). A more detailed description of your analysis should go in your methodology section.
  • A concise summary of each relevant result, both positive and negative. This can include any relevant descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations ) as well as inferential statistics (e.g., t scores, degrees of freedom , and p values ). Remember, these numbers are often placed in parentheses.
  • A brief statement of how each result relates to the question, or whether the hypothesis was supported. You can briefly mention any results that didn’t fit with your expectations and assumptions, but save any speculation on their meaning or consequences for your discussion  and conclusion.

A note on tables and figures

In quantitative research, it’s often helpful to include visual elements such as graphs, charts, and tables , but only if they are directly relevant to your results. Give these elements clear, descriptive titles and labels so that your reader can easily understand what is being shown. If you want to include any other visual elements that are more tangential in nature, consider adding a figure and table list .

As a rule of thumb:

  • Tables are used to communicate exact values, giving a concise overview of various results
  • Graphs and charts are used to visualize trends and relationships, giving an at-a-glance illustration of key findings

Don’t forget to also mention any tables and figures you used within the text of your results section. Summarize or elaborate on specific aspects you think your reader should know about rather than merely restating the same numbers already shown.

A two-sample t test was used to test the hypothesis that higher social distance from environmental problems would reduce the intent to donate to environmental organizations, with donation intention (recorded as a score from 1 to 10) as the outcome variable and social distance (categorized as either a low or high level of social distance) as the predictor variable.Social distance was found to be positively correlated with donation intention, t (98) = 12.19, p < .001, with the donation intention of the high social distance group 0.28 points higher, on average, than the low social distance group (see figure 1). This contradicts the initial hypothesis that social distance would decrease donation intention, and in fact suggests a small effect in the opposite direction.

Example of using figures in the results section

Figure 1: Intention to donate to environmental organizations based on social distance from impact of environmental damage.

In qualitative research , your results might not all be directly related to specific hypotheses. In this case, you can structure your results section around key themes or topics that emerged from your analysis of the data.

For each theme, start with general observations about what the data showed. You can mention:

  • Recurring points of agreement or disagreement
  • Patterns and trends
  • Particularly significant snippets from individual responses

Next, clarify and support these points with direct quotations. Be sure to report any relevant demographic information about participants. Further information (such as full transcripts , if appropriate) can be included in an appendix .

When asked about video games as a form of art, the respondents tended to believe that video games themselves are not an art form, but agreed that creativity is involved in their production. The criteria used to identify artistic video games included design, story, music, and creative teams.One respondent (male, 24) noted a difference in creativity between popular video game genres:

“I think that in role-playing games, there’s more attention to character design, to world design, because the whole story is important and more attention is paid to certain game elements […] so that perhaps you do need bigger teams of creative experts than in an average shooter or something.”

Responses suggest that video game consumers consider some types of games to have more artistic potential than others.

Your results section should objectively report your findings, presenting only brief observations in relation to each question, hypothesis, or theme.

It should not  speculate about the meaning of the results or attempt to answer your main research question . Detailed interpretation of your results is more suitable for your discussion section , while synthesis of your results into an overall answer to your main research question is best left for your conclusion .

I have completed my data collection and analyzed the results.

I have included all results that are relevant to my research questions.

I have concisely and objectively reported each result, including relevant descriptive statistics and inferential statistics .

I have stated whether each hypothesis was supported or refuted.

I have used tables and figures to illustrate my results where appropriate.

All tables and figures are correctly labelled and referred to in the text.

There is no subjective interpretation or speculation on the meaning of the results.

You've finished writing up your results! Use the other checklists to further improve your thesis.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

  • Survivorship bias
  • Self-serving bias
  • Availability heuristic
  • Halo effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Deep learning
  • Generative AI
  • Machine learning
  • Reinforcement learning
  • Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

  • Grammar Checker
  • Paraphrasing Tool
  • Text Summarizer
  • AI Detector
  • Plagiarism Checker
  • Citation Generator

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

  • The type of analysis used
  • Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
  • Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

  • Recurring patterns
  • Significant or representative individual responses
  • Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

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 Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/results/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, what is your plagiarism score.

IMAGES

  1. Scientific report discussion Examples

    example of scientific report discussion

  2. FREE 10+ Scientific Research Report Samples in MS Word

    example of scientific report discussion

  3. 😊 Discussion of a lab report example. LabCheck : Improving your lab

    example of scientific report discussion

  4. 10 Tips: How to Write a Discussion for a Scientific Paper

    example of scientific report discussion

  5. FREE 8+ Sample Scientific Reports in PDF

    example of scientific report discussion

  6. FREE 8+ Sample Scientific Reports in PDF

    example of scientific report discussion

VIDEO

  1. Scientific Research Aid

  2. PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH METHODS 9: SECTIONS OF A SCIENTIFIC REPORT

  3. Results and Discussion

  4. Research as Scientific

  5. Research Report_group 3

  6. [SCIENCE COMMUNICATION] Scientific Report

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

    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?

  2. Research Guides: Writing a Scientific Paper: DISCUSSION

    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.

  3. How to Write a Discussion Section

    Step 1: Summarize 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 Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions about discussion sections What not to include in your discussion section

  4. How to Write a Scientific Report

    Got to document an experiment but don't know how? In this post, we'll guide you step-by-step through how to write a scientific report and provide you with an example.

  5. How To Write A Lab Report

    Method Results Discussion Conclusion Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions about lab reports Structuring a lab report The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but they usually contain the purpose, methods, and findings of a lab experiment.

  6. Scientific Reports

    Discussion: considers whether the data you obtained support the hypothesis ... For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. ... To help keep personal references out of lab reports, scientific conventions also dictated that ...

  7. PDF Discussion Section for Research Papers

    In a discussion section, the author engages in three necessary steps: interpretation, analysis, and explanation. An effective discussion section will tell a reader why the research results are important and where they fit in the current literature, while also being self-critical and candid about the shortcomings of the study.

  8. Writing a Lab Report: Introduction and Discussion Section Guide

    Download this page as a PDF: Writing a Lab Report. Return to Writing Studio Handouts. Part 1 (of 2): Introducing a Lab Report. The introduction of a lab report states the objective of the experiment and provides the reader with background information. State the topic of your report clearly and concisely (in one or two sentences).

  9. PDF Scientific Report Writing

    science or science-related degree), you may be asked to produce a science-style report. A report is the result of an investigation, experiment, or research that presents the findings in one document. You may be asked to write a short report of 1000 words, or you might undertake a research project of 20,000 words (or more).

  10. How to Write an Authoritative Scientific Discussion Section

    6. Do Pick Your Tenses Carefully. Scientific papers generally switch tenses between different sections of the paper. In the discussion section, a good rule of thumb is to stick to the past tense for describing completed actions (e.g., to summarize your findings): We measured the volumes of X and Y.

  11. LibGuides: Lab Report Writing: Discussion/Conclusion

    Test Yourself (Discussion) Which of the following is a good example of a sentence you would find in the Discussion section of a lab report? a. Ten dogs with no previous training were selected for the study. b.

  12. Guide to Writing the Results and Discussion Sections of a Scientific

    Text: to explain about the research data Figures: to display the research data and to show trends or relationships, for examples using graphs or gel pictures. Tables: to represent a large data and exact value Decide on the best way to present your data — in the form of text, figures or tables (Hofmann, 2013). Data or Results?

  13. How to Write a Strong Discussion in Scientific Manuscripts

    Example: EGFR-overexpressing cancers are highly aggressive and have a higher tendency to metastasize. Currently, available drugs specifically target the EGFR and elicit high response rates. However, the majority of patients eventually develop progressive disease. The mechanisms through which cancers escape EGFR-targeted therapies remain unclear.

  14. Writing a Scientific Paper

    Present the results of the paper, in logical order, using tables and graphs as necessary. Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the Introduction. Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained. Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed; presenting ...

  15. Formatting Science Reports

    This section describes an organizational structure commonly used to report experimental research in many scientific disciplines, the IMRAD format: Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion. Although the main headings are standard for many scientific fields, details may vary; check with your instructor, or, if submitting an article to a journal, refer to the instructions to authors.…

  16. Structuring a Science Report

    Assignment Types. Structuring a Science Report. The purpose of a scientific report is to talk the reader through an experiment or piece of research you've done where you've generated some data, the decisions you made, what you found and what it means. Lab or experimental reports in the Sciences have a very specific structure, which is often ...

  17. Write Scientific Reports

    A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem. It might also include recommendations and conclusion of the research. ... The Method should include such things as sample size, apparatus or equipment used ...

  18. The Do's & Do Not's of How To Write a Scientific Discussion

    The Do's & Do Not's of How To Write a Scientific Discussion. The part of a scientific manuscript dedicated to discussion offers the author a unique opportunity to move beyond the strict report of facts and results to in-depth interpretation of those results. The immediate goal of a scientific discussion is to explain the meaning and value ...

  19. Tips for writing a case report for the novice author

    Introduction. For many doctors and other healthcare professionals, writing a case report represents the first effort at getting articles published in medical journals and it is considered a useful exercise in learning how to write scientifically due to similarity of the basic methodology.1 Case reports aim to convey a clinical message.2,3 Despite different types of case reports, they all aim ...

  20. Scientific Report: Examples, Structure & Conclusion

    For example, a laboratory produces a primary scientific psychology report. Fig. 1 - Results are usually presented on tables, charts and graphs to make results easier to interpret. On the other hand, secondary research is carried out using previously published research. For example, a meta-analysis uses statistical means to combine and analyse ...

  21. Complete Guide to Writing a Lab Report (With Example)

    As with all forms of writing, it's not the report's length that matters, but the quality of the information conveyed within. This article outlines the important bits that go into writing a lab report (title, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion, reference). At the end is an example report of reducing sugar ...

  22. Writing scientific reports

    Scientific reports follow a specific structured format and includes a comprehensive description of technical or scientific research or experiment(s), including recommendations and a conclusion. A…

  23. How to Write a Results Section

    A two-sample t test was used to test the hypothesis that higher social distance from environmental problems would reduce the intent to donate to environmental organizations, with donation intention (recorded as a score from 1 to 10) as the outcome variable and social distance (categorized as either a low or high level of social distance) as the predictor variable.Social distance was found to ...

  24. A monumental stone plaza at 4750 B.P. in the Cajamarca Valley ...

    We report one of the earliest known circular plazas in Andean South America and one of the earliest examples of monumental, megalithic ceremonial architecture in the Americas. The example presented here is constructed of large free-standing and vertically placed megalithic stones and is located in the Cajamarca basin of the northern Peruvian Andes.