Introduction and literature review
An introduction should narrow from a defined context to a research problem that the study can address. Avoid claiming that no research exists unless the search supports that conclusion. A useful gap is specific: a population has not been studied, methods produce inconsistent estimates, a mechanism remains uncertain, or evidence does not cover an important setting.
A literature review should synthesise rather than catalogue. Group sources by question, theory, method, finding, or limitation. Make the basis of comparison explicit and ensure that a citation supports the proposition attached to it. Use Academic Writing for stance and synthesis guidance.
Methods and results
Methods should document decisions needed to understand or reproduce the analysis. State the design, sample, measures, procedures, exclusions, and model choices with enough precision for the discipline. Results should report the estimate, direction, uncertainty, and relevant comparison. Keep interpretation distinguishable from observation unless the venue expects an integrated format.
When a result is null or uncertain, describe what the data do and do not rule out. Do not use absence of statistical significance as proof of equivalence. See Scientific Writing for causal and design checks.
Discussion and conclusion
Begin the discussion with an answer to the research question at the strength supported by the analysis. Relate the finding to prior work, consider plausible explanations, state limitations that affect interpretation, and distinguish local implications from general claims. A conclusion should consolidate the bounded contribution rather than introduce stronger language.
Use the Phrase Explorer for limitation, interpretation, comparison, and contribution patterns. Review the evidence requirement on every candidate.
Reviewer responses
Respond to the substance of a comment before defending wording. State what changed, where it changed, and how the revision addresses the concern. If you disagree, identify the point of agreement, explain the methodological or conceptual reason, and offer a bounded revision where possible. Never claim to have added an analysis, citation, or result that is not present in the manuscript.