Discussion Sections Of Articles Research Articles

Cause-effect patterns in the discussion sections of articles in language studies journals: The discourse of scientific explanation across language sub-disciplines

One of the basic goals of academic research is to explain the phenomena that researchers observe through causal relations. From a discursive perspective, however, how cause-effect patterns (CEPs) are reflected in academic writing is a major question to be investigated. Meanwhile, a problem is that sub-disciplines exploring human sciences may exhibit radical variations in terms of their discursive use of cause-effect patterns. Language studies is an umbrella term that encompasses many disciplines, including literature, language teaching, translation studies and linguistics. On a surface level, because such disciplines address language, one may assume that they follow similar ways of explaining language-related phenomena. This article is based on findings obtained from a study of the cause-effect patterns in 60 discussion sections randomly selected from 12 high-impact journals in four sub-disciplines of language studies. It aims to (i) categorise the types of the cause-effect patterns into ‘cause in focus’ and ‘effect in focus’, (ii) identify the most frequently used cause-effect signals, and (iii) ascertain whether there is any significant difference between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns. Based on Fisher’s exact test, the findings reveal that a significant difference exists between the sub-disciplines in terms of their use of cause-effect patterns, and they also suggest that language teaching papers use the highest number of cause-effect patterns and thus were remarkably explanatory in explicating the phenomena they dealt with.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. Present article is Russian-language translation of the original manuscript edited by Doctor of Medicine R.T. Saygitov.Present translation was first published in Digital Diagnostics. doi: 10.17816/DD70821. It is published with minor changes related to the literary editing of the translation itself.

Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections

The present study reports potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research articles (RA) discussion sections. The study was conducted by utilizing descriptive qualitative research. The researcher purposefully focused on investigating 10 bilingual writers who wrote both one English and one Indonesian research article. The selected writers were those who had an educational background in language and language teaching. The interviews covered the interviewees’ background information, current activities, writing activities, and their rhetorical patterns of discussion sections. The interviews were conducted by utilizing the snowball technique to search for more information. The interview data were analyzed into some steps namely, transcribing the interview data, organizing data, summarizing data, and interpreting data. All data transcription was then categorized and coded. Research findings revealed that the writers’ choice of move structure could be as a result of learning from other people’s rhetorical patterns, believing themselves, having high self-confidence, having high writing frequency, and having high awareness in the micro and macrostructure of writing discussion sections. The Indonesian writers have opened their minds to learn and read other researchers’ articles and then determine whether the patterns are suitable for them or not. The writers’ starting point of experiencing to have their RA published made them believe in themselves and felt self-confident. Thus, the more they wanted to write RA, the higher they had writing frequency and awareness in the micro and macrostructure of writing discussion sections.

Argument Schemes and Soundness/Strength in Published Research Article Discussion Sections: A Diachronic Study

Argument Schemes and Soundness/Strength in Published Research Article Discussion Sections: A Diachronic Study

A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Research Article Discussion Sections in an Engineering Discipline: Corpus Explorations and Scientists’ Perceptions

Writing discussion sections of research articles (RAs) is difficult for novice scientists. The study investigates patterns of linguistic characterizations in discussion sections of RAs in chemical engineering. Around 240,000-word corpus was compiled using 213 discussion sections extracted from 20 disciplinary journals. Multi-dimensional (MD) analysis proposed by Biber was used to capture linguistic co-occurrence patterns based on a constellation of features across collected texts. The MD results show six salient linguistic patterns: (1) Involvement and interactivity; (2) Description versus Narration; (3) Expression of attitude; (4) Informational production; (5) Framing scientific claims; and (6) Expression of denial. Discourse-based interviews were then conducted with eight professional scientists to elicit their perception of MD findings concerning their reading experience and understanding of established writing conventions. The implications for EAP professionals are proposed as to the explicit instruction on teaching novice writers how to employ stance expressions strategically in academic writing.

Crafting theoretical value in management research article discussion sections

The enactment of theoretical contribution in research articles (RAs) is a critical academic writing practice for showcasing the scientific progress of a disciplinary field. To decide how novel research strengthens a discipline’s current state of knowledge necessitates evaluating the new empirical results based upon its specific academic norms. Yet the academic values utilized to formulate theoretical advancement have been little studied in the literature. Drawing upon pertinent evaluation frameworks, the purpose of this study is to uncover how RA authors negotiate the theoretical value of novel research by conducting a rhetorical analysis of 60 research article discussion sections taken from four prestigious management journals. The present investigation reveals a tentative taxonomy of six rhetorical appeal types deployed by RA authors to articulate the value of novel research in the knowledge market. The widespread use of these appeals in management research article discussion sections indicates that a strong promotional orientation is prevalent in the rhetoric of the journals examined. The findings of this research have theoretical and pedagogical implications for academic evaluation and promotion, as well as for teaching academic writing

Use of Adverbials in Discussion Sections of Research Articles in Thai and International Journals

The purpose of this study was to compare the discussion sections of research articles in applied linguistics in Thai and international journals. The corpus consisted of 20 English research articles: 10 from Thai journals and 10 from international journals. The adverbials framework of Biber et al. (1999) was employed in this study. The study explained the different usage of adverbials in discussion sections of both corpora. The results show that most of the use of adverbials in research article discussion sections in Thai and international journals is similar. There are five adverbials which are different and influence the presentation of content in discussion sections. It is hoped that this study may help teachers to design writing courses for novice writers or undergraduate and postgraduate students in writing research article discussion sections to publish in an international level.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Translation to Russian

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.
 This article is the reprint with Russian translation of the original that can be observed here: Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297.

Characterizing references from different disciplines: A perspective of citation content analysis

Multidisciplinary cooperation is now common in research since social issues inevitably involve multiple disciplines. In research articles, reference information, especially citation content, is an important representation of communication among different disciplines. Analyzing the distribution characteristics of references from different disciplines in research articles is basic to detecting the sources of referred information and identifying contributions of different disciplines. This work takes articles in PLoS as the data and characterizes the references from different disciplines based on Citation Content Analysis (CCA). First, we download 210,334 full-text articles from PLoS and collect the information of the in-text citations. Then, we identify the discipline of each reference in these academic articles. To characterize the distribution of these references, we analyze three characteristics, namely, the number of citations, the average cited intensity and the average citation length. Finally, we conclude that the distributions of references from different disciplines are significantly different. Although most references come from Natural Science, Humanities and Social Sciences play important roles in the Introduction and Background sections of the articles. Basic disciplines, such as Mathematics, mainly provide research methods in the articles in PLoS. Citations mentioned in the Results and Discussion sections of articles are mainly in-discipline citations, such as citations from Nursing and Medicine in PLoS.

Current State of Geospatial Methodologic Approaches in Canadian Population Oncology Research.

Geospatial analyses are increasingly used in population oncology. We provide a first review of geospatial analysis in Canadian population oncology research, compare to international peers, and identify future directions. Geospatial-focused peer-reviewed publications from 1992-2020 were compiled using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Abstracts were screened for data derived from a Canadian cancer registry and use of geographic information systems. Studies were classified by geospatial methodology, geospatial unit, location, cancer site, and study year. Common limitations were documented from article discussion sections. Our search identified 71 publications using data from all provincial and national cancer registries. Thirty-nine percent (N = 28) were published in the most recent 5-year period (2016-2020). Geospatial methodologies included exposure assessment (32.4%), identifying spatial associations (21.1%), proximity analysis (16.9%), cluster detection (15.5%), and descriptive mapping (14.1%). Common limitations included confounding, ecologic fallacy, not accounting for residential mobility, and small case/population sizes. Geospatial analyses are increasingly used in Canadian population oncology; however, efforts are concentrated among a few provinces and common cancer sites, and data are over a decade old. Limitations were similar to those documented internationally, and more work is needed to address them. Organized efforts are needed to identify common challenges, develop leading practices, and identify shared priorities.

The Investigation of the Textual Organization of Research Article Discussion Sections in the Field of Second Language Writing

This research aims to investigate the textual organization of research article discussion sections in second language writing in order to reveal how expert writers in the discipline prefer to construct their discussion. Move analysis was conducted on a corpus of 103 research article discussion sections collected from five established journals. The analysis reveals that the research article discussion sections in second language writing could be described with eight moves with some moves containing steps. It was found that the commenting on results move, reporting results move and deductions from the research move were most frequent in the corpus. These findings suggest that the main function of the discussion sections is to report and comment on results, but the emphasis is placed on commenting. Besides, writers in this discipline also prefer to provide suggestions, areas for future studies and implications for teaching and learning in this section. Managing the section move, used to announce the outline of the section, was also identified in the corpus. This is a move that has never been reported before in previous studies on discussion sections. This finding suggests a strategy that can be used to handle the complexity of the discussion sections and make them reader friendly. The analysis also identified some typical patterns of moves occurring in a corpus. This study contributes to the fields of genre analysis, English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes, and provides guidance to novice or less experienced writers who want to write for publications.

The Investigation of the Textual Organization of Research Article Discussion Sections in the Field of Second Language Writing

This research aims to investigate the textual organization of research article discussion sections in second language writing in order to reveal how expert writers in the discipline prefer to construct their discussion. Move analysis was conducted on a corpus of 103 research article discussion sections collected from five established journals. The analysis reveals that the research article discussion sections in second language writing could be described with eight moves with some moves containing steps. It was found that the commenting on results move, reporting results move and deductions from the research move were most frequent in the corpus. These findings suggest that the main function of the discussion sections is to report and comment on results, but the emphasis is placed on commenting. Besides, writers in this discipline also prefer to provide suggestions, areas for future studies and implications for teaching and learning in this section. Managing the section move, used to announce the outline of the section, was also identified in the corpus. This is a move that has never been reported before in previous studies on discussion sections. This finding suggests a strategy that can be used to handle the complexity of the discussion sections and make them reader friendly. The analysis also identified some typical patterns of moves occurring in a corpus. This study contributes to the fields of genre analysis, English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes, and provides guidance to novice or less experienced writers who want to write for publications.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Research Article Discussion Sections in the Field of Chemical Engineering

Background: This study investigates linguistic characterizations in the form of linguistic co-occurrence patterns in discussion sections of English research articles (RAs) in an engineering discipline (i.e., chemical engineering) and linguistic variations that distinguish discussion sections of high-impact articles from those in low-impact articles. Research questions: 1. What underlying linguistic characterizations are salient in RA discussions in chemical engineering? 2. Are there any differences in the identified linguistic characterizations of discussion sections between high- and low-impact RAs? Literature review: In the process of composing RAs, the discussion section is a difficult and challenging part-genre to write. The rhetorical organization of RA discussions has been examined extensively through Swales's English for Specific Purposes genre analysis. However, the linguistic characterizations of RA discussion sections remain unclear and the question of whether discernible differences exist between discussions of high- and low-impact RAs in a specialized engineering discipline remains unanswered. Methodology: This study used Biber's multidimensional (MD) analysis method. In response to the first research question, factor analysis (in this study, principal component analysis) was adopted to identify the linguistic characterizations in the form of linguistic co-occurrence patterns (“dimensions”) in 213 RA discussion sections extracted from chemical engineering RAs. To answer the second question, the independent t-test was implemented to compare the high- and low-impact RA discussion sections in the identified dimensions. Results and conclusions: Six linguistic characterizations in the form of linguistic co-occurrence patterns were identified in RA discussion sections: 1. involvement and interactivity, 2. non-narration versus narration, 3. evaluative statements with further explanations and elaborations, 4. informational density, 5. stating results/claims, and 6. expression of denial relationships toward statement or experimental findings. The results suggest the linguistic characterizations in RA discussion sections and interesting differences in the high- and low-impact RA discussion sections, especially in Dimensions 1, 3, and 5. Reasons for the linguistic variations in the identified dimensions are discussed, followed by the pedagogical implications for reading or writing RAs for international scientific communication.

Rhetorical Differences in Research Article Discussion Sections of High- and Low-Impact Articles in the Field of Chemical Engineering

This study aims to delineate the rhetorical organization of research article (RA) discussion sections in an engineering discipline and explore the variations that distinguish discussion sections of high-impact and low-impact RAs. Research questions: What is the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in chemical engineering? What are the similarities and differences in the use of rhetorical moves and steps in RA discussions of high-impact and low-impact articles? Literature review: Some studies have been conducted using Swales’ move analysis with regard to the identification and textual comparisons of RA discussion sections. However, it remains to be determined whether RA discussions of the high- and low-impact articles within a single discipline display the variation in rhetorical patterns. Research methodology: A total of 40 RA discussions published between 2005 and 2015 were chosen based on five-year journal impact factor and citations of the articles in which they were published. Swales’ move analysis was used to compare rhetorical moves and steps in both sets of RA discussions. Results and discussion: The study identified the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in the field of chemical engineering. The findings indicate that discussion sections of high-impact articles tend to make use of the “comment on results” move. Explanations of the similarities and differences in the employment of moves and steps are provided. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections

While huge efforts were devoted to the identification of moves and steps in research article Discussion sections, how writers justify the value of the new research through conflict negotiation to transform empirical results into knowledge claims is left unnoticed. The purpose of this study is to show how writers negotiate academic conflict to demonstrate the legitimacy of their new research within the academic discipline. Based on analysis of 21 Applied Linguistics research articles, the present study conducted rhetorical analysis of academic conflict drawing on Hunston’s (1993) framework and then applied Martin and White’s (2005) engagement system to closely examine the use of interpersonal resources in representing and negotiating conflict. This study reveals that/how writers strategically vary their engagement tactics in relation to the functional components of academic conflict to activate readers' positive evaluation of the new knowledge. Most notably, although researchers represent the empirical discrepancies between their own findings and previous research, such conflict is generally not resolved by explicitly dismissing the opposing studies but by conferring authority and legitimation on the new findings. These results not only contribute to our understanding of knowledge construction processes through argumentation but also have important pedagogical implications for the writing practices of novice researchers.

The rhetorical organization of research article discussion sections: An investigation into genre evolution in applied linguistics

The present study aimed to investigate the evolution of the rhetorical structure of research article discussions in three prestigious journals covering the two chronological periods of 1980‐1989 (group A) and 2005‐2010 (group B). It also studied changes in the application of the two most frequently used verb tenses − the simple present tense and the simple past tense − over the two time periods. Overall, 115 published articles were selected from the aforementioned journals. Move analysis was accomplished through application of Dudley‐Evans' (1994) model on the datasets. Findings indicated that despite the overall consistency in utilizing the nine‐move organization, there emerged rather considerable differences in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome and Explanation moves. A reduction in the frequency of (Un) expected outcome in group B indicated that present‐day writers announce results with more caution to win the acquiescence of reviewers and readers. On the other hand, a rise in explanations revealed a growing concern for including more arguments in order to follow the analytical nature of the discussion section. The results also demonstrated a shift from the simple present tense toward the simple past tense, which marks a shift from generalization to specificity. Keywords: research article, move, discussion section, genre evolution

Exploring Gender Differences in the use of Discourse Markers in Iranian Academic Research Articles

The current study attempted to explore the role of gender differences in applying Meta-discourse markers in abstract and discussion sections of articles written in English by native speakers of Persian. A comparative study was also made to probe into the frequency number of hedge and booster in these two sections. To do so, 40 English research articles written by native speakers of Persian were chosen. Accordingly, Hyland's (2005) meta-discourse taxonomy was employed to identify the list of hedges and boosters. The results of quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that gender differences play a significant role on utilizing these devices in the texts. It was also found that Iranian males were more inclined to use boosters in their academic writing while Iranian females prefer to use more hedges to express the information they supplied. This study has pedagogical implications for the writing practices of non-native researchers.

Nominalization in the Research Article Discussion Sections of Local and International Journals of Applied Linguistics

This study aimed at investigating the tendency of research article (RA) authors for the application of nominalization in RA discussion sections from the perspective of two discourse communities. To this end, 150 RA discussion sections were selected from local and international Applied Linguistics journals.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case–control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.