: Re: If your Introduction can function as a Conclusion, isn't it redundant to write anything in the Conclusion beside "refer to the Introduction"? In the example below, I would state the Conclusion

@XinRu607

Vote Up Vote Down

Both the introduction and conclusion are, in part, summarising the paper — but they’re doing in different contexts, and in different purposes. So there’s some overlap, but they’re not the same.
The introduction is written for readers who haven’t read the rest of the paper yet, and may never do so. So it needs to say what the main results are — to motivate some readers to read the whole paper, and to stick in the memory of others in case they have reason to come back to the paper in future. But it needs to do this in an accessible and self-contained way, not relying on technical background beyond what’s standard in the field. It also needs to orient readers for the rest of the paper — at least in my field (pure maths), it’s common for the introduction to include a quick outline of the other sections.
The conclusion is written for readers who have already read the rest of the paper, or at least skimmed it, and who are already motivated to care about the results, and may be intending to apply them in their own work. So it should summarise the results again, but can include more technical details (introduced and backed up by the body of the paper), and can look back and discuss what has been said in the body of the paper.

(0)

Login to post a comment!