Discussion Questions For Research Articles

[Ronald]

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

The peer review process is the quality control step in the publication of ideas. Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science". These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly.

Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section. Are the materials and methods used written clearly enough for another scientist to reproduce the experiment? Other areas they look at are: originality of research, significance of research question studied, soundness of the discussion and interpretation, correct spelling and use of technical terms, and length of the article.

The journal publishes the papers presented and a record of the questions, discussion and debate that took place at the corresponding Faraday Discussions meeting; and provides an important record of current international knowledge and opinions in the relevant field.

Faraday Discussions papers are submitted by invitation or following selection of an abstract by the scientific committee of the relevant Faraday Discussion. They are presented at a Faraday Discussion meeting, each of which covers a topic within a rapidly developing areas of physical chemistry and its interfaces. Information about the topics of upcoming meetings and the associated deadline for submitting an oral abstract can be found on our Events pages.

Oral/paper abstracts for consideration should be uploaded via the 'abstract submission' link on the relevant Event's page. Details of upcoming meetings and the associated deadline for submitting an oral/paper abstract can be found on our Events pages.

Faraday Discussions is a hybrid (transformative) journal and gives authors the choice of publishing their research either via the traditional subscription-based model or instead by choosing our gold open access option. Find out more about our Transformative Journals. which are Plan S compliant.

For authors who want to publish their article gold open access, Faraday Discussions charges an article processing charge (APC) of 2,750 (+ any applicable tax). Our APC is all-inclusive and makes your article freely available online immediately, permanently, and includes your choice of Creative Commons licence (CC BY or CC BY-NC) at no extra cost. It is not a submission charge, so you only pay if your article is accepted for publication.

Please use your official institutional email address to submit your manuscript and check you are assigned as the corresponding author; this helps us to identify if you are eligible for Read & Publish or other APC discounts.

Authors can also publish in Faraday Discussions via the traditional subscription model without needing to pay an APC. Articles published via this route are available to institutions and individuals who subscribe to the journal. Our standard licence allows you to make the accepted manuscript of your article freely available after a 12-month embargo period. This is known as the green route to open access.

Find full details about forthcoming discussions, including information on submitting an abstract, registration and the scientific programme on our Events pages or register your interest in upcoming meetings.

We welcome proposals for new Faraday Discussion meetings in rapidly developing areas of the physical sciences, with a focus on physical chemistry and its interfaces with other scientific disciplines. If you have an idea for a topic and would be willing to act as the scientific committee chair, please get in touch with the Editorial Office here to discuss the requirements.

Following the initial discussion, we will ask you to complete and submit a New Faraday Discussion Proposal Form, to enable the Faraday Standing Committee to evaluate your proposal in detail with a view to guaranteeing a high-quality meeting. As part of this process, it is common for the Committee to request revisions to your proposal.

You may submit your proposal at any time by emailing your completed form to the Secretary. While there are no official calls or rounds, the Committee meets three times per year (typically February, May and September) and will evaluate new and revised proposals received by the Secretary no less that two weeks before each committee meeting. Adhering to these deadlines and submitting revised proposals in good time will help and ensure that your proposal is evaluated promptly, and the meeting consequently takes place in a timely manner.

There is the opportunity in the form to request a date for the meeting. This should typically be two or three years out, to take account of the time required to revise the proposal, to plan the meeting once approved, and accommodate your meeting in the schedule of upcoming meetings. We typically organise between 6-10 Discussion per year, usually scheduled at least 24 months in advance. While we try to hold your meeting on your preferred dates, we reserve the right to discuss alternative dates with you.

The Spiers Memorial Award was first presented in 1929 and ran until 2020. It was awarded to an individual who made an outstanding contribution to the field of a Faraday Discussion. Each Spiers Memorial award winner acted as the introductory lecturer to a Faraday Discussion, and up to 2 awards could be awarded per calendar year.

In a nutshell, your Discussion fulfills the promise you made to readers in your Introduction. At the beginning of your paper, you tell us why we should care about your research. You then guide us through a series of intricate images and graphs that capture all the relevant data you collected during your research. We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!

As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research. The content you include in the Discussions segment should include the following information:

Begin the Discussion section by restating your statement of the problem and briefly summarizing the major results. Do not simply repeat your findings. Rather, try to create a concise statement of the main results that directly answer the central research question that you stated in the Introduction section. This content should not be longer than one paragraph in length.

Many researchers struggle with understanding the precise differences between a Discussion section and a Results section. The most important thing to remember here is that your Discussion section should subjectively evaluate the findings presented in the Results section, and in relatively the same order. Keep these sections distinct by making sure that you do not repeat the findings without providing an interpretation.

What do the results mean? It may seem obvious to you, but simply looking at the figures in the Results section will not necessarily convey to readers the importance of the findings in answering your research questions.

In addition to providing your own interpretations, show how your results fit into the wider scholarly literature you surveyed in the literature review section. This section is called the implications of the study. Show where and how these results fit into existing knowledge, what additional insights they contribute, and any possible consequences that might arise from this knowledge, both in the specific research topic and in the wider scientific domain.

All research has study limitations of one sort or another. Acknowledging limitations in methodology or approach helps strengthen your credibility as a researcher. Study limitations are not simply a list of mistakes made in the study. Rather, limitations help provide a more detailed picture of what can or cannot be concluded from your findings. In essence, they help temper and qualify the study implications you listed previously.

Study limitations can relate to research design, specific methodological or material choices, or unexpected issues that emerged while you conducted the research. Mention only those limitations directly relate to your research questions, and explain what impact these limitations had on how your study was conducted and the validity of any interpretations.

After discussing the study limitations, you can also stress that your results are still valid. Give some specific reasons why the limitations do not necessarily handicap your study or narrow its scope.

Based on your interpretation and discussion of the findings, your recommendations can include practical changes to the study or specific further research to be conducted to clarify the research questions. Recommendations are often listed in a separate Conclusion section, but often this is just the final paragraph of the Discussion section.

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Many of our medical journals accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

3a8082e126