Background A. Historical Employment Overview: Unskilled laborers in the past were frequently unionized and adequately compensated for their work cite sources. Historical Healthcare Overview: Unskilled laborers in the past were often provided adequate healthcare and benefits cite sources.
Current Link between Education and Employment Type: Increasingly, uneducated workers work in unskilled or low-skilled jobs cite sources. Gaps in the Research: Little information exists exploring the health implications of the current conditions in low-skilled jobs. Minor Point 1: Unskilled work environments are correlated highly with worker injury cite sources. Minor Point 2: Unskilled work environments rarely provide healthcare or adequate injury recovery time cite sources.
Major Point 2: Conditions of employment affect workers' mental health A. Minor Point 1: Employment in a low-skilled position is highly correlated with dangerous levels of stress cite sources.
Minor Point 2: Stress is highly correlated with mental health issues cite sources. Minor Point 1: Mental health problems and physical health problems are highly correlated cite sources.
In the end, the purpose of this section is to allow other researchers to evaluate and repeat your work. So do not run into the same problems as the writers of the sentences in 1 : 1a. Bacteria were pelleted by centrifugation. To isolate T cells, lymph nodes were collected.
As you can see, crucial pieces of information are missing: the speed of centrifuging your bacteria, the time, and the temperature in 1a ; the source of lymph nodes for collection in b. The sentences can be improved when information is added, as in 2a and 2b , respectfully: 2a. If your method has previously been published and is well-known, then you should provide only the literature reference, as in 3a.
If your method is unpublished, then you need to make sure you provide all essential details, as in 3b. Stem cells were isolated, according to Johnson . Stem cells were isolated using biotinylated carbon nanotubes coated with anti-CD34 antibodies. Furthermore, cohesion and fluency are crucial in this section. One of the malpractices resulting in disrupted fluency is switching from passive voice to active and vice versa within the same paragraph, as shown in 4.
This switching misleads and distracts the reader. Behavioral computer-based experiments of Study 1 were programmed by using E-Prime. We took ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music by using Visual Analogue Scales SI Methods. The preferred and unpreferred status of the music was operationalized along a continuum of pleasantness [ 4 ].
The problem with 4 is that the reader has to switch from the point of view of the experiment passive voice to the point of view of the experimenter active voice. This switch causes confusion about the performer of the actions in the first and the third sentences.
We programmed behavioral computer-based experiments of Study 1 by using E-Prime. We took ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal by using Visual Analogue Scales SI Methods as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music.
We operationalized the preferred and unpreferred status of the music along a continuum of pleasantness. Ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal were taken as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music by using Visual Analogue Scales SI Methods.
The preferred and unpreferred status of the music was operationalized along a continuum of pleasantness. Interestingly, recent studies have reported that the Materials and Methods section is the only section in research papers in which passive voice predominantly overrides the use of the active voice [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].
This means that while all other sections of the research paper use active voice, passive voice is still the most predominant in Materials and Methods sections.
Writing Materials and Methods sections is a meticulous and time consuming task requiring extreme accuracy and clarity. This is why when you complete your draft, you should ask for as much feedback from your colleagues as possible. Numerous readers of this section will help you identify the missing links and improve the technical style of this section. Rule 3: Be meticulous and accurate in describing the Materials and Methods.
Do not change the point of view within one paragraph. Writing Results Section For many authors, writing the Results section is more intimidating than writing the Materials and Methods section. If people are interested in your paper, they are interested in your results. That is why it is vital to use all your writing skills to objectively present your key findings in an orderly and logical sequence using illustrative materials and text.
Your Results should be organized into different segments or subsections where each one presents the purpose of the experiment, your experimental approach, data including text and visuals tables, figures, schematics, algorithms, and formulas , and data commentary. For most journals, your data commentary will include a meaningful summary of the data presented in the visuals and an explanation of the most significant findings.
This data presentation should not repeat the data in the visuals, but rather highlight the most important points. Another important aspect of this section is to create a comprehensive and supported argument or a well-researched case. This means that you should be selective in presenting data and choose only those experimental details that are essential for your reader to understand your findings. You might have conducted an experiment 20 times and collected numerous records, but this does not mean that you should present all those records in your paper.
You need to distinguish your results from your data and be able to discard excessive experimental details that could distract and confuse the reader. However, creating a picture or an argument should not be confused with data manipulation or falsification, which is a willful distortion of data and results.
If some of your findings contradict your ideas, you have to mention this and find a plausible explanation for the contradiction. In addition, your text should not include irrelevant and peripheral information, including overview sentences, as in 6. To show our results, we first introduce all components of experimental system and then describe the outcome of infections.
Indeed, wordiness convolutes your sentences and conceals your ideas from readers. One common source of wordiness is unnecessary intensifiers. Table 3 clearly shows that … 7b. It is obvious from figure 4 that … Another source of wordiness is nominalizations, i. We tested the hypothesis that there is a disruption of membrane asymmetry. In this paper we provide an argument that stem cells repopulate injured organs.
To improve your sentences, avoid unnecessary nominalizations and change passive verbs and constructions into active and direct sentences. We tested the hypothesis that the membrane asymmetry is disrupted.
In this paper we argue that stem cells repopulate injured organs. Your Results section is the heart of your paper, representing a year or more of your daily research. So lead your reader through your story by writing direct, concise, and clear sentences.
Rule 4: Be clear, concise, and objective in describing your Results. While describing your Methods and Results, many of you diverged from the original outline and re-focused your ideas. So before you move on to create your Introduction, re-read your Methods and Results sections and change your outline to match your research focus.
The updated outline will help you review the general picture of your paper, the topic, the main idea, and the purpose, which are all important for writing your introduction.
This is because it is the most important section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Take into account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are rejected because the Discussion is weak. You need to make the Discussion corresponding to the Results, but do not reiterate the results. Here you need to compare the published results by your colleagues with yours using some of the references included in the Introduction.
Never ignore work in disagreement with yours, in turn, you must confront it and convince the reader that you are correct or better. Take into account the following tips: 1. Avoid statements that go beyond what the results can support. Avoid unspecific expressions such as "higher temperature", "at a lower rate", "highly significant".
Avoid sudden introduction of new terms or ideas; you must present everything in the introduction, to be confronted with your results here. Speculations on possible interpretations are allowed, but these should be rooted in fact, rather than imagination. To achieve good interpretations think about: How do these results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section?
Do the data support your hypothesis? Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported? Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies. If your results were unexpected, try to explain why Is there another way to interpret your results?
What further research would be necessary to answer the questions raised by your results? Explain what is new without exaggerating 5. Revision of Results and Discussion is not just paper work. You may do further experiments, derivations, or simulations. Sometimes you cannot clarify your idea in words because some critical items have not been studied substantially. In some journals, it's a separate section; in others, it's the last paragraph of the Discussion section.
Whatever the case, without a clear conclusion section, reviewers and readers will find it difficult to judge your work and whether it merits publication in the journal.
A common error in this section is repeating the abstract, or just listing experimental results. Trivial statements of your results are unacceptable in this section. You should provide a clear scientific justification for your work in this section, and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate. Moreover, you can suggest future experiments and point out those that are underway. You can propose present global and specific conclusions, in relation to the objectives included in the introduction.
A good introduction should answer the following questions: What is the problem to be solved? Are there any existing solutions? Which is the best? What is its main limitation? One to fo ur paragraphs should be enough. End with a sentence explaining the specific question you asked in this experiment.
How did you answer this question? There should be enough information here to allow another scientist to repeat your experiment. Look at other papers that have been published in your field to get some idea of what is included in this section. If you had a complicated protocol, it may helpful to include a diagram, table or flowchart to explain the methods you used. Do not put results in this section. You may, however, include preliminary results that were used to design the main experiment that you are reporting on.
Mention relevant ethical considerations. If you used human subjects, did they consent to participate. If you used animals, what measures did you take to minimize pain? This is where you present the results you've gotten. Use graphs and tables if appropriate, but also summarize your main findings in the text. Do NOT discuss the results or speculate as to why something happened; t hat goes in th e Discussion. You don't necessarily have to include all the data you've gotten during the semester.
This isn't a diary. Use appropriate methods of showing data. Don't try to manipulate the data to make it look like you did more than you actually did.
If you present your data in a table or graph, include a title describing what's in the table "Enzyme activity at various temperatures", not "My results". For graphs, you should also label the x and y axes. Don't use a table or graph just to be "fancy".
If you can summarize the information in one sentence, then a table or graph is not necessary.
Temperature affects the reaction. Isolation of qwerty gene from S. If you present your data in a table or graph, include a title describing what's in the table "Enzyme activity at various temperatures", not "My results". A common error in this section is repeating the abstract, or just listing experimental results.
It is obvious from figure 4 that … Another source of wordiness is nominalizations, i.
The title should be appropriate for the intended audience. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing; pp. Is there another way to interpret your results? Number these sub-sections for the convenience of internal cross-referencing, but always taking into account the publisher's Guide for Authors. I haven't read the paper but I suspect there is something special about these properties, otherwise why would you be reporting them? Historical Employment Overview: Unskilled laborers in the past were frequently unionized and adequately compensated for their work cite sources.
They will think you have no sense of purpose. Move 2. What is its main limitation? But do not over-inflate the manuscript with too many references — it doesn't make a better manuscript! Numerous readers of this section will help you identify the missing links and improve the technical style of this section. Why is it interesting?
Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported? I know there are professors in this country who 'ligate' arteries. The erythrocytes that are in the blood contain hemoglobin. Again, check the Guide for Authors and look at the number of keywords admitted, label, definitions, thesaurus, range, and other special requests. Use verbs instead of abstract nouns Instead of: take into consideration Write: consider 2. Another revision strategy is to learn your common errors and to do a targeted search for them [ 13 ].