以下内容首发于微信公众号：【埃米编辑SCI论文润色】。关注微信公众号，写作投稿更容易~如有论文润色需求，可以联系我们哦~

审稿人最忍不了的Discussion写作雷区就是：重复Results凑字数、再次叙述文章背景、扩大实验结论之类的问题。

作为论文编辑公司，我们在实际润色工作中，也确实遇到很多这种案例，讨论写的根本就不是讨论该写的内容。

1 讨论部分常见写法

先概括结果，然后比较前人在这方面的结果的异同，最后写你的发现和意义。

先突出结果，然后给出合理的理由，最后陈述已发表的相关结果支持你的数据。

以主流理论或共识为切入点，分析本研究与他人结果的差异，最后提出未来的研究方向。

2 讨论部分写作禁区

1） 重复结果

在讨论部分很多科研人员喜欢放结果，这是不行的。因为结果部分有专门的地方阐述，而讨论部分应该针对结果进行深度分析，而不应该重复说明数据结果。

2）避免再次叙述文章背景

很多研究人员不仅在文章Introduction部分撰写文章背景和研究进展，而且喜欢在Discussion的开头再次叙述文章的背景，整篇文章就会比较混乱。讨论部分不宜重新展开Introduction的内容，除非极简回顾能帮助引出结果讨论。

3）不能扩大实验结论

很多研究者喜欢把动物实验的资料和结果推论到人身上，这是毫无根据的。讨论部分虽然允许有主观成分出现，但是绝对不能出现毫无实验支持的推论，这样会误导临床。

4）避免夸张的语言

例如：This drug will safely cure all patients with that disease.作为审稿人，我一定会质疑“你在全部患者身上都用过吗”“它是0副作用吗？”

讨论部分的语言应谨慎、基于证据，避免做出过度承诺或绝对性判断。

5）避免过多谦虚的词语

Possibly, Maybe, Perhaps这些如果在推论里面出现，是可以接受的。但是如果整个Discussion部分全是该类词，会让人感觉文章价值不高，都是不确定的发言。

6）避免泛泛而谈

讨论部分应围绕具体数据和研究发现展开分析，避免空泛的陈述或自我吹捧。

3 SCI论文Discussion写作技巧

1）总结主要发现

在讨论的开头，简洁明了地总结你的研究发现，强调核心结果的意义，避免重复详细数据或过度解释。

Our study found that treatment X significantly improved the outcome Y compared to the control group. This suggests that X has a substantial effect on Y, which aligns with our hypothesis but differs from previous studies suggesting no significant effect.

2）解释主要的研究结果并进行合理推论

总结研究发现之后，需要给出关键实验结果的合理解释。

The observed increase in compressive strength with elevated curing temperature can be attributed to the enhanced rate of geopolymerization. At higher temperatures, the activation energy required for the dissolution of aluminosilicate sources is reduced, leading to a faster reaction between the precursor and the alkaline activator. This accelerated reaction promotes the formation of a more compact and denser microstructure, which improves the material's mechanical strength.

3）与前人文献对比

如果支持前人的结论，需要说明在前人结论里拓展了什么，如果和前人结论不同，需要解释为什么不同。

支持前人的结论：

This result aligns with previous findings by Smith et al. (2018), who also observed that the compressive strength of geopolymer materials increased with higher curing

temperatures. Our study expands on their conclusions by demonstrating that the strength improvement is even more pronounced at temperatures above 80℃, where the microstructure becomes significantly denser.

不支持前人的结论：

This result contrasts with the conclusions drawn by Jones et al. (2016), who reported a continuous increase in compressive strength with longer curing times. Our findings suggest that the strength stabilized after 24 hours, and extending the curing time to 48 hours did not yield significant improvements. This discrepancy could be due to the higher curing temperature (80℃) used in our study, compared to the 60℃ used by Jones et al., which may have accelerated the geopolymerization process, causing the reaction to stabilize earlier, Additionally, the raw materials used in our study contained higher concentrations of reactive silicates and aluminates, which may have led to faster and more complete reactions, rendering extended curing time less beneficial.

4）讨论研究的局限性（不重要）

客观地讨论研究的局限性，包括方法学限制、样本量问题或其他潜在偏差，并提供改进建议。

One limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the study was conducted in a single setting, which might not reflect the broader population. Future research should include larger and more diverse samples to validate these results.

5）提出未来研究方向（一两句话）

基于当前研究的发现和局限性，提出未来研究的建议，明确新的研究方向或改进方法。

Future research should explore the long-term effects of treatment X on Y in different populations to confirm our findings. Additionally, investigating the underlying mechanisms in more detail could provide a clearer understanding of how X impacts Y.

扫描下方二维码，关注【埃米编辑SCI论文润色】微信公众号，获取更多SCI论文写作资料，回复“礼包”，免费领取100+写作投稿资料包和投稿问题30问。

参考资料：

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158505000494?via%3Dihub

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4548568/