Think about your paper as a chronological story: it begins with point A (the introduction) and move in time towards point B (the discussions/conclusions).
Since your introduction includes content about the gaps in knowledge that your study aims to fill, the results you will elaborate on in your Discussion section should therefore be somewhat familiar to the reader, as you have already touched up them in the introduction section.
They must be highly readable — that is, clear, accurate, and concise.
They are more likely to be cited by other scientists if they are helpful rather than cryptic or self-centered.
The introduction consists of background information about the topic being studied; the rationale for undertaking this study (for “filling a gap” with this particular information); key references (to preliminary work or closely related papers appearing elsewhere); a clarification of important terms, definitions, or abbreviations to be used in the paper; and a review of related studies in which you give a brief but incisive analysis of work that heavily concerns your study.
It could be a very similar study or one that supports the findings of your study.
Second, they move the more detailed, less important parts of the body to the end of the paper in one or more appendices so that these parts do not stand in the readers' way.
Finally, they structure the content in the body in theorem-proof fashion, stating first what readers must remember (for example, as the first sentence of a paragraph) and then presenting evidence to support this statement.
At the beginning of the Introduction section, the context and need work together as a funnel: They start broad and progressively narrow down to the issue addressed in the paper.
To spark interest among your audience — referees and journal readers alike — provide a compelling motivation for the work presented in your paper: The fact that a phenomenon has never been studied before is not, in and of itself, a reason to study that phenomenon.