Manuscript Preparation and Writing Standards6

How to Write the Results Section in Q1/Q2 Journal Articles

Purpose of the Results Section

The Results section is one of the most important components of a scientific manuscript because it presents the empirical evidence generated by the study. Its primary purpose is to report research findings objectively, systematically, and accurately without interpretation or extensive commentary. In high-impact Q1 and Q2 journals, the Results section is expected to provide a clear and logical presentation of the data that directly addresses the research objectives, hypotheses, or questions stated in the Introduction.

The Results section should answer the following question:

“What did the study find?”

It should not answer:

“Why were these findings obtained?” or “What do these findings mean?”

Such interpretation belongs in the Discussion section.

General Principles for Writing Results

A high-quality Results section should be:

Objective and evidence-based
Logically organized
Concise but sufficiently detailed
Directly linked to research objectives
Supported by appropriate tables, figures, and statistical analyses
Free from unnecessary interpretation

Authors should present findings in a sequence that mirrors the methodology and research questions of the study.

Recommended Structure of the Results Section

Brief Introduction to the Findings

Begin with a short paragraph reminding readers of the analytical framework used in the study.

Example:

The collected data were analyzed using multivariate statistical techniques to evaluate the relationships between environmental variables and ecosystem resilience indicators. The principal findings are presented below according to the study objectives.

This introductory paragraph helps orient readers before presenting detailed findings.

Descriptive Results

The first stage of reporting findings typically involves descriptive statistics or general observations.

Depending on the discipline, descriptive results may include:

Sample characteristics
Demographic information
Environmental conditions
Experimental observations
Baseline measurements
Data distributions

Examples:

Mean values
Standard deviations
Frequencies
Percentages
Ranges
Confidence intervals

Example:

A total of 420 respondents participated in the survey. Approximately 54% were male and 46% were female. The average age of participants was 34.7 years (SD = 8.6).

Descriptive statistics establish the context for subsequent analyses.

Inferential or Analytical Results

After descriptive findings, present the results of hypothesis testing, modeling, simulations, experiments, or analytical procedures.

Depending on the study design, this may include:

Regression analyses
ANOVA
Structural equation modeling
Machine learning outcomes
Geospatial analyses
Experimental comparisons
Optimization models
Time-series analyses

Each analytical result should be reported systematically.

A recommended sequence is:

State the analysis performed.
Report the numerical results.
Indicate statistical significance where applicable.
Refer to relevant tables or figures.

Example:

Multiple regression analysis revealed that environmental awareness significantly predicted sustainable behavioral intention (β = 0.42, p < 0.001). The model explained 38% of the variance in behavioral intention (R² = 0.38) (Table 3).

Organizing Results According to Research Questions

In Q1/Q2 journals, findings are often organized according to research questions or hypotheses.

For example:

Research Question 1

Results related to Question 1

Research Question 2

Results related to Question 2

Research Question 3

Results related to Question 3

This structure improves readability and demonstrates a direct connection between objectives and findings.

Reporting Statistical Results Correctly

When presenting statistical analyses, authors should provide sufficient detail for readers to evaluate the validity of the findings.

Typically include:

Test statistics
Degrees of freedom
P-values
Effect sizes
Confidence intervals

Example:

The treatment group exhibited significantly higher performance than the control group, t (98) = 3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.69.

Avoid vague statements such as:

❌ “The difference was significant.”

Instead write:

✔ “The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001).”

Effective Use of Tables

Tables should present information more efficiently than narrative text.

Tables are appropriate for:

Numerical data
Statistical outputs
Comparative results
Large datasets

A good table should:

Have a clear title
Be self-explanatory
Include units of measurement
Define abbreviations
Be referenced within the text

Example:

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 2.

Never insert a table without discussing it in the manuscript.

Effective Use of Figures

Figures are particularly useful for illustrating:

Trends
Relationships
Spatial patterns
Model outputs
Experimental outcomes
Time-series behavior

Common figure types include:

Bar charts
Line graphs
Scatter plots
Heat maps
GIS maps
Flow diagrams

Every figure should:

Have a numbered caption
Be cited in the text
Be readable independently

Example:

Figure 4 illustrates the temporal variation in particulate matter concentrations during the monitoring period.

Integrating Text, Tables, and Figures

One of the most common mistakes is repeating identical information in all three formats.

Avoid:

Presenting full data in text
Repeating the same data in a table
Repeating the same data again in a figure

Instead:

Use text to summarize key findings.
Use tables for detailed values.
Use figures for visual interpretation.

Example:

As shown in Figure 5, carbon emissions declined steadily throughout the study period, with the most substantial reduction occurring after implementation of the intervention.

Maintaining Objectivity

Authors should avoid interpretation in the Results section.

Incorrect:

The intervention was highly successful because participants became more environmentally conscious.

Correct:

Environmental awareness scores increased from 3.1 to 4.4 following the intervention.

The explanation of why this occurred belongs in the Discussion section.

Reporting Negative or Non-Significant Results

Q1 and Q2 journals increasingly value transparency and scientific integrity.

Authors should report:

Significant findings
Non-significant findings
Unexpected outcomes
Contradictory results

Example:

No statistically significant relationship was observed between age and environmental risk perception (p = 0.27).

Suppressing unfavorable results can undermine scientific credibility.

Presenting Robustness and Validation Results

Advanced journals often expect additional analyses demonstrating reliability and robustness.

Examples include:

Sensitivity analyses
Model validation
Reliability coefficients
Cross-validation procedures
Robustness checks

Example:

Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of model predictions across alternative parameter specifications.

These analyses strengthen confidence in the findings.

Common Mistakes in Results Sections

Weak Results Writing

❌ Mixing results with discussion

❌ Repeating tables word-for-word

❌ Reporting excessive raw data

❌ Omitting statistical information

❌ Presenting findings in a disorganized order

❌ Hiding non-significant results

❌ Introducing new methods

❌ Drawing conclusions before presenting evidence

Characteristics of an Excellent Results Section in Q1/Q2 Journals

A publishable Results section typically demonstrates:

✓ Clear alignment with research objectives

✓ Logical progression of findings

✓ Accurate statistical reporting

✓ Appropriate use of tables and figures

✓ Transparency and reproducibility

✓ Objective presentation of evidence

✓ High readability

✓ Sufficient detail without unnecessary complexity

Final Recommendation

Before submission, authors should critically evaluate whether the Results section allows readers to answer the following questions without consulting the Discussion section:

What analyses were conducted?
What were the primary findings?
Which hypotheses were supported?
What evidence supports the conclusions?
Are the findings presented clearly and transparently?

If the answer to all five questions is yes, the Results section is likely approaching the standard expected by reputable Q1 and Q2 journals.