Research Paper Writing Series — Module 2
From Experimental Data to Results and Discussion
A Problem-Solving Guide for Students and Early-Career Researchers.
Author & Academic Lead
Dr. Rolly Verma, PhD (Applied Physics, BIT Mesra)
Founder, AdvanceMaterialsLab.com
Materials Characterization & Research Methodology
In the previous module, we explored how the IMRAD framework provides a structured foundation for organizing scientific reasoning into a formal research manuscript. The module explained how research objectives guide the structure of the introduction, how experimental methods support reproducibility, and how the results and discussion sections serve as the intellectual core of the paper rather than merely descriptive elements.
The present module builds directly on this foundation. While Module 1 addressed structural logic, this module focuses on analytical logic — the transformation of measurements, graphs, and numerical outputs into scientifically justified claims, physical mechanisms, and defensible interpretations suitable for peer review.
In materials science, most manuscripts are not rejected because experiments were poorly designed, but because data were poorly interpreted and weakly argued. Editors and reviewers look for a clear intellectual transition between what was measured and what is scientifically claimed. This module focuses on one central academic problem:
How can a researcher transform raw experimental outputs into a scientifically defensible narrative that demonstrates mechanism, significance, and reliability?
The objective is not increased volume, but increased analytical precision and logical continuity.
By the end of this module, the reader should be able to:
- Clearly differentiate between the results and discussion sections in a materials science manuscript
- Transform raw experimental data into publication-ready figures and tables
- Develop mechanistic explanations grounded in fundamental physical principles
- Identify and avoid common logical and ethical pitfalls that attract reviewer criticism
- Establish scientifically sound links between structure, processing, and material properties
Table of Contents
Section 1 — Understanding the Scientific Role of “Results” vs “Discussion”
A common issue in manuscripts by early-career researchers and students is the tendency to blend explanation into the results section or to restate results in the discussion without providing meaningful interpretation.
The Core Academic Distinction
Section | Scientific Purpose | Key Question It Answers |
Results | Report experimentally verified findings | What did you measure or observe? |
Discussion | Interpret and explain those observations | Why did this happen and what does it mean? |
Most high-impact materials science journals follow a clear conceptual distinction between the Results and Discussion sections, and they evaluate manuscripts based on how effectively this separation is maintained.
Results are expected to present experimental outcomes in an objective and reproducible manner. This section should focus on what was observed and measured, supported by well-labelled figures, tables, and statistical indicators. Interpretation is kept to a minimum, limited to clarifying what each dataset represents and how the measurements were obtained, so that another researcher could independently reproduce the same observations under similar conditions.
Discussion, in contrast, is where scientific reasoning is developed. Here, the findings are examined in terms of underlying physical and chemical mechanisms, compared with prior literature, and evaluated against existing theoretical models. This section should explain why the observed behaviour occurs, how it advances current understanding, and what implications it has for material structure, processing conditions, and functional properties.
Section 2 — From Raw Data to Scientific Evidence
Step 1: Validation Before Visualization
Before creating figures or tables, confirm:
- Instrument calibration status
- Baseline correction methods
- Noise filtering approach
- Sample-to-sample reproducibility
Reviewers often request raw data when graphical trends appear unusually smooth or inconsistent with experimental conditions.
Step 2: Identify the Scientific Variable
Each figure should be designed to address a single, well-defined scientific variable or relationship. The purpose of the figure is not merely to display data, but to provide a clear answer to one specific research question.
For example, a figure may be structured to examine how grain size influences dielectric constant, how polarization switching varies with applied electric field, or how annealing temperature affects carrier mobility. In each case, the independent variable (such as grain size, electric field, or temperature) should be clearly distinguished from the dependent response being measured.
When a single figure attempts to address multiple scientific questions, the interpretation becomes unclear and can weaken the logical flow of the manuscript. In such cases, the data should be separated into multiple figures, each focused on one variable and one scientific relationship, to preserve clarity, reproducibility, and analytical rigor.
Section 3 — Constructing Publication-Quality Figures
A publication-quality figure is not a visual supplement but a compressed scientific argument. It must accurately represent experimental data, communicate the underlying scientific question, and directly support a claim made in the Results or Discussion section. Reviewers often assess figures before reading the manuscript, making figure quality a primary indicator of experimental reliability and analytical rigor.
Every figure must include clearly labeled axes with physical units, appropriate error bars to represent measurement uncertainty, and a consistent visual style across the manuscript, including uniform fonts, scales, and line weights. Experimental conditions—such as measurement frequency, temperature, applied field, atmosphere, or sample parameters—should be stated in the caption so that the figure can be interpreted independently of the main text.
Figures should be organized to form a logical scientific narrative, guiding the reader from material structure and morphology to functional properties. Each figure must justify its inclusion by addressing a single, well-defined scientific relationship. Overcrowding, missing scale bars, low resolution, or decorative color schemes reduce clarity and weaken the perceived credibility of the research.
A strong caption functions as a self-contained scientific statement, specifying what is plotted, how it was measured, under what conditions, and what trend or behavior is observed. Ethical figure preparation is essential: data must not be selectively removed, excessively smoothed, or misleadingly cropped, and any processing methods must be transparently reported. A figure should pass a simple test—if examined alone, it should clearly convey what was measured, how reliable it is, and what scientific conclusion is supported.
Required Technical Components of a Scientific Figure
- Clearly Labeled Axes with Physical Units
Axes must describe both the quantity and the measurement unit. This allows readers to compare your results with published literature and theoretical models.
Good practice:
- “Electric Field (kV/cm)”
- “Polarization (µC/cm²)”
- “Frequency (Hz)”
- “Temperature (K)”
Common student error:
Using labels such as “Voltage” or “Signal” without units. This makes the data scientifically incomplete.
- Error Bars and Data Uncertainty
Whenever data is derived from repeated measurements, uncertainty must be represented.
Error bars may indicate:
- Standard deviation
- Standard error of the mean
- Instrumental uncertainty
The type of error must be clearly stated in the caption or methods section.
Scientific reasoning:
Including error bars demonstrates experimental reliability and allows reviewers to judge whether observed trends are statistically meaningful or within noise limits.
- Experimental Conditions in the Caption
Key measurement conditions must be stated directly in the caption so the figure can be understood independently of the main text.
Typical conditions include:
- Measurement frequency
- Temperature
- Applied field or stress
- Atmosphere (vacuum, air, inert gas)
- Sample thickness or composition
This is especially important in materials science, where properties are often highly sensitive to measurement conditions.
- Consistent Visual Style Across All Figures
All figures in a paper should follow the same design language. This includes:
- Font type and size
- Axis thickness
- Tick mark style
- Color scheme or grayscale pattern
- Line width and marker size
Consistency improves readability and gives the paper a professional, journal-ready appearance.
- Structuring Figures as Scientific Arguments
A strong figure tells a logical story, not just a measurement.
For example, in a ferroelectric study:
- The first figure may show crystal structure (XRD pattern)
- The second figure may show microstructure (SEM or AFM image)
- The third figure may show electrical response (P–E loop)
This sequence leads the reader from structure → morphology → functional property, reinforcing your scientific interpretation.
- Caption Writing Framework
A figure caption should function as a self-contained explanation. A reader should be able to understand the figure without referring to the main text.
A strong caption answers four key questions:
- What is plotted?
Describe the physical quantities or images being shown.
- How was it measured?
Mention the technique or instrument used.
- Under what conditions?
State the critical experimental parameters.
- What trend or behavior is visible?
Briefly highlight the main scientific observation.
Expanded Example Caption (Materials Science Context)
Original short form:
“Polarization-electric field (P–E) hysteresis loops of BaTiO₃ thin films measured at 1 kHz under an applied field of 200 kV/cm, showing…”
Expanded academic version:
“Polarization-electric field (P–E) hysteresis loops of BaTiO₃ thin films measured using a ferroelectric tester at a frequency of 1 kHz under an applied electric field of 200 kV/cm at room temperature. The loops exhibit well-defined saturation polarization and low coercive field, indicating stable ferroelectric switching behavior and good film quality.”
Common Problems and How to Solve Them
Problem | Scientific Impact | Solution |
Overcrowded figures | Confuses readers and reviewers | Split into multiple panels (a), (b), (c) |
Low-resolution images | Suggests poor experimental quality | Export at journal-recommended DPI (usually 300–600) |
Missing scale bars in micrographs | Prevents size comparison | Always include scale bars in SEM/TEM/AFM images |
Decorative colors | Reduces clarity in print | Use high-contrast, journal-friendly color schemes |
Ethical Considerations in Figure Preparation
Figures must not be manipulated to mislead.
Unethical practices include:
- Removing inconvenient data points without explanation
- Selective cropping of micrographs to hide defects
- Excessive smoothing of curves that hides noise or variability
Any data processing (baseline correction, normalization, filtering) should be stated clearly in the Methods section.
Final Academic Insight for Students
Think of every figure as a mini peer-review test. If a reviewer looks only at your figures, they should still be able to understand:
- What you measured
- How reliable the data is
- What scientific conclusion you are drawing
When your figures pass this test, your paper becomes significantly stronger, more credible, and more likely to be accepted.
Section 4 — Writing the Results Section
Structural Template
Each paragraph should follow this academic logic:
- Statement of Observation
- Reference to Figure/Table
- Quantitative Description
- Minimal Contextual Link
Example
“The XRD patterns (Figure 2) indicate a progressive increase in peak sharpness with annealing temperature. The full width at half maximum of the (101) peak decreases from 0.42° to 0.19°, suggesting improved crystallinity. This structural refinement correlates with the observed enhancement in dielectric response.”
Note:
- Interpretation is restrained
- Mechanism is deferred to discussion
Section 5 — Transitioning from Results to Discussion
The Conceptual Bridge
This is where many manuscripts fail. A discussion section should not begin with repetition. It should begin with a scientific problem statement.
Effective Opening Strategy
“The observed increase in remanent polarization with annealing temperature suggests a modification in domain wall mobility, which can be attributed to changes in grain boundary density and defect concentration.”
This signals to the reviewer:
The author is moving from observation to physical explanation.
Section 6 — Mechanistic Interpretation in Materials Science
The Structure–Processing–Property Framework
Every strong discussion connects:
Processing → Structure → Properties → Performance
Example Chain
- Processing: Higher annealing temperature
- Structure: Larger grains, reduced dislocation density
- Property: Increased domain mobility
- Performance: Higher remanent polarization
This framework demonstrates scientific reasoning, not just data reporting.
Section 7 — Using Literature as Scientific Support
Proper Comparative Strategy
Do not cite literature to show that others “also did this.”
Cite literature to show:
- Agreement with physical mechanisms
- Deviation from known behaviour
- Improvement over reported values
Academic Comparison Example
“The observed coercive field is lower than values reported for sol–gel derived films, which may be attributed to reduced defect density in the present sputtered samples.”
Section 8 — Addressing Anomalies and Limitations
Why This Increases Acceptance Probability
Reviewers trust authors who acknowledge imperfections.
Recommended Format
- Identify the anomaly
- Propose a physical or experimental cause
- Indicate future verification method
Example:
“The slight asymmetry in the hysteresis loop may result from electrode–film interface states. Future impedance spectroscopy measurements will be conducted to isolate this contribution.”
Section 9 — Ethical and Scientific Integrity
Practices that violate scientific and ethical standards include
- Modify axes to exaggerate trends
- Remove outliers without explanation
- Claim mechanisms without physical justification
Institutional Expectation
Your discussion must be defensible under independent reproduction.
Section 10 — Common Reviewer Criticisms and How to Prevent Them
Criticism | Underlying Problem | Prevention Strategy |
“Discussion repeats results” | No mechanistic reasoning | Use structure–property framework |
“Figures lack clarity” | Poor labeling or captions | Apply figure checklist |
“Claims not supported” | Over-interpretation | Add literature or experimental justification |
“Limited novelty” | Weak comparison | Highlight deviation from prior work |
Section 11 — Practical Writing Workflow
Step-by-Step Academic Method
- Finalize figures and tables
- Write results section referencing visuals
- List physical mechanisms involved
- Map mechanisms to literature
- Draft discussion using structure–property logic
- Cross-check claims against data
Section 12 — Researcher’s Self-Review Checklist
Before submission, ask:
- Can a reader reproduce my interpretation from my data?
- Does every claim link to a figure, equation, or reference?
- Have I separated observation from explanation?
- Have I acknowledged experimental limitations?
Academic Takeaway
The results and discussion section is not a reporting exercise. It is a scientific defence of your research logic.
Strong manuscripts demonstrate:
- Precision in observation
- Discipline in interpretation
- Respect for physical principles
- Transparency in limitations
These qualities distinguish technicians from researchers and reports from scholarly contributions.
Continue the Research Series
➡️ Next Module: Responding to Reviewer Comments — Scientific Defence and Ethical Revision Strategies
Explore More from Advance Materials Lab
Continue expanding your understanding of material behavior through our specialized resources on ferroelectrics and phase transitions. Each guide is designed for research scholars and advanced learners seeking clarity, precision, and depth in the field of materials science and nanotechnology.
🔗 Recommended Reads and Resources:
Ferroelectrics Tutorials and Research Guides — Comprehensive tutorials covering polarization, hysteresis, and ferroelectric device characterization.
Workshops on Ferroelectrics (2025–2027) — Upcoming training sessions and research-oriented workshops for hands-on learning.
Glossary — Ferroelectrics and Phase Transitions — Concise explanations of key terminologies to support your study and research work.
If you notice any inaccuracies or have constructive suggestions to improve the content, I warmly welcome your feedback. It helps maintain the quality and clarity of this educational resource. You can reach me at: advancematerialslab27@gmail.com