IgNobel Award-Winning Paper Results Sections

Before Class

  • Skim your article, looking at the headings and pictures/tables
  • Skim the methods section, looking for important information that will help you understand the results
  • Read the results section

Article Evaluation

(30 minutes)

  • Analyze the results section, looking for the elements below: Go through your assigned article and look for the following elements of a results section, according to SWHR:

    • Study sample characteristics and descriptive statistics
    • Findings of the primary analysis
    • Findings of the secondary analyses
    • Any additional findings to highlight

  • Evaluate whether the article also adheres to the guidelines for each type of results:

    • Study sample characteristics and descriptive statistics
      • Described first
      • Do results show a flowchart or other details?
      • Only includes key information
      • Descriptive statistics for outcome and explanatory variable
    • Findings of the primary analysis
      • Estimates from crude/unadjusted and adjusted models
      • Description of changes in results between models, if multiple models are used
      • Table results? Graphics?
    • Findings of the secondary analyses
      • Interaction, effect modification, or sub group analyses?
      • Relationships between confounders and outcome variables?
      • Any additional findings to highlight
      • Sensitivity analysis?

  • Additionally, evaluate whether the section adheres to the following recommendations:

    • Not repetitive or pedantic
    • Describes all tables and figures included in the main text
    • Results section has a logical flow
    • Avoids mixing methods and/or discussion in with the results
    • Results reported objectively
    • Measures of effect size are reported along with significance

Class Discussion

(30 minutes)

  • How well do the guidelines in SWHR hold up for papers across a wide swath of different disciplines?
  • What types of figures and tables and visual aids were used? Did they help you understand the results?
  • How often did you have to refer back to the methods (or look ahead to the discussion) to interpret and understand the results?
  • What pieces of the results section were hard to understand? What pieces were easy?
  • Was there anything you expected to see in the results section that wasn’t present?
  • Was there anything that you didn’t expect to see in the results section?