Provide a basic synthesis of everything stated before. While rephrasing your topic and thesis statement , try to connect them logically so that your conclusion will sound like a coherent single thought rather than a bunch of random ideas. Keep things together The best structure for a research paper includes an introduction and a conclusion which are linked to each other.
When the whole paper is done, restate this question in the conclusion, and provide a clear answer. You can do it in the conclusion section. We suggest using the same images and concepts in both sections. Logic is important Sometimes your paper may contain many different or even opposite points. The conclusion is a perfect place to form a single clear opinion on your issue. While restating your thesis statement, tell your readers whether you still believe it or results of the research pushed you to change your opinion.
If it seems impossible to give a clear answer now, tell your readers what further research is needed, or what actions may help answer this question in the future. Ask readers to draw their own conclusions Another way to create an impressive conclusion is to ask your readers instead of providing them with answers. However, note that such a creative approach may be inappropriate for some kinds of research papers.
Restate a key statistic, fact, or visual image to emphasize the ultimate point of your paper. If your discipline encourages personal reflection, illustrate your concluding point with a relevant narrative drawn from your own life experiences. Return to an anecdote, an example, or a quotation that you presented in your introduction, but add further insight derived from the findings of your study; use your interpretation of results to recast it in new or important ways.
Provide a "take-home" message in the form of a strong, succinct statement that you want the reader to remember about your study. Problems to Avoid Failure to be concise Your conclusion section should be concise and to the point. Conclusions that are too lengthy often have unnecessary information in them. The conclusion is not the place for details about your methodology or results.
Although you should give a summary of what was learned from your research, this summary should be relatively brief, since the emphasis in the conclusion is on the implications, evaluations, insights, and other forms of analysis that you make. Strategies for writing concisely can be found here. Failure to comment on larger, more significant issues In the introduction, your task was to move from the general [the field of study] to the specific [the research problem].
However, in the conclusion, your task is to move from a specific discussion [your research problem] back to a general discussion [i. In short, the conclusion is where you should place your research within a larger context [visualize your paper as an hourglass--start with a broad introduction and review of the literature, move to the specific analysis and discussion, conclude with a broad summary of the study's implications and significance].
Failure to reveal problems and negative results Negative aspects of the research process should never be ignored. Problems, drawbacks, and challenges encountered during your study should be summarized as a way of qualifying your overall conclusions.
If you encountered negative or unintended results [i. Failure to provide a clear summary of what was learned In order to be able to discuss how your research fits back into your field of study [and possibly the world at large], you need to summarize briefly and succinctly how it contributes to new knowledge or a new understanding about the research problem.
This element of your conclusion may be only a few sentences long. Failure to match the objectives of your research Often research objectives in the social sciences change while the research is being carried out.
This is not a problem unless you forget to go back and refine the original objectives in your introduction. As these changes emerge they must be documented so that they accurately reflect what you were trying to accomplish in your research [not what you thought you might accomplish when you began]. Resist the urge to apologize If you've immersed yourself in studying the research problem, you presumably should know a good deal about it, perhaps even more than your professor!
Nevertheless, by the time you have finished writing, you may be having some doubts about what you have produced. Repress those doubts! Don't undermine your authority by saying something like, "This is just one approach to examining this problem; there may be other, much better approaches that Assan, Joseph. College Writing Center at Meramec. Louis Community College; Conclusions.
Introductions and Conclusions. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. 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? What do you hope to achieve? Editors like to see that you have provided a perspective consistent with the nature of the journal. You need to introduce the main scientific publications on which your work is based, citing a couple of original and important works, including recent review articles.
However, editors hate improper citations of too many references irrelevant to the work, or inappropriate judgments on your own achievements. They will think you have no sense of purpose. Here are some additional tips for the introduction: Never use more words than necessary be concise and to-the-point. Don't make this section into a history lesson.
Long introductions put readers off. We all know that you are keen to present your new data. But do not forget that you need to give the whole picture at first. The introduction must be organized from the global to the particular point of view, guiding the readers to your objectives when writing this paper.
State the purpose of the paper and research strategy adopted to answer the question, but do not mix introduction with results, discussion and conclusion. Always keep them separate to ensure that the manuscript flows logically from one section to the next.
Hypothesis and objectives must be clearly remarked at the end of the introduction. Expressions such as "novel," "first time," "first ever," and "paradigm-changing" are not preferred. Use them sparingly. Together with the title, it's the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without reading the whole article. Avoid using jargon, uncommon abbreviations and references. You must be accurate, using the words that convey the precise meaning of your research.
The abstract provides a short description of the perspective and purpose of your paper. It gives key results but minimizes experimental details.
A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered. However, the abstracts must be keep as brief as possible. Just check the 'Guide for authors' of the journal, but normally they have less than words.
Here's a good example on a short abstract. In an abstract, the two whats are essential. Here's an example from an article I co-authored in Ecological Indicators : What has been done?
In this contribution, 38 different applications including six new case studies hypoxia processes, sand extraction, oil platform impacts, engineering works, dredging and fish aquaculture are presented.
But do not forget that you need to give the whole picture at first. What is its main limitation? How do you know if you are doing too much or not enough? The readers of a scientific paper read the abstract for two purposes: to decide whether they want to acquire and read the full paper, and to prepare themselves for the details presented in that paper. However, editors hate improper citations of too many references irrelevant to the work, or inappropriate judgments on your own achievements.
Also, introduce any acronyms the first time you use them in the abstract if needed , and do so again in the full paper see Mechanics: Using abbreviations. In other words, resist the temptation to repeat material from the Introduction just to make the Conclusion longer under the false belief that a longer Conclusion will seem more impressive. Thus, an effective abstract focuses on motivation and outcome; in doing so, it parallels the paper's Introduction and Conclusion. Avoid using jargon, uncommon abbreviations and references. If you feel you must explain recent achievements in much detail — say, in more than one or two paragraphs — consider moving the details to a section titled State of the art or something similar after the Introduction, but do provide a brief idea of the actual situation in the Introduction. If you feel you cannot or need not do more than list items, consider using a table or perhaps a schematic diagram rather than a paragraph of text.
Papers reporting something other than experiments, such as a new method or technology, typically have different sections in their body, but they include the same Introduction and Conclusion sections as described above. Explain what is new without exaggerating 5. Long introductions put readers off.
Scientific papers use paraphrases and summaries often but not direct quotations. But do not over-inflate the manuscript with too many references — it doesn't make a better manuscript! If you feel you cannot or need not do more than list items, consider using a table or perhaps a schematic diagram rather than a paragraph of text. It is true that now they are less used by journals because you can search the whole text. This is not a problem unless you forget to go back and refine the original objectives in your introduction. This reduces the impact of the argument s you have developed in your essay.
Take into account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are rejected because the Discussion is weak. Relate the problem to a theory. You can use any software, such as EndNote or Mendeley , to format and include your references in the paper.