期刊简介
《中国听力语言康复科学杂志》简介 《中国听力语言康复科学杂志》是由中国残疾人联合会主管、中国聋儿康复研究中心主办的双月刊，也是目前我国听力语言康复领域中唯一一本国家级学术期刊。本刊以传播听力语言康复科学的新理念、新技术、新方法为宗旨，力图为行业提供全面的科技动态，为听力语言康复事业搭建良好的信息平台。 本刊内容涵盖听力语言康复科学的多个领域，设有专家笔谈、基础研究、临床研究、康复教育、康复论坛、综述、新技术与新进展、个案研究等多个特色栏目。 Introduction to Chinese Scientific Journal of Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation Chinese Scientific Journal of Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation is a bimonthly journal managed by China Disabled Persons’ Federation and sponsored by China Rehabilitation and Research Center for Deaf Children. It is by far the only national scientific journal in the field of hearing and speech rehabilitation. It aims to spread new methods, techniques and theories of hearing and speech rehabilitation, provide comprehensive technical information and build a common information platform for rehabilitation professionals and parents of hearing-impaired children. The journal covers various aspects of hearing and speech rehabilitation and has established several characteristic columns, such as Expert Forum, Basic Research, Clinical Research, Rehabilitation Education, Rehabilitation Tribune, Review, New Technology and Case Study.
如何撰写论文的讨论和结论部分，以提升SCI审稿通过率300%？（附例句模板）
时间：2024-07-15 11:13:54
SCI论文中的讨论部分该怎么写？
确实，要写好讨论部分并非易事。它需要你将研究结果与已知文献结论进行深入的对比分析，这无疑需要丰富的知识积累。讨论部分的真正目的，是通过这种对比分析，凸显你的研究的创新性和合理性。
在正式撰写讨论之前，你可以问自己以下6个问题，以确保逻辑自洽，讨论的全面深入：
我的假设是正确的吗？
如果我的假设只是部分正确，或者与已发表的文献结论完全不同，那么从我的结果中实际能推断出什么结论？
先前的研究对该主题已有哪些发现？我的结论如何改变或补充了该领域的现有知识？
为什么我的结果对该领域很重要？这些结果是否为科学共识增添了新的证据，或者反驳了先前的研究？
在我的研究基础上，未来的研究将如何进行？哪些关键实验是必须要进行的？
你最希望给读者留下哪个结论点的深刻印象？
关于讨论部分的框架结构：
通常，首段会再次总结论文的主要结果，并强调其意义。紧接着的2-5段，会结合已知文献逐一讨论对比每个结果，无论是相似还是相反，都会分析其原因。最后，会讨论本研究的局限性和优势。而在结论（Conclusion）部分，会再次总结本研究的主要贡献及意义。
讨论部分容易犯的错误有以下四点：
引入结果部分没有提到的新结论或证据。记住，讨论部分提到的所有结果必须在“结果（Results）”部分已经呈现过，不能在讨论部分引入新的结论。
对局限性或负面结果避而不谈。局限性和负面结果能让读者了解你的研究课题的全貌，是对你论文结果未涉及部分或不完美部分的有益补充，审稿人也会很关注这部分内容。
“局限性（Limitations）”部分的撰写推翻了你的方法或结果部分的陈述。即使你的研究存在重大局限性，也不能以己之矛攻己之盾，推翻你自己的结果，否则论文将很难站得住脚。
夸大你的研究的重要性。对于你的研究如何充分解决重大问题做出过于宏大的陈述，会引起审稿人和读者的质疑。毕竟学术研究还是更提倡实事求是，有凭有据。
以下是一些讨论部分的例句模板：
总结本研究结果：
This study has identified …
The research has also shown that …
These experiments confirmed that …
This study has found that generally …
The investigation of X has shown that …
和以往研究进行对比分析：
支持过往研究结果：
This study confirms that X is associated with …
This finding is consistent with that of Smith (2000) who …
Comparison of the findings with those of other studies confirms …
This also accords with our earlier observations, which showed that …
These results corroborate the findings of a great deal of the previous work in …
In accordance with the present results, previous studies have demonstrated that …
Consistent with the literature, this research found that participants who reported using X also …
和过往研究结果相反：
This study has been unable to demonstrate that …
However, this result has not previously been described.
This outcome is contrary to that of Smith et al. (2001) who found …
This finding is contrary to previous studies which have suggested that …
In contrast to earlier findings, however, no evidence of X was detected.
The yields in this investigation were higher compared to those of other studies.
However, the findings of the current study do not support the previous research.
讨论本研究的局限性：
This current study is limited by the absence of …/the possible effect of …/the fact that it only surveyed …/by the fact that it was restricted to …
The most important limitation lies in the fact that …
The main weakness of this study was the paucity of …
未来研究展望：
A further study with more focus on X is therefore suggested.
There is abundant room for further progress in determining …
Future studies on the current topic are therefore recommended.
Further work is needed to develop reliable analytical methods for …
To develop a full picture of X, additional studies will be needed that …
In future investigations, it might be possible to use a different X in which …