Translate this page into:
Writing an effective discussion section in a manuscript
*Corresponding author: Subitha Lakshminarayanan, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India. subitha.l@gmail.com
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
How to cite this article: Lakshminarayanan S, Krishna N. Writing an effective discussion section in a manuscript. CosmoDerma. 2025;5:118. doi: 10.25259/CSDM_153_2025
INTRODUCTION
The main outcome of writing an academic paper is to shine light on the new outcomes of the research in a particular setting and to validate them with the corresponding peer research work. While writing a research paper as per the scientific format “IMRaD” (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), the final “Discussion” section, which is usually the least structured part, conveys to the readers, in simple terms, “what it all means.” It provides the readers with an insight into what has already been done, what is newly done, and what could be done further. The discussion section in the article serves as a critical component where the researchers interpret the results, place them within the existing scientific knowledge, highlight their significance to policymakers, and pave the way for future research.[1]
A manuscript with an effective discussion can only be crafted when the author has a deep understanding of results, vast knowledge of relevant literature, and can delineate complex ideas into simple and clear words. The art of writing the discussion section in a research paper is very tedious, considering the amount of information that has to be written in a few paragraphs. It stems from the motivation and perseverance to enhance one’s own academic vigor, which one could inculcate as a habit of allocating time for writing regularly.[2] This article provides structured guidance for writing the discussion section in a manuscript, based on existing guidelines and best practices, to craft an informative and impactful discussion.
STRUCTURE OF DISCUSSION
In the discussion section, the author mainly tries to engage readers, provoke critical ideas, and establish the relevance of the research. Conventionally, the discussion section is organized as a “specific to general” framework with an “inverted funnel” approach.[3] In this article, we would like to introduce a new framework for structuring discussion – seven “C”s for effective discussion writing [Figure 1] – namely, Context, Concise, Compare, Clarify, Connect, Critique, and Conclude.
- The seven “C”s framework for writing the discussion section.
Usually divided into seven major sections, namely the introductory “Context” section briefing the relevance of the topic followed by the “Concise” section with a brief summary, the “Compare” section concerning the context of previous literature and new research findings, the “Clarify” section reasoning out the interesting results, the “Connect” section linking the findings with implications for practice, policy, and directions of the research, the “Critique” section with the strengths and limitations, and finally, the “Conclude” section.
The “Context” section
The discussion part of a manuscript usually begins with a few sentences on the importance of the topic or the scientific gap, which might help the reader get excited about the upcoming “Concise” section. This context section can also explain how the gap in the existing literature was fulfilled through the study.
• Examples: “The study aimed to…, but previous similar setting studies found…,” “The current study identified,” etc.
The “Concise” section
The discussion part continues with a summary paragraph, where the author should resonate the main results with the introduction and research objectives. However, the summary section should never repeat the introduction nor the objectives; instead, focus on the most important findings of the study without repeating results in excessive detail. By summarizing the results, one should make sure to connect them with the research hypothesis.
• Examples: “The finding suggests that,” “The results highlight a connection between,” “Our study indicates a correlation between A and B,” etc.
The “Compare” section
As the discussion proceeds further, the focus shifts from summarizing study findings to comparing and contrasting previous studies. The easiest way to achieve it is to prioritize the significant findings and compare each with previous studies. It is best to follow the order of results as it was and possibly interpret the major findings among them. This “no man’s area” needs a lot of attention and detail, as it can decide whether readers’ inquisitiveness about your findings could be satiated. All novel findings need to be presented if pertinent literature exists, irrespective of a parallel or disputable result. Whereas, in comparison to the results, the discussion part should not be quantitative, but more deductive and clinically focused. The authors should make sure that the discussion section brings in the potential biological plausibility, the scientific mechanisms, along with their ties to the other intertwined branches of science. This addition provides the manuscript with an edge over the strength of the study.[4]
• Examples: “A similar study conducted in…also found,” “In contrast to our findings,” “The research provides new evidence regarding,” “While these studies found so and so, our results found a striking difference,” etc.
The “Clarify” section
This section helps readers to transition smoothly between the “compare” section and the “connect” section. This section provides authors with the opportunity to clarify ambiguous, counterintuitive, or complex results and discuss the surprising or conflicting observations. The section could provide insights into why specific results were observed or did not fit expected patterns, offering potential explanations or hypotheses that enhance understanding. For most readers, some interesting results become even more insightful when logical reasons or mechanisms behind them are provided. It also provides mechanistic insights, contextual factors, or plausible interpretations that help the reader appreciate the complexity of the findings without misinterpretation.
• Examples: “An important consideration that helps clarify the result is…,” “This could possibly due to…,” “One possible reason could be…,” “This surprising finding may be attributed to…,” etc.
The “Connect” section
The next section can build on the practical implications of the study in the current research domain, with respect to the population or setting covered. It should also navigate through the associated state or national policies and existing relevant health programs, in turn building a broader outreach for the current research study. The author could point out how the study acknowledges the future scope of studies and policies, which could be either prospective or retrospective. The author should also provide alternative approaches for future studies. This should create curiosity among the readers to be interested in the research. This section should also emphasize whether the study is feasible or even needed in a subset of the population or area.[5]
• Examples: “The research could be further diversified into,” “The current research has broader implications like,” etc.
The “Critique” section
The section navigates further to possible strengths, limitations, and biases acknowledged by the author. This section is tricky for many new researchers, as they may not feel the need or may have overlooked the possible bias encountered during the study. However, the credibility of the researcher is enhanced when they acknowledge the study limitations, especially any kind of bias with both direction and magnitude. It also helps in answering some of the possible questions asked by the journal or editorial reviewers. The limitations can be theoretical, methodological, analytical, ethical, or empirical, and could be specific to design, methodology, research process, or even unexpected problems that occurred during the research. The author should always discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results. In addition, the author can explicitly state whether any of the limitations have affected the validity and generalizability of research findings.[6]
• Examples: “There are limitations in the study, such as,” “The first limitation of the study is,” “The author hereby acknowledges the limitations of the study like,” etc.
The “Conclude” section
The final section may conclude your whole discussion effectively and clearly. The author clearly should state all the fulfilled objectives of the research in this paragraph. It should also conclude the story of “what it all means” through a justified, clear, and comprehensible solution to the initial research question. It is followed by a few recommendations for the policymakers and respective stakeholders regarding plausible action plans and further research. The discussion should conclude with a clear take-home message.
• Examples: “The study thus concludes that the,” “The study recommends the ……for policy makers,” “The take-home message from the conclusion is,” etc.
While drafting manuscripts, the author should ensure to adhere to common reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT.[7,8] The key elements to be included in the discussion section are mentioned in Table 1. In addition, a few technical writing tips to proceed with the discussion section are mentioned below:
As the initial step, the author should always stay only within the journal-specific formats for guidelines and word limits.
The present tense could be used most of the time, and try to avoid using multiple tenses throughout the paper, especially in the discussion.
Try focusing on maintaining the flow of the article across your discussion for clarity and coherence. Use clear and concise language by avoiding jargon and complex sentences.
Discuss the key findings in a precise and crisp manner to avoid distracting readers with lengthy texts. The total discussion section should be approximately 30–40% of the whole paper and could ideally include five to eight paragraphs.
Cite relevant literature through recent and peer-reviewed journals to support your interpretations and claims.
Be cautious with your claims, as they should not overstate the conclusions. The author should try to convey uncertainty wherever needed by trying to use terms such as “suggest,” “indicate,” or “may.”
Do not introduce new information in the discussion section that was not present in the results section, or rewrite the results.
Do not give percentages or numbers in the discussion section, which may confuse the readers.
Do not state “more research is needed,” rather give clear direction for future research.
Always provide a clear take-home message in the conclusion section.
Always try to follow an iterative mechanism throughout the drafting process, and refine your discussion multiple times to ensure clarity.
Finally, never shy away from taking help. A pre-peer review process would go a long way to get adequate perceptions and feedback regarding the draft manuscript.
| STROBE Guidelines | ||
| Item | Item No | Recommendation |
| Key results | 18 | Summarize key results with reference to study objectives |
| Limitations | 19 | Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias |
| Interpretation | 20 | Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence |
| Generalizability | 21 | Discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results |
| CONSORT Guidelines | ||
| Interpretation | 29 | Interpretation consistent with results, balancing benefits and harms, and considering other relevant evidence |
| Limitations | 30 | Trial limitations, addressing sources of potential bias, imprecision, generalizability, and, if relevant, multiplicity of analyses |
CONCLUSION
The discussion section in a manuscript should summarize the key findings in clear and concise language. The seven “C”s framework helps ensure a logical flow that helps guide the readers regarding the interpretation of the results. The section should be able to interpret, not repeat the findings, in light of the available evidence. It also scientifically explains the study in different contexts through an analytical lens. A well-thought-out discussion could redefine a simple “manuscript story” into a fine-tuned “research script.”
Ethical approval:
Institutional Review Board approval is not required.
Declaration of patient consent:
Patient’s consent is not required as there are no patients in this study.
Conflicts of interest:
There are no conflicts of interest.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:
The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript, and no images were manipulated using AI.
Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.
References
- How to write a discussion section? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):20-4.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- How we write a manuscript discussion. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023;7:102267.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tips to write the discussion in a thesis: From analysis to synthesis. CosmoDerma. 2024;4:29.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Discussion. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;17:e95415.
- [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Essential guide to manuscript writing for academic dummies: An editor's perspective. Biochem Res Int. 2022;2022:1492058.
- [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Checklists. Available from: https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 21]
- [Google Scholar]
- Available from: https://www.consort-spirit.org [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 21]