hfbHealth, Food & BiotechnologyHealth, Food & Biotechnology2712-7648РОСБИОТЕХ10.36107/hfb.2021.i3.s127hfb-127Research ArticleРЕДАКТОРСКАЯ СТАТЬЯEDITORIALДискуссия в контексте эмпирической статьиDiscussion Section in Research Articles: Content and Structurehttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-6150ТихоноваЕлена ВикторовнаTikhonovaElena V.etihonova@mgupp.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0328-3109КосычеваМарина АлександровнаKosychevaMarina A.kosychevama@mgupp.ruМосковский государственный университет пищевых производствРоссияMoscow State University of Food ProductionRussian FederationФГБОУ ВО "Московский государственный университет пищевых производств"РоссияMoscow State University of Food ProductionRussian Federation20210401202233127Copyright © Тихонова Е.В., Косычева М.А., 20222022Тихонова Е.В., Косычева М.А.Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.hfb-mgupp.com/jour/article/view/127

Анализируются подходы к созданию эффективной секции «Дискуссия» эмпирической статьи. Акцентируется необходимость восприятия секции как площадки для информирования читателя о вкладе авторов статьи в существующее знание на тему. Вторым важным аспектом формирования успешной дискуссии по теме является формулирование заключения о значимости полученных результатов и указании ограничений исследований, которые могут повлиять на применимость результатов в реальной практике. На примерах раскрываются особенности интерпретации полученных результатов. Представлен чек-лист для отслеживания структурной целостности секции, предлагаются идеи для оптимизации контента секции.

 

Approaches to creating an efficient Discussion section in research articles are analyzed. The necessity of perceiving the section as a platform for informing the reader about the authors’ contribution to the existing knowledge on the topic is emphasized. The content functionality of each section of the manuscript is a strategically significant step that increases the visibility of the published article. The author's ability to substantiate the significance of the results obtained in comparison with the data of previously published studies, understanding and commenting on the limitations of his own research indicate the levels of the author's expertise in the topic. The examples reveal the main accents of the successful Discussion section. A checklist for tracking the structural integrity of the section is presented, ideas for optimizing the content of the section are proposed.

дискуссияинтерпретация результатовобсуждение результатовсравнение результатовэффективная дискуссиячек-листdiscussioninterpretation of resultsdiscussion of resultscomparison of resultsefficient discussioncheck-listReferencesАвакова, М. Л., & Будняя, О. Н. (2020). Метадискурсивные маркеры как средства реализации категории убеждения в англоязычном судебном дискурсе. Мир науки, культуры, образования, 4(83), 465-467. https://doi.org/10.24411/1991-5497-2020-00832Авакова, М. Л., & Будняя, О. Н. (2020). Метадискурсивные маркеры как средства реализации категории убеждения в англоязычном судебном дискурсе. Мир науки, культуры, образования, 4(83), 465-467. https://doi.org/10.24411/1991-5497-2020-00832Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross- linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross- linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2021). Move-step structure of the results and discussion section of electronic engineering research articles written by Chinese and Thai researchers. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(4), 725−739. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2104725GGao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2021). Move-step structure of the results and discussion section of electronic engineering research articles written by Chinese and Thai researchers. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 9(4), 725−739. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2104725GHyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889- 4906(96)00038-5Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889- 4906(96)00038-5Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346- 251X(02)00050-7Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346- 251X(02)00050-7Pérez-Domínguez, I., del Prado, A., Mittenzwei, K., Hristov, J., Frank, S., Tabeau, A., Witzke, P., Havlik, P., van Meijl, H., Lynch, J., Stehfest, E., Pardo, G., Barreiro-Hurle, J., Koopman, J. F. L., & Sanz-Sánchez, M. J. (2021). Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets. Nature Food, 2, 970–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00385-8Pérez-Domínguez, I., del Prado, A., Mittenzwei, K., Hristov, J., Frank, S., Tabeau, A., Witzke, P., Havlik, P., van Meijl, H., Lynch, J., Stehfest, E., Pardo, G., Barreiro-Hurle, J., Koopman, J. F. L., & Sanz-Sánchez, M. J. (2021). Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets. Nature Food, 2, 970–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00385-8Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Zanina, E. (2016). Strategic hedging: A comparative study of Methods, Results and Discussion (and Conclusion) sections of research articles in English and Russian. Journal of Language and Education, 2(2), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2016-2-2-52-60Zanina, E. (2016). Strategic hedging: A comparative study of Methods, Results and Discussion (and Conclusion) sections of research articles in English and Russian. Journal of Language and Education, 2(2), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2016-2-2-52-60

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.