The single most common writing error in submitted manuscripts is content in the wrong section — interpretation buried inside Results, raw data restated inside Discussion. Here is how to sort each sentence correctly the first time.
Reviewers do not always say it directly, but a remarkable proportion of the comments they make on Results and Discussion sections reduce to one underlying complaint: this sentence is in the wrong place. Interpretation has leaked into Results. Raw data has been restated inside Discussion. Citations are doing analytical work where they should be merely framing.
Understanding the difference between results and discussion is not a technicality. It is the cleanest signal of whether a writer has internalised what each section is for. Once the boundary is clear, the sorting becomes mechanical — and the manuscript tightens by roughly fifteen percent without losing a sentence of substance.
Results report. Discussion argues. The simplest test is the verb: if the sentence does any work of interpreting, comparing, explaining, suggesting, refining, or recommending, it belongs in Discussion. If the sentence only states, presents, shows, indicates, or summarises what the analysis produced, it belongs in Results.
The table below sets out the contrast across the six dimensions that most consistently separate the two sections in well-written manuscripts. The companion guides on writing the Results section and writing the Discussion section go deeper into each side individually.
| Results | Discussion | |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Report what the data show, accurately and in order. | Argue what those findings mean for the field. |
| Voice | Descriptive, neutral, precise. | Interpretive, comparative, claim-making. |
| Verb tense | Past — describing the analysis that was performed. | Present — making claims about what is now known. |
| Content | Statistics, tables, figures, thematic patterns. | Interpretation, comparison to prior work, mechanisms, contributions. |
| Citations | Rare — only when explaining a measurement or technique. | Frequent — engaging directly with prior literature. |
| Forbidden | Interpretation, theoretical claims, recommendations. | New data, restated tables, novel statistics not introduced earlier. |
When you cannot tell which section a sentence belongs in, run it through these four questions. The answers almost always point you the right way.
Which section does this sentence belong in?
Take any ambiguous sentence and ask, in order:
Does the sentence make a claim that goes beyond what the data show?
If yes → Discussion. Interpretation, mechanism, generalisation, recommendation — all live in Discussion regardless of how confident the claim sounds.
Does the sentence reference prior published work?
If yes → Discussion. The Results section cites methods and instruments only. Comparative citations belong with comparative argument.
Does the sentence describe a statistical or thematic pattern from your own analysis?
If yes → Results. Even if the pattern feels important, the report of it goes in Results. The meaning of it goes in Discussion.
Could a reader of just this sentence tell whether you are reporting or arguing?
If no → the sentence is doing two jobs at once. Split it. The reporting half goes in Results; the arguing half goes in Discussion.
Below are six short statements drawn from manuscripts we have edited. For each, the correct destination is tagged on the right. Read each one and see whether the tag matches your instinct.
Where does each sentence belong?
Six real examples, six correct answers.
Results | Discussion
If you cannot tell which one a sentence belongs in, the sentence is almost always trying to do both at once — and the fix is to split it.
Once the core distinction is clear, a few specific edge cases still cause hesitation. Each has a clean answer.
Tables and figures — both sections?
Tables and figures live in Results. In Discussion, refer to them by number; never reproduce the data.
Unexpected findings?
The unexpected finding itself goes in Results. The interpretation of why it was unexpected goes in Discussion.
Effect-size interpretation?
Reporting the value (β, η², Cohen's d) belongs in Results. Calling it small, moderate, or large is interpretation — that belongs in Discussion.
The most common error. Phrases like "suggesting that," "indicating a strong relationship between," or "in line with previous work" drift into Results paragraphs and quietly do Discussion's work. Strip them out. The reader does not need your interpretation while they are still trying to read the numbers.
Writing "as Table 3 showed (β = 0.42, p < 0.001), autonomy support predicted engagement…" at the start of a Discussion paragraph is a tell. The Discussion's reader has already read Results. Refer to the finding by name ("the autonomy effect"), not by its statistics.
Comparative citations belong in Discussion. If your Results paragraph contains "unlike Chen (2019), our participants reported…", you have crossed the boundary. Move the comparison to the corresponding Discussion paragraph; leave the descriptive report in Results.
In well-balanced empirical papers, Results and Discussion are of comparable length. A Discussion that runs half as long as Results usually has interpretation hiding in the wrong place; a Discussion twice as long usually has data restatement padding it out.
Sorting Results from Discussion is mostly a discipline, not a skill. Results report what the data show; Discussion argues what those findings mean. Get the verbs right, keep the citations on the correct side of the boundary, and the two sections will do their separate jobs cleanly. Most reviewer comments on Results and Discussion vanish when the sorting is done well — and the manuscript reads as the work of a careful writer rather than a hurried one.
Upload your draft. The Manuscript Health Checker flags every sentence in the wrong section — interpretation in Results, data restatement in Discussion, citations doing the wrong job.