The introduction sets the standard for the rest of your speech. It’s divided into three sections: what’s known, unknown, and your burning query, hypothesis, or goal Original Research Manuscript Writing Services. Write for a general readership and keep this part brief (clear, concise, and as non-technical as you can be). How would you describe the study’s purpose and methodology to a distant colleague? Take your audience through the three processes before posing your unique question. Emphasize how your research fills in the blanks (the unknown) and clarify your research topic.
The Methods section provides a concise summary of your work. Give your audience adequate information to assess your study’s persuasiveness. As in a recipe, describe the stages you did, but don’t go into too much detail. Explain how you choose your subjects to represent if you’re undertaking qualitative research. You might wish to split it into smaller parts with subheadings, such as context: when, where, who has permission or approval, sample selection, data collection (how), follow-up, and analytic technique. Rather than discussing all the specifics, cite a reference for regularly used or previously utilized procedures in Scientific Original Research Article.
The data are summarised in the Results section. Make connections and define patterns. Avoid just repeating the numbers from the tables and figures. As far as possible, data should be kept to tables. Summarize the tables as the kind narration would; do not repeat the facts in the text. If you had a demographic table with a row of ages, and the ages of the groups were not substantially different, your reader might state, “All of the participants were 47 years old on average. The table shows that there was no significant difference between the groups.” “The mean age of group 1 was 48.6 (7.5) years, and group 2 was 46.3 (5.8) years, a non-significant difference,” is superior to “The mean age of group 1 was 48.6 (7.5) years and group 2 was 46.3 (5.8) years, a non-significant difference.”
The most flexibility is in the Discussion section. The majority of authors begin by reiterating what they accomplished. Every contributor should summarise the main points and respond to the question posed in the introduction. Concentrate on what your statistics show rather than what you anticipated they would deliver. Begin by saying “We discovered…” (or something similar) and then explain what the data means. Anticipate your audience’s inquiries and explain why your findings are significant. Then relate your results to those of other people. This is where your literature review will be helpful. Discuss how your findings corroborate or contradict the findings of previous research. Unless you’re doing a narrative or systematic review, you don’t need to include every article from your Original Research Review Article literature review in your paper or reference list. Your paper isn’t meant to be a comprehensive overview of the subject.
Don’t go too far with your findings. Finding a perceived knowledge need, for example, does not indicate that library colleges must reform their curriculum right once or that it would enhance health care and save lives and money. However, you may say “has the potential to.” Always note the restrictions that matter, not the constraints that apply to everyone. Make a list of unsolved questions and potential future directions. Give your results’ big-picture implications and explain why your audience should care. Finish your study’s significant results, and don’t deviate too far from your data. Remember to include a final take-home message and implications in your presentation. It’s worth noting that this approach lacks a distinct Conclusion section. The Discussion concludes with a conclusion. For example, consider the last paragraph of a recent NEJM article’s Discussion section.
Finally, our study did not reveal the predicted benefit [of the intervention] in patients at high risk for problems. For abstracts, however, a separate Conclusion section is frequently suitable. An Interpretation section should be included in systematic reviews. Other aspects of your study article unrelated to IMRAD include: The foundation of your content is tables and numbers, and they are the narrative’s plot. The titles, abstracts, tables, and figures are frequently the first things editors, reviewers, and readers glance at. Figures and tables should communicate a full story on their own. It should not be necessary for your readers to return to the primary material.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3zlvIxO
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Bio statistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Email: [email protected]
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353