The phrase "accordingly discuss" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It seems to suggest a discussion that follows logically from something previously mentioned, but it lacks proper grammatical structure.
Example: "The findings of the study were significant; accordingly, we will discuss their implications in the next section."
Alternatives: "therefore discuss" or "consequently discuss".
The apparent influence of the investigated parameters on pesticide occurrence in groundwater, and their apparent suitability as descriptive parameters in terms of assessment of related risks, is accordingly discussed.
A closed-form solution of the bridge dynamic response to the transit of trains with arbitrary load distributions and running speeds is found and the train-induced resonances are accordingly discussed.
Accordingly, we discuss these aspects more carefully in the manuscript (Discussion, last paragraph).
Accordingly, we discuss two possible strategies to exemplify how the distinctive power of macrophages/monocytes – particularly their cytokine-secretion ability and chemotactic response to foreign materials – can be harnessed to enhance the performance of bone tissue engineering applications.
Accordingly, we discuss the key work on managerial risk taking, idiosyncratic risk, information risk, accounting opacity, executive compensation, directors and shareholder activism and finally governance, risk and value creation in a way that gives strong hints on possible future research directions across this broad academic landscape.
Accordingly, we discuss the following components needed for the construction of our interpreter.
Accordingly, publications discussing full-fledged games were filtered out.
Accordingly, as discussed in detail in part 1, a cap is akin to a valuation in a priced round (i.e., if the startup were issuing shares of common or preferred stock); however, the beauty of a cap is that it is not a valuation for tax purposes — which facilitates the financing by allowing the founders to grant different caps to different investors.
Accordingly, in discussing Jones in relation to Frege and Russell, I will construe The Law of Significant Assertion as a doctrine concerning identity sentences sentences of the form a is b (where a and b are names, demonstratives or descriptions and is functions accordingly as the is of identity, not predication)—and not as a claim about subject-predicate sentences generally.
Accordingly, before discussing possible consequences for human behaviour of a confrontational scavenging niche, the case for the existence of such a niche must be established.
