How to Present Research Limitations

Scientists work with various limitations. Among other things, they explore information limitations and address knowledge gaps when designing studies, developing hypotheses, and analyzing data. They also overcome technical limitations and make the most of what their hands, equipment, and tools can achieve. Finally, researchers must also manage logistical limitations. Scientists often experience sample shortages, financial problems, or simply don’t have access to the technology or materials they want.

All scientific research has limitations and no study is perfect. Researchers must not run away from this reality, but engage directly with it. It is better to directly state the specific limitations of the work in question, and doing so is actually a way to demonstrate the writer’s ability and aptitude.

DO: Be transparent

From a practical perspective, transparency is a major key to directly addressing certain limitations of research. Were there experiments that the researchers wanted to do but couldn’t, or were there existing samples that the scientists couldn’t obtain? Did you have knowledge that could address the questions raised by the data presented in the current study? If the answer is yes, the author should mention this and elaborate in the discussion section.

Asking and answering these questions demonstrates that the author has knowledge, understanding, and expertise in the topic area beyond what the study directly investigates. It also demonstrates a solid understanding of existing literature. This means having a solid understanding of what others are doing, what technologies they are using, and what limitations are hindering your own research. This information can help authors contextualize whether their research fits into the findings of others, thereby mitigating the perceived impact of a given limitation on the legitimacy of their research. Essentially, this strategy turns limitations often seen as weaknesses into strengths.

For example, in 2021 cell report In their study of macrophage polarization mechanisms, dermatologist Alexander Marneros and colleagues wrote:^One

A limitation of studying macrophage polarization in vitro is that this approach only partially captures the tissue microenvironment context, where various factors influence macrophage polarization. However, the identified signaling mechanisms that promote polarization in vitro are also likely to be important for the polarization mechanisms that occur in vivo. This is supported by our observation that trametinib and panobinostat inhibit M2-type macrophage polarization in vitro as well as in skin wounds and laser-induced CNV lesions.

This is a very effective structure. In the first sentence (yellow), the authors explained the limitations. In the following sentence (green), they proposed rationalizations that mitigate the effects of the restrictions. Finally, they provided evidence (blue) For this rationalization, we use not only information from the literature, but also data obtained from studies specifically for this purpose.

Don’t: Be defensive.

It may feel natural to avoid talking about the limitations of your research. Scientists may believe that citing shortcomings that still exist in their research will jeopardize their chances of publication. Therefore, researchers will sometimes avoid the problem. Rather than discussing their research honestly, they will present “boilerplate errors” – generalized concerns about sample size/diversity and time constraints that all researchers face. Alternatively, they describe their limitations in a defensive way and view their problems as “unhelpful”—problems that are beyond what current science can achieve.

But your audience can see through this because they are your peers who understand and have experience with how modern research works. They can tell the difference between the global challenges facing all scientific research and the limitations specific to a single study. Avoiding these specific limitations may therefore reveal a lack of confidence that the study is sufficient to withstand the problems arising from legitimate limitations. Therefore, researchers must actively engage with the larger scientific implications of the limitations they face. In fact, doing this is actually a way to demonstrate a writer’s skills and aptitude.

For example, neurogeneticist Nancy Bonini and colleagues published the following paper: natureIn discussing questions raised by the data that we decided not to directly examine in this study, we wrote:One interesting question raised by these data is how aged glial cells promote LD in other glial cells.” To demonstrate the validity of the question and how seriously they took it into consideration, the authors provided a comprehensive summary of the literature in the following seven sentences, presenting two hypotheses based on eight different sources combined.² Rather than avoiding limitations, I attacked them as something worth wondering about and discussing. Not only is this a very effective way to demonstrate their expertise, but it also forms the limitations on which the current research is based when overcome, rather than negatively affecting the legitimacy of the current research findings.

Getting the balance right

Scientists must navigate a delicate line between acknowledging the limitations of their research while not diminishing the effectiveness and value of their work. Recognizing legitimate limitations and assessing and analyzing them appropriately demonstrates a deep understanding of the field, the appropriateness of research within that field, what the rest of the scientific community is doing, and the challenges they face.

All research is part of a larger whole. It would be a disservice to the scientific community to pretend otherwise.

Looking for more information about science writing? Please confirm Scientist’S TS Scicom part time job. Do you need help organizing your manuscript, illustration, poster, etc.? Scientist‘S scientific services You may also be able to get the professional help you need.

References

1. He L, et al. Global characterization of macrophage polarization mechanisms and identification of M2-type polarization inhibitors.. cell representative. 2021;37(5):109955.
2. Burns CN, et al. Aged glia link mitochondrial dysfunction and lipid accumulation. nature. 2024.