Page 331 - CyberSecurityEssentialsEnglish

recommends describing the use in the method in enough detail for it to be understood or
repeated, including the tool, the version, and the prompts where relevant [13].

In the results, do not mix interpretation with presentation. Give the numbers or the themes
in line with the question, with appropriate tables, figures, and limits. Do not ask a tool to

“make the results stronger”; ask it to improve clarity or to reveal a contradiction between
the text and a table. And if it proposes a heading that overstates causality or scope, revise it.

In the discussion, begin with the principal finding, then compare it with the evidence, explain
the agreements and differences, discuss the limitations, and set out the implications. A tool
can propose alternative explanations, but they must be classified as supported, plausible, or

speculative. Good scientific writing does not conceal competing interpretations.

A policy brief usually needs a defined problem, a key message, options, evidence for each
option, likely effects, implementation and equity considerations, and what we do not know.
It must not become a list of recommendations detached from the evidence. And the best

output may be a conditional decision or a pilot rather than immediate generalization.

A tool helps with language editing, unifying terminology, reducing repetition, turning a
paragraph into a table, or preparing a simplified version. But the researcher’s voice and the
precision of the terminology must be preserved. Over-polished text may conceal the fact

that some logical links were never settled. Read the version in your own voice, and restore
the detail and context that the team knows.

In bilingual writing, do not rely on a translation of the title and abstract without specialist

review. A term may have more than one equivalent, and the form of the question or the
strength of the claim may shift. Create an approved glossary, and check the names,
institutions, figures, and references in both versions.

Before submission, carry out a reverse audit: take every important sentence and ask what

its source is; then take every table and ask whether the numbers in the text match it; then
take every reference and ask where it was used and why. This review is far more valuable
than asking again for the text to be made “more professional”.

330