在SCI论文撰写中，讨论部分是连接研究结果与学术前沿的核心环节，既要客观解读数据，又要合理延伸研究价值。但很多科研人员会陷入一个误区：为了体现研究的探索性，频繁使用"maybe"（可能）、"we suppose"（我们推测）、"perhaps"（或许）等模糊词汇。这类表达看似谨慎，实则会削弱结论的可信度，让审稿人觉得研究证据不足、逻辑松散，甚至质疑研究的科学性。
事实上，科研结论的严谨性并非来自模糊的推测，而是源于"证据支撑+逻辑推导+合理限定"的表达体系。今天我们就从"为什么要避免模糊词汇""不同场景的替代表达策略""实操技巧与案例"三个维度，帮助大家在讨论部分既保持科学审慎，又彰显研究的说服力。
模糊词汇的潜在风险：
为何不能滥用"maybe"？
在学术写作中，"maybe""we suppose"等词汇的核心问题的是缺乏学术严谨性，具体体现在三个方面：
弱化证据与结论的关联性：SCI论文的结论必须建立在数据支撑之上。当使用"maybe"时，相当于默认"研究结果与结论之间存在不确定的鸿沟"，审稿人会质疑："如果只是'可能'，为何不补充实验验证？"这种表达会让研究的科学性大打折扣。
体现逻辑推导的薄弱：讨论部分的核心是"分析结果→解释机制→关联文献"的逻辑链。模糊词汇往往是逻辑断裂的"遮羞布"——当科研人员无法通过数据和文献证明某个观点时，会用"maybe"掩盖逻辑漏洞，这恰恰是审稿人重点关注的问题。
降低论文的学术影响力：一篇有分量的SCI论文，需要在现有研究基础上提出明确的观点或新的认知。模糊的表达会让读者难以把握研究的核心贡献，甚至怀疑研究的创新性和实用性，影响论文的引用率和学术价值。
例如，有论文写道："Maybe the increase in enzyme activity is related to the upregulation of gene X." 这句话既没有说明"酶活性升高"的具体数据支撑，也没有解释"基因X上调"与酶活性的关联机制，完全是主观推测，很容易被审稿人质疑"证据不足"。
不同场景的替代表达策略：
严谨且不失灵活
避免模糊词汇并非意味着要使用绝对化表达（如"prove""definitely""certainly"，这类词汇同样不可取，因为科研结论往往具有相对性和局限性），而是要根据具体场景，选择"有依据、有逻辑、有限定"的表达。以下是讨论部分最常见的4种场景及对应的替代策略：
场景1：基于研究结果的合理推测
（有数据支撑，但需进一步验证）
当研究结果显示某种趋势或关联，但尚未通过多方面实验（如体外验证、动物实验、临床样本验证）完全证实时，不能用"maybe"，而应明确"推测的依据"和"推测的限定范围"。
替代表达框架：
基于数据趋势："The observed [结果，如increased expression of protein A] suggests that [推测，如protein A may play a role in cell proliferation]，as supported by the positive correlation between [指标1] and [指标2] (r=0.78, P<0.01)."
结合机制推导："The enhanced catalytic efficiency could be attributed to [推测机制，如the conformational change of the active site]，given that [数据依据，如the mutation at position 123 altered the binding affinity of the substrate (Table 3)]."
错误示例："Maybe the higher survival rate in the treatment group is due to the anti-inflammatory effect of drug X."
修正示例："The significantly higher survival rate in the treatment group (68% vs. 32%, P<0.001) may be attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect of drug X，as evidenced by the reduced levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6) in the serum of treated mice (Fig. 4)."
场景2：解释研究结果与文献的差异
（存在矛盾，需客观分析）
当研究结果与现有文献不一致时，不能用"we suppose"模糊带过，而应深入分析差异的可能原因（如实验设计、样本类型、研究对象、技术方法等），体现研究的客观性。
替代表达框架：
归因于实验设计："Our findings differ from those reported by Smith et al. (2022)，which may be explained by the difference in [实验变量，如cell lines used: we employed primary hepatocytes whereas they used HepG2 cells]."
考虑研究局限性："The discrepancy between our results and previous studies could be due to [局限性，如the small sample size in our study (n=30) compared to the large cohort (n=200) in Lee et al.'s research]."
提出新的可能性："This inconsistent observation might reflect [新视角，如a context-dependent role of gene Y，which is upregulated in early-stage tumors but downregulated in advanced stages]，a hypothesis that requires further investigation."
错误示例："We suppose the different results are because of different experimental conditions."
修正示例："The divergent results between our study and the work of Zhang et al. (2023) could be explained by the distinct experimental conditions: we used a dose of 10 μM for compound Z and incubated for 24 h，whereas they applied 50 μM and a 48-h incubation period，which may have led to off-target effects (Supplementary Table 2)."
场景3：阐述研究的局限性
（客观承认，而非模糊回避）
所有研究都存在局限性（如样本量小、随访时间短、技术方法的缺陷等），讨论部分需要客观说明，但不能用"maybe"来淡化局限性，而应明确"局限性是什么"以及"如何影响研究结论"。
替代表达框架：
明确局限性："One limitation of this study is [具体局限，如the lack of long-term follow-up data (median follow-up: 12 months)]，which prevents us from evaluating the long-term efficacy of the treatment."
说明对结论的影响："The use of [技术方法，如qPCR] for gene expression analysis may have introduced potential bias，as this method is less sensitive than RNA-seq in detecting low-abundance transcripts."
提出改进方向："Future studies should address this limitation by [改进措施，如increasing the sample size and including a more diverse population] to validate our findings."
错误示例："Maybe the small sample size affects the reliability of the results."
修正示例："The relatively small sample size (n=25) in the control group may limit the generalizability of our conclusions，as the statistical power to detect subtle differences between groups was reduced (power analysis: 0.72 for α=0.05)."
场景4：提出未来研究方向
（基于现有结果，而非无依据的猜想）
讨论部分的未来方向需要紧扣研究结果和学术前沿，不能用"maybe we can study..."这种模糊表达，而应明确"研究的具体内容"和"研究的意义"。
替代表达框架：
基于现有结果延伸："Given that [现有结果，如inhibition of protein B reduced tumor growth in vitro]，future studies could focus on [具体方向，如developing small-molecule inhibitors of protein B for clinical trials]."
针对未解决的问题："The mechanism underlying [未解决的问题，如the cross-talk between pathway A and pathway B] remains unclear，and further investigations using [技术方法，如co-immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry] are warranted to clarify this interaction."
错误示例："Maybe we can study the mechanism of gene X in other diseases."
修正示例："Given that gene X was found to be dysregulated in both breast cancer (our study) and lung cancer (Wang et al., 2024)，future research could explore the role of gene X in other epithelial malignancies，which may provide insights into the shared pathogenic mechanisms of these cancers."
实操技巧：让讨论部分既严谨又有说服力
除了替换模糊词汇，还可以通过以下3个技巧进一步提升讨论部分的学术严谨性：
技巧1：用"证据链"支撑每一个观点
讨论部分的每一个推测或结论，都必须有"数据+文献"的双重支撑。例如，在提出某个机制时，不仅要引用本研究的实验数据（如Western blot结果、统计分析），还要引用相关文献的研究结果，形成完整的证据链。
示例："Our data showed that overexpression of miR-124 significantly inhibited cell migration (Fig. 5A, P<0.01)，which is consistent with the findings of Liu et al. (2023) who reported that miR-124 targets the oncogene MET. This suggests that miR-124 may suppress tumor metastasis by downregulating MET expression，as MET has been shown to promote cell migration and invasion in multiple cancer types (Zhang et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023)."
技巧2：使用"限定词"替代模糊词汇
除了前面提到的"may be attributed to""could be explained by"，还可以使用以下限定词，既避免绝对化，又体现科学审慎：
注意：使用这些限定词时，必须搭配具体的证据或逻辑推导，不能单独使用。例如，"it is plausible that"后面必须紧跟"为什么合理"的理由，而不是孤立的推测。
技巧3：避免过度绝对化，保持科学谦逊
虽然要避免模糊词汇，但也不能走向另一个极端——使用绝对化表达。以下绝对化词汇同样需要慎用：
完全否定：never, none, no effect
完全肯定：prove, confirm, definitely, certainly
全面概括：all, every, all cases
示例：
错误："This study proves that drug X is effective in treating diabetes."
修正："This study demonstrates that drug X exhibits significant hypoglycemic effects in a mouse model of type 2 diabetes (Fig. 3)，supporting its potential as a therapeutic agent for this disease."
讨论部分的核心原则："有理有据，进退有度"
SCI论文讨论部分的写作，本质上是一场"基于证据的学术对话"。避免使用"maybe""we suppose"等模糊词汇，核心是要做到：
有据可依：每一个观点都必须有本研究数据或相关文献的支撑，不做无依据的推测；
有逻辑可循：从结果到结论的推导过程要清晰，用"because""as""given that"等逻辑连接词体现因果关系；
有限定范围：用"may""could""potentially"等限定词明确结论的适用场景，既不夸大也不模糊；
有客观态度：正视研究的局限性，不回避矛盾，用理性分析替代主观臆断。
审稿人关注的不是研究是否"完美无缺"，而是科研人员是否具备"科学思维"——能否客观解读数据、严谨推导结论、理性看待局限。告别"maybe"，用"证据+逻辑+限定"的表达体系，让讨论部分真正成为展现研究价值和学术素养的核心载体，助力论文顺利发表！
