Some journals expect the Discussion to have the following structure and order (with some flexibility):
- summary of results
- strengths and weaknesses
- interpretation/context/comparison with previous studies
This makes sense: discuss the study strengths and limitations before interpreting the results and discussing their wider context and implications.
But how about putting the "strengths and weaknesses" after "interpretation/comparison", or even at the end after "implications" (and before the conclusions)? It this less logical/convincing?