-
Observations/findings that do not fit in with your hypothesis cannot be ignored
All findings must be addressed, even if it is only to state that you are unable to understand or conclude about it. Data cannot be ignored, discounted or deleted as seen in this example:
“Five, two and eight readings which were way out of range in the low-, mid- and high-dose groups were discarded.”
On what basis were these data discarded? You cannot designate more than one datum as an outlier, and even that needs support from statistical calculations. Perhaps there is a difference in the effect beyond a certain dose level as it leads to saturation or may be some other effect.
-
Maintain the writing style consistently
A blend of active and passive statements do not lend to a smooth flow of the document and also distracts the reader. Try out the example:
“Taken a dry beaker. Label it and weigh 50 g NaCl accurately. Added it to the beaker. After adding 12 mL WFI, sonicating it continuously for 13 min and intermittently stopped the sonication.”
Are you not completely clueless about whether the procedure is ongoing and is being documented or was completed earlier! Whew, absolutely jerky writing!
-
Stick to facts
Avoid extrapolating findings when you do not have data to substantiate the same. The example under: “Feelings, impressions…” holds for this point too.
Critique is a gift offered to you, consider it as such and accept it gracefully. In the end, it is only you who will benefit.
