ACM International Science Editing Service

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
    • Editing Services
      • Standard Editing
      • Premium Editing
    • Submission Support Services
      • Graphing
      • Custom Illustration
      • Figure Formatting
      • Journal Specific Formatting
      • Manuscript Review
      • Response to Reviewers
      • Cover Letter Writing
    • Promote your research
    • Translation
  • Create Your Order
    • Editing Services
    • Promote your research
  • Payment
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
    • ACM:Latest News
    • Writing Tips
      • Manuscript Preparation
      • Overleaf
      • Journal Selection
      • Submit an Article
      • Peer-Review
      • Publication Ethics
      • Research Promotion
      • Abstracts
      • Cover Letters
      • Request for Revision
  • Customer Service
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Terms of Service
      • Privacy Policy
      • Disclaimer
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / ACM: Latest News / “We are studying a narrow field and we disagree with previous research results. How can we report this?”

January 13, 2021 By Teresa Nolan

“We are studying a narrow field and we disagree with previous research results. How can we report this?”

This question was asked in the Q&A session of an online talk presented by International Science Editing. In this blog, we discuss how to respectfully dispute the findings of others.

Acknowledge the good

Begin by acknowledging what you liked. Rarely is a paper so poorly written that you cannot find a single aspect to commend.

This is a valuable result because …

Their trial was exceptionally laudable …

We applaud the authors for drawing attention to this topic …

We recognise the value of testing …

We would like to thank Smith et al. for their scientific contribution …

Use neutral language

Neutral language is not biased or overly critical. Use phrases like “our results indicate, or demonstrate” rather than “our results prove, or disprove”.

These results are inconsistent with the findings of Smith et al.

We respectfully disagree with their assertions and have detailed our reasoning below based on a critical evaluation of the published data and methods.

Although we agree that X, we believe there is insufficient evidence to support Y.

Argue both sides

Anticipate the authors’ response. By considering all potential opposing arguments, you will strengthen your own argument. Identify and address all sources that conflict with your argument. This will show the reader that you have considered your position from all angles.

Proponents of X often cite the well-known study by Smith et al. However, as discussed by Jones et al., this study had numerous limitations that are frequently overlooked.

However, a recent study by Smith et al. supports our theory, casting doubt on the conclusions of Jones et al.

Use quotations

A direct quote is often the fairest way to present the findings of others. It reduces the risk that you will present an opposing argument in a way that is biased towards your own interpretation.

However, the premise of the study, that V4 neurons “are generally not selective for direction of motion”, is not entirely accurate. At least three reports have assessed direction selectivity in V4 quantitatively and have found that … [see Nature article].

This is especially important in the social sciences.

Kauffman writes that ‘inclusion’ is “virtually meaningless, a catchword used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” [see Kauffman’s Article in The Journal of Special Education]. However, we are of the opinion …

Write as if you are on the same team

The group with whom you disagree likely want the same outcome as you—to get to the truth of the issue you are addressing. If you keep this in mind when drafting your paper, it will come across in your writing.

We cannot explain these inconsistencies. We suspect they are due to differences in X. Further studies are required to confirm Y.

This was surprising in light of a previous study that showed …

Perhaps a framework to enhance the interpretation of evidence should be developed.

Do not get personal

Focus on the facts, not the people. Avoid dismissive language such as:

Smith et al. naively argue that …

The authors clearly have not even read the article.

The authors display their lack of knowledge here by suggesting …

Avoid “straw man” arguments

Do not over-simplify or exaggerate the points made by the other authors, take their point out of context, or only focus on specific aspects while ignoring others—this is known as a straw man argument and is considered a deplorable way of refuting previous findings.

By way of example, a climate sceptic may offer the straw man argument that a specific finding (e.g., a temporary dip in sea levels) is evidence that the planet is not warming.

Conclusion

Disputes in science are common and necessary, and discussing your findings in the context of other evidence is the cornerstone of good science. Respectfully refuting previous results using clear reasoning will push your field forward.

Filed Under: Archives, Latest Posts, Manuscript Preparation Tagged With: disagree with results, respectfully disagree, science argument, science disagreement, science dispute

Filed Under: ACM: Latest News, Manuscript Preparation, Submitting an article Tagged With: disagree with results, respectfully disagree, science argument, science disagreement, science dispute

ACM中国作者语言润色服务

ACM Chinese Author Language Editing Service homepage 国际科学编辑(ISE)已正式与国际计算机协会(ACM)合作为想要投稿到ACM的作者提供专业服务。

Para autores ACM do Brasil

ACM-brazil Se você quiser ver os nossos serviços para autores ACM em Português, clique aqui para visitar o nosso site.

भारतीय लेखकों के लिए सेवाएं

acm-desktopcta-(4) एसोसिएशन फॉर कंप्यूटिंग मशीनरी (एसीएम) के साथ प्रकाशित करने के लिए देख रहे हैं लेखकों को एक समर्पित सेवा प्रदान करने के लिए इंटरनेशनल साइंस एडिटिंग ने एसीएम के साथ भागीदारी की है।

日本からのACM著者

Japanese link 国際科学編集者(ISE)は国際コンピューター協会(ACM)と正式に提携し、ACMへ投稿する作者に専門的なサービスを提供します。

International Science Editing’s Writing Tips

reject and resubmit

“Reject with option to resubmit.” Why do editors choose this option?

An editorial decision of “reject with option to resubmit” is inherently confusing, for inexperienced and seasoned authors alike. Has the paper been rejected? Should you revise and resubmit? To complicate matters further, for those journals that offer this option, a “reject with option to resubmit” can have very different meanings. In this blog, we examine […]

Copyright © 2025 · INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDITING · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

We’ve updated our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. These updates address new privacy regulations in Europe and apply to everyone who uses International Science Editing including clients, authors and partners.
Click on Settings to view the list of cookies, the different category headings, and/or change the default settings. Please click on “Accept” to continue to use International Science Editing Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT