How to discuss/review?

• Highlight the relevance and contributions of the study to academia and society.
• Suggest constructive ways to improve the study, i.e. how to make the study more publishable.
• Stimulate conversation among the audience by posing questions for discussion.
• In a nutshell, how to benefit both ways.

Be a good discussant, one should:

• Criticize harshly (e.g. poorly written, grammar, late submission)
• Insert personal feelings (e.g. I like this paper a lot, but.... ; I feel the authors are not ready....; I don't like the color in the chart)
• Decide the paper is publishable (e.g. I don't know the paper of this quality is anywhere close to publishable...; this paper is going nowhere)
• Tell others who you are (e.g. I am the reviewer of this top journal, I know the editor of such and such)

Not to:

• A discussant is like a pre-reviewer of the paper presented in a panel or poster.
• Be professional, scientific and constructive/positive
• A discussant is not on higher ground (more experienced, more published, etc.)
• A discussant is to help, not to categorize or classify. 
• Use the opportunity to build professional relationship.
• No paper is final, encourage the author(s) to improve and give suggestions (technical and/or literature). 

In summary