In an academic paper, we sometimes have a "Results and Discussion" section.
It is not uncommon to add the explanation and discussion of the results together with the results section.
What are the pros and cons of both practices from an academic point of view? How do I weigh them for each paper?
- List the results without explaining their significance, which is then explained in the discussion section.
- List the results with their explanation as they are being listed, and eliminate the discussion section.
I find the second approach more appropriate to understand the results, since the reader wouldn't need to be going back and forth the sections, but then again, that is just my feeling.