如何撰写科研工作的不足之处 （局限性）
Highlights from Chapter 18 <<Writing Science>> by Joshua Schimel
1.
No research is perfect. Every study has limitations, and every data set has blemishes. You have to address these even while focusing on meaningful results.
The approach is to use the “but, yes” strategy.
Deal with the limitations as early as possible, get that discussion out of the way, and then get on with developing a strong story. Constrain your conclusions to fit within the limitations but end with a “yes.”
“But, yes” allows you to end powerfully, making for better storytelling. Importantly, it is also easier for the reader to follow and more honest.
Having laid out the limitations, readers can work through your data and discussion in light of them.
As a rule, earlier is better.
2.
The Introduction: Promise the story you will deliver
In the Introduction, frame the knowledge gap you will actually fill — set up expectations you can deliver on.
It is better to fill a small knowledge gap than none at all.
3.
Materials and Methods
The second place you can address limitations is in the Materials and Methods. When limitations relate to experimental details or analytical methods, discuss them immediately to lay any concerns to rest.
If you don’t, readers may decide the work is so flawed that there is no reason to read further, or they may be distracted enough by their concerns to miss your important points. At best, they remain skeptical and you would struggle to gain their full acceptance.
If there are limitations, explain how you get around them. If there are things that you are not going to do, tell us why (expensive, unnecessary, etc). If you avoid mentioning the negatives, reviewers will find them anyway, criticize you, and probably recommend rejection.
4. Discussion
When constraints are methodological detail, address them in the Methods. When they go beyond that to affect how you interpret the data, you must address them in the Discussion.
You must openly discuss limitations but without highlighting them so strongly that they become an argument for rejecting the paper entirely. Doing this involves both story structure and language.
You should generally find some convenient place early in the body of the Discussion to discuss the work’s limitations and constraints.
As for language, do it briefly and honestly, then get on with the story.
5.
Conclusions
You should never make limitations the conclusion, but sometimes you may need to mention them within the conclusions. In such cases, you need a tightly defined “but, yes” structure to frame the limitations as quickly as possible and then to push on to conclusions.
6.
No research is perfect, and there is nothing to be embarrassed about in admitting it.
Rather, it’s our responsibility to address our work’s limitations.
The “but, yes” approach does this in a way that is open about the limits but highlights the conclusions.
It makes the presentation clear, strong, and credible. By clarifying both the limits and the power of your work, it will motivate others to pick up and build from it, that is, to cite it.