For many reviewers, the discussion section is where a paper either proves its value—or reveals its weaknesses. Even studies with solid methodology and strong results often receive critical feedback because the discussion fails to interpret those results convincingly. Reviewers do not read the discussion as a summary. They read it as an argument: an explanation of why the findings matter, how they relate to existing work, and what they contribute to the field. This article explains how reviewers evaluate your discussion section, what they expect to see, and why weaknesses here often lead to rejection or major revision.
Why the Discussion Section Matters So Much
Reviewers see the discussion as the point where:
- Results are transformed into meaning
- Contribution becomes explicit
- Claims are justified or exposed
A weak discussion makes even strong results feel insignificant. A strong discussion can elevate modest findings into a meaningful contribution.
How Reviewers Approach the Discussion Section
Reviewers typically read the discussion with these questions in mind:
- Do the authors understand their own results?
- Are interpretations supported by evidence?
- Is the contribution clearly articulated?
- Are limitations acknowledged honestly?
They are not looking for enthusiasm—they are looking for judgment.
1. Do the Authors Interpret Results, or Just Repeat Them?
One of the most common reviewer complaints is that the discussion:
- Repeats results instead of interpreting them
- Restates tables and figures in prose
- Adds little analytical value
Reviewers expect interpretation, not duplication. They want to know what the results mean, not just what they are.
2. Are Claims Proportionate to the Evidence?
Reviewers are highly sensitive to overclaiming.
They flag discussions that:
- Generalize beyond the sample
- Claim causality without justification
- Present exploratory findings as definitive
A strong discussion balances confidence with restraint. Reviewers trust authors who match claims carefully to evidence.
3. Is the Contribution Made Explicit?
Many papers fail because the contribution is implied but never stated clearly.
Reviewers look for:
- A clear explanation of what the study adds
- How it differs from prior work
- Why it matters now
If reviewers must infer the contribution themselves, they often conclude it is weak.
4. Engagement With Existing Literature
Reviewers expect the discussion to dialogue with prior research, not ignore it.
They assess whether authors:
- Compare findings to existing studies
- Explain agreements and contradictions
- Situate results within broader debates
A discussion that does not engage literature feels isolated and underdeveloped.
5. Do the Authors Explain Unexpected Findings?
Unexpected or null results are not a problem—but failing to address them is.
Reviewers expect authors to:
- Acknowledge surprising outcomes
- Offer plausible explanations
- Avoid dismissing inconvenient results
Thoughtful engagement with unexpected findings signals intellectual maturity.
6. Are Limitations Addressed Honestly?
Reviewers expect limitations to be discussed—not hidden.
They look for:
- Awareness of methodological constraints
- Discussion of scope and boundaries
- Explanation of how limitations affect interpretation
Avoiding limitations undermines credibility more than acknowledging them.
7. Is the Discussion Logically Structured?
Reviewers notice structure immediately.
They prefer discussions that:
- Move from key findings to broader implications
- Separate interpretation from speculation
- Maintain a clear argumentative flow
Poor structure makes it harder for reviewers to follow and evaluate claims.
8. Are Implications Meaningful, Not Generic?
Reviewers often criticize discussions with vague implications, such as:
- “This study has important implications”
- “Future research is needed”
They expect specific, grounded implications—theoretical, methodological, or practical.
9. Do the Authors Show Critical Awareness?
Reviewers value authors who demonstrate:
- Awareness of alternative explanations
- Recognition of debate within the field
- Balanced interpretation
A discussion that reads as self-congratulatory often triggers skepticism.
10. Does the Discussion Answer “So What?”
Ultimately, reviewers ask:
So what does this study change?
If the discussion does not clearly answer this question, reviewers struggle to justify publication—even when the paper is technically sound.
Common Reasons Reviewers Criticize Discussion Sections
Reviewers frequently flag discussions that:
- Repeat results
- Overclaim
- Avoid limitations
- Ignore prior research
- Fail to articulate contribution
Most of these issues stem from weak analytical framing, not poor data.
How to Strengthen Your Discussion Section
To improve how reviewers evaluate your discussion:
- Focus on interpretation, not repetition
- Align claims tightly with evidence
- Make contribution explicit
- Engage meaningfully with literature
- Acknowledge limitations
- Structure the discussion clearly
A strong discussion shows that you understand not just what you found, but why it matters.
Final Thoughts
Reviewers see the discussion section as a test of scholarly judgment. It reveals whether authors can interpret evidence responsibly, situate findings within the field, and articulate meaningful contribution.
By understanding how reviewers evaluate your discussion section, researchers can transform results into insight and increase the likelihood that their work is taken seriously. A strong discussion does not guarantee acceptance—but a weak one almost guarantees revision or rejection.
Related Reading
From the Web
- COPE guidance on manuscript evaluation
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/what-consider-when-asked-peer-review-manuscript
- Springer Nature author resources on discussion sections
https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/campaigns/how-to-peer-review-3
