Search

The ability to publish research papers is a must for scientists nowadays. Ideally, at the very beginning of their career, young researchers, PhD students, should be instructed in writing research papers and should get feedback on their texts. In this study, the first manuscripts from 22 doctoral students, non-native English speakers, 223 pages were analysed for errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style. For each type of error and each student, the average per page was calculated. The most frequent errors were identified in using articles, formal features, missing information, and the use of inappropriate words. Individual students showed significantly different levels, which reflected their previous language training and the approach (responsibility) to completing the task. The results will be used to modify the course in Academic Writing (more attention paid to the most frequent errors) and individual work with students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Academic paper writing holds significant importance in the education of medical students, and poses a clear challenge for those whose first language is not English. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of employing large language models, particularly ChatGPT, in improving the English academic writing skills of these students. Methods A cohort of 25 third-year medical students from China was recruited. The study consisted of two stages. Firstly, the students were asked to write a mini paper. Secondly, the students were asked to revise the mini paper using ChatGPT within two weeks. The evaluation of the mini papers focused on three key dimensions, including structure, logic, and language. The evaluation method incorporated both manual scoring and AI scoring utilizing the ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 models. Additionally, we employed a questionnaire to gather feedback on students’ experience in using ChatGPT. Results After implementing ChatGPT for writing assistance, there was a notable increase in manual scoring by 4.23 points. Similarly, AI scoring based on the ChatGPT-3.5 model showed an increase of 4.82 points, while the ChatGPT-4 model showed an increase of 3.84 points. These results highlight the potential of large language models in supporting academic writing. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between manual scoring and ChatGPT-4 scoring, indicating the potential of ChatGPT-4 to assist teachers in the grading process. Feedback from the questionnaire indicated a generally positive response from students, with 92% acknowledging an improvement in the quality of their writing, 84% noting advancements in their language skills, and 76% recognizing the contribution of ChatGPT in supporting academic research. Conclusion The study highlighted the efficacy of large language models like ChatGPT in augmenting the English academic writing proficiency of non-native speakers in medical education. Furthermore, it illustrated the potential of these models to make a contribution to the educational evaluation process, particularly in environments where English is not the primary language.

Metadiscourse markers and their importance to academic writing are essential research subjects nowadays. The current corpus-based study aims at identifying interactional and interactive metadiscourse markers in terms of frequency and function in the abstract section of published research articles in applied linguistics developed by Algerian, Saudi, and Native researchers. 20 research articles for each group, with a total of 60 articles have been randomly selected and compiled as the research corpus for this study, then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using AntConc.3.2.4 relying on Hyland’s classification of metadiscourse markers. As a comparative study, the research considered the abstracts written by natives as a benchmark and attempted to find an answer to the main inquiry related to the frequency of use of metadiscourse devices by Algerian and Saudi researchers in comparison to their Native counterparts. The main research results showed how close were Algerian abstracts to native ones in terms of using endophorics, frame markers, code glosses, hedges, attitude markers, and self-mentions. While Saudi abstracts were close to the benchmark only in two markers that are transitions and engagement markers. The rest of the devices were shown to be far from the native norm in both cases. The findings also revealed that the use of metadiscourse markers is not the only indicator of papers’ publication rate in indexed journals by comparing the corpus analysis results to the source of the articles (journals), to find that even if Algerian researchers publish less in high indexed journals in comparison to Saudis, they are still closer in using markers to the natives as a benchmark.

Background: Many physicians in Turkey are both clinicians and researchers, and publishing their research contributes to better patient care as well as to career advancement.Objective: To identify the barriers faced by Turkish physicians to writing research papers and getting them published.Methods: Respondents were asked, through eight multiple-choice questions, about the difficulties they faced in writing research papers and in getting them published in journals. We also searched published literature for accounts of similar difficulties and answers to the question ‘What is your purpose in writing scientific publications?’Results: A total of 18% (155 of 871) of physicians completed the questionnaire. About the difficulties faced in writing, 82 out of the 155 participants, or 57%, reported problems in finding financial support; 58 (40%), in obtaining required permissions and clearances; 65 (45%), in acquiring relevant skills, especially those related to data analysis or statistics; and 42 (29%), in language-related skills. About the difficulties in getting their papers published in journals, 85 (60%) said that they tried to overcome the difficulties by searching for appropriate solutions on the internet; 66 (47%) sought help from experienced colleagues; and 47 (33%) needed professional help in English translation and editing. Need for financial support was reported by a significantly (p = 0.04) larger proportion of associate professors or full professors (69%) than that of residents (47%) and fellows (45%).Conclusion: The main problems that Turkish physicians face in preparing scientific manuscripts were lack of financial support, inadequate knowledge of data analysis and statistics, and the paperwork involved in obtaining required approvals and permissions—problems that were common to the departments of internal medicine and of surgery. The primary motivation for writing and publishing was career advancement, especially through promotion to a higher academic rank.

This study analysed the information-argument structure of the Introduction sections of sociology research papers, to identify differences across three types of sociology research: Investigative research, Development and Evaluation research, and Descriptive research. The information-argument analysis framework bears some resemblance to rhetorical structure frameworks following Swales’ CARS model, but focuses on the argumentative aspect of text and how information is used to support argument claims. The coding scheme specifies information types, subdivided into those that imply an argument claim and those that play the role of argument support. Seventy papers were sampled from ten sociology journals for analysis. Sequential association rule mining was used to identify sequential information-argument patterns. The study identified significant differences in information-argument profile across the three types of research papers, as well as differences in sequential patterns. Methodology contributions of the paper include the coding scheme for information-argument types in research papers, and the method of analysing sequential patterns.

Copyright of Calidoscópio is the property of Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There are strong shreds of evidence that the choice of instructional materials has large effects on students’ achievement. This study was to assess the efficacy of using ELT research papers as authentic materials in teaching research-based article writing. This study was aimed at revealing whether or not there is a significant difference in students’ writing skill in terms of ELT research paper writing between the students who were taught by using ELT research papers as authentic materials and those who were taught by using textbook materials provided by the faculty. This study belongs to a quasi-experimental study with an experimental and control group pretest-posttest design. The population of this study was 75 students from the fourth semester of English Education Study Program of IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro, East Java, Indonesia. The sample was selected through cluster random sampling and consisted of 50 students that were divided into two groups. The instrument used to collect the data was a writing test. Consequently, normality and homogeneity of the data were tested. A t-test was used to compare the mean of the two groups. The hypothesis was designed and tested at 0.05 level of significance. The results revealed that there is a significant difference in students’ academic writing skill between the students who were taught by using the ELT research papers as authentic materials and those who were taught by using textbook materials. The t-test revealed that t-value is higher than t-table (6.07>2.01). Therefore it is concluded that the authentic instructional materials could significantly improve students’ academic writing skill.

Stance-taking is one aspect of academic-writing conventions that college students need to attend to in order to improve their scholarly writing. Stance includes the ways writers express their value judgments and attitudes to forward a proposition and be aligned with other authors in the field (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Du Bois, 2007). This study aims to describe the ways students establish their stance in their literary-analysis papers. While most researchers on stance-taking followed Hyland’s (2005, 2010) framework, it cannot be denied that nuances appear in the ever-evolving dynamics of writing as a social act from authors. While Hyland’s framework is heavily informed by a bulk of data involving advanced and published researchers only, the present study followed Aull and Lancaster’s (2014) framework as this is informed by rather inclusive research data from amateur to advanced writers. The researcher examined the stance-taking linguistic markers used in the literary-analysis papers through the following: expressing commitment (use of hedges and boosters), reformulating and exemplifying (use of code glosses), and expressing concession and contrast (use of adversative or contrast connectors). Nine recorded interviews and 58 literary-analysis papers written by college students from a Philippine state university served as research data. Findings revealed that students used more boosters to express commitment to their claims, which would increase their authorial presence in the essays. Most of the time, the students used code glosses, boosters, and adversative or contrast markers to evidentialize their claims and refer to other authors in order to align themselves and eventually reveal their position on the topic(s) they discuss. The students, however, have limited understanding of the functions of stance-taking as they reasoned that these are only used to sound more convincing and persuasive. The study recommends the explicit instruction of linguistic markers of stance and their functions so that students can expand their rhetorical options for academic writing.

Academic writing, particularly writing research articles, is an indispensable part of every major in higher education. Hyland (2004) argued that a valuable means of exploring academic writing, and comparing the rhetorical features and preferences of different discourse communities, is through the metadiscourse analysis of the text. The present study examines the differences in the use, type, and frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of research papers across the two disciplines of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. To this end, 42 research articles (21 Mechanical and 21 Electrical Engineering) written by English native speakers were randomly selected from two major international journals. The current study made use of Hyland’s (2005) model for analyzing the interactional metadiscourse markers used in the selected corpus, consisting of 41484 words. To analyze the data, the frequency, patterns of use, and type of interactional metadiscourse markers were elicited both through a manual corpus analysis and concordance package. Furthermore, to examine whether there is any significant difference in the use of metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of these papers, a Chi-square analysis was run. The results of the quantitative analysis revealed that although there were some minor differences in the frequency and type of these metadiscourse markers, there was no statistically significant difference across the disciplines, which can be attributed to the close nature of these fields. The findings of this study may render some pedagogical implications for ESP courses and especially writing research papers.

The author considers the significance of teaching post-graduate students the module of written scientific communication to avoid problems facing them in future publishing career. The notion ‘academic writing’ is interpreted as the key to realizing national differences in intercultural written interaction. The author highlights the inevitable interference of the English scientific language and the native language of a researcher, the international part of a modern academic paper being English as lingua franca. Typology of cultures helps to explain possible misunderstanding in reading academic papers. Linguistico-culturological analysis of several scientific articles written in English by investigators from various countries allows the author to conclude that any researcher writes in English under unconscious domination of his national features.

How Should I Write a Research Paper? This article analyses the necessary techniques, skills, and procedures of writing an academic or a research paper. Further, the article examines the criteria, and essential components of a good research paper. By focusing on the contemporary debates and discussion on academic writing and publishing, this article acts as a platform to realise the challenges associated with this crucial endeavor in the academic arena. The article also reveals the need to teach academic writing to graduates, and postgraduate students. The author uses written sources to analyse and synthesize important skills and procedures required to write a good academic paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic writing is a critical skill distinct from creative writing. While brevity is vital, clarity in writing reflects clarity of thought. This paper is a primer for novice academic writers. [WestJEM. 2009;10:120-123.]

INTRODUCTION A research paper is a part of academic writing where there is a gathering of information from different sources. It is multistep process. Selection of title is the most important part of research writing. The title which is interesting should be chosen for the research purpose. All the related information is gathered and the title for research is synthesized. After thorough understanding and developing the title, the preliminary outline is made which maintains the logical path for its exploration. After preliminary research, proper research work is started with collection of previous resources which is then organized and important points are noted. Then research paper is written by referring to outlines, notes, articles, journals and books. The research paper should be well structured containing core parts like introduction, material and methods, results and disscussion and important additional parts like title, abstract, references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The round table discussion of the journal Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii (Higher Education in Russia) took place on March 14, 2017 within the framework of Humanities Readings at Russian State University for the Humanities. The key theme - the model of the modern research journal in various aspects: philological (academic writing, IMRaD), philosophical (criteria of scholarly publication), historical and cultural, economical. The participants have touched upon such issues as interrelations between an author and an editor, types of peer review, the epistemological model of editor's activities, assessment of research activities, scientific communication. Special attention was paid to academic writing and suitability of IMRaD format for Humanities papers, scientometrics.

The round table discussion of the journal Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii (Higher Education in Russia) took place on March 14, 2017 within the framework of Humanities Readings at Russian State University for the Humanities. The key theme - the model of the modern research journal in various aspects: philological (academic writing, IMRaD), philosophical (criteria of scholarly publication), historical and cultural, economical. The participants have touched upon such issues as interrelations between an author and an editor, types of peer review, the epistemological model of editor's activities, assessment of research activities, scientific communication. Special attention was paid to academic writing and suitability of IMRaD format for Humanities papers, scientometrics.

Copyright of Journal of Language & Literary Studies / Folia Linguistica & Litteraria is the property of Journal of Language & Literary Studies / Folia Linguistica & Litteraria and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To be a successful academic writer, we need a strong awareness of the circumstances that support our writing productivity. First and foremost, writing requires time-on-task. To obtain focused, effective writing time, we may need to increase our accountability related to writing. In addition, each writer needs a writing system - a set of processes that helps them to reliably complete their writing work. To build an effective writing system, we advocate for observation, reflection, and experimentation related to our writing processes. In particular, examination of the what, where, when, and how of writing is critical. Strategies for optimizing productivity during writing sessions are also needed. Strengthening writing productivity requires mechanisms for accountability, awareness of our writing process, and strategies to enhance the effectiveness of each writing session. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author considers the ways to prevent errors and mistakes in English language abstracts of papers written in Russian by university faculty, post+graduate students and students earning their Master’s degree in engineering. Common errors have been identified and systematized. The articleprovides examples of common lexical and grammar errors and errors of style and their presumable roots. The process of training includes ‘writing for training’ and ‘writing for communication’ stages. During the second one the studentsread and analyze some samples of abstracts, write their own drafts and discuss them inclass (peer+to+peer review). As a result the quality of abstracts has improved and the number of errors and mistakes has decreased significantly.

Background: Many physicians in Turkey are both clinicians and researchers, and publishing their research contributes to better patient care as well as to career advancement. Objective: To identify the barriers faced by Turkish physicians to writing research papers and getting them published. Methods: Respondents were asked, through eight multiple-choice questions, about the difficulties they faced in writing research papers and in getting them published in journals. We also searched published literature for accounts of similar difficulties and answers to the question 'What is your purpose in writing scientific publications?' Results: A total of 18% (155 of 871) of physicians completed the questionnaire. About the difficulties faced in writing, 82 out of the 155 participants, or 57%, reported problems in finding financial support; 58 (40%), in obtaining required permissions and clearances; 65 (45%), in acquiring relevant skills, especially those related to data analysis or statistics; and 42 (29%), in languagerelated skills. About the difficulties in getting their papers published in journals, 85 (60%) said that they tried to overcome the difficulties by searching for appropriate solutions on the internet; 66 (47%) sought help from experienced colleagues; and 47 (33%) needed professional help in English translation and editing. Need for financial support was reported by a significantly (p = 0.04) larger proportion of associate professors or full professors (69%) than that of residents (47%) and fellows (45%). Conclusion: The main problems that Turkish physicians face in preparing scientific manuscripts were lack of financial support, inadequate knowledge of data analysis and statistics, and the paperwork involved in obtaining required approvals and permissions--problems that were common to the departments of internal medicine and of surgery. The primary motivation for writing and publishing was career advancement, especially through promotion to a higher academic rank. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate the rhetorical structure of the results and discussion section of scientific papers of the colleges of Life Sciences and Exact, Technological and Multidisciplinary Sciences. In addition to investigating rhetorical relationships, clues (linguistic signals) that signal the relationships are also investigated. The theoretical-methodological model adopted is the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), a descriptive theory that studies the organization of texts, characterizing the relations held between its parts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Writing a research paper as a graduation requisite by university students is an important part of university education. It is not a simple task for most university students who face several problems during writing the graduation project. Several kinds of research have been conducted on recognising the challenges and problems that face students in academic writing, but to the researcher's best knowledge, no study has been conducted on the problems faced in writing a graduate research paper by Jordanian undergraduate students of the English Language and Literature major. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the academic writing challenges and difficulties encountered in writing graduation papers by EFL undergraduate students in the Department of English at Alzaytoonah University of Jordan (ZUJ). The data for the study was collected through distributing a questionnaire of three parameters: attitude about writing a research paper, methodology challenges, and background knowledge about research. The questionnaire is based on identifying the causes of the students' challenges in writing their graduation papers. The respondents were 45 undergraduate students of the English Language and Literature. The findings revealed that the most important problems were lack of an academic prerequisite of teaching the techniques of how to write a research paper, lack of knowledge of research paper writing process, lack of resources, lack of the methodology, etc. Thus, for these reasons, the present study attempts to present suggestions and recommendations to overcome such hurdles faced by graduate students in writing their graduation research papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Domínios de Lingu@gem is the property of Dominios de Lingu@gem and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Publishing in premier journals is a multifaceted challenge that requires not only conducting impactful research but also mastering the art of scholarly writing. This article offers a comprehensive guide, specifically tailored for quantitative research, a dominant methodology in premier journals. The guide systematically navigates through each section of a quantitative research paper—title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and references—providing clear, actionable advice. Drawing from a research publication in a Q1‐ranked journal as an illustration, this guide elucidates the nuances of constructing an engaging and rigorous quantitative research paper. The guide also delves into the expectations of editors and reviewers, offering innovative strategies and insights to enhance the clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness of submissions. Designed to resonate deeply with quantitative scholars, this guide empowers researchers to craft research papers that not only align but surpass the expectations of premier journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of GeSec: Revista de Gestao e Secretariado is the property of Sindicato das Secretarias e Secretarios do Estado de Sao Paulo (SINSESP) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Metadiscourse markers and their importance to academic writing are essential research subjects nowadays. The current corpus-based study aims at identifying interactional and interactive metadiscourse markers in terms of frequency and function in the abstract section of published research articles in applied linguistics developed by Algerian, Saudi, and Native researchers. 20 research articles for each group, with a total of 60 articles have been randomly selected and compiled as the research corpus for this study, then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using AntConc.3.2.4 relying on Hyland's classification of metadiscourse markers. As a comparative study, the research considered the abstracts written by natives as a benchmark and attempted to find an answer to the main inquiry related to the frequency of use of metadiscourse devices by Algerian and Saudi researchers in comparison to their Native counterparts. The main research results showed how close were Algerian abstracts to native ones in terms of using endophorics, frame markers, code glosses, hedges, attitude markers, and self-mentions. While Saudi abstracts were close to the benchmark only in two markers that are transitions and engagement markers. The rest of the devices were shown to be far from the native norm in both cases. The findings also revealed that the use of metadiscourse markers is not the only indicator of papers' publication rate in indexed journals by comparing the corpus analysis results to the source of the articles (journals), to find that even if Algerian researchers publish less in high indexed journals in comparison to Saudis, they are still closer in using markers to the natives as a benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past three decades, a body of research on issues related to multilingual scholars writing for publication has emerged, paralleling the rise of pressures on scholars around the world to publish their work in high-status journals, especially those included in particular journal citation indexes; these indexes typically privilege the use of English. Researchers have investigated multilingual scholars’ experiences and perspectives, the social contexts of their work, policies on research publishing, aspects of the texts produced by multilingual scholars, the kinds of people scholars interact with while working to publish their research, their collaborations and networks, and pedagogical initiatives to support their publishing efforts. Nevertheless, as ongoing research is conducted, the existing research base has not always been consulted in meaningful ways. In this paper, we draw on the notion of ‘lore’ to identify some of the preconceptions or received wisdom about multilingual scholars and their writing that seem to be circulating, then argue for researchers to move beyond the ‘lore’ and make greater use of both findings from empirical research and related theoretical and methodological conversations. We identify directions for future research to be conducted.

Copyright of Revista Virtual Universidad Católica del Norte is the property of Revista Virtual Universidad Catolica del Norte and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper we aim to discuss how participants, advisor and student, jointly build understandings about what counts as academic writing during an orientation session, and how these understandings are developed by the student in writing a term paper. The theoretical-methodological approach adopted are the assumptions of linguistic ethnography (RAMPTON; MAYBIN; ROBERTS, 2014; GARCEZ, SCHULZ, 2015), understanding ethnography as theorization (LILLIS, 2008), studies of Academic Literacies (LILLIS; SCOTT, 2007; LEA; STREET, 2014) and the dialogism of the Bakhtin Circle (BAKHTIN, 2016; VOLOCHINOV, 2017). As a result, we recognize that the student brings school writing standards to write his term paper and the negotiation with the advisor leads him to gradually recognize what counts as writing in this literacy practice that involves research. Negotiations about what counts as legitimate for a term paper are also determined by the socio-historical positions that language subjects mutually attribute and by the dialogue established with different interlocutors (advisor, possible reader, academy). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the evaluation of the alpha version of a gamified tool called Call for Papers: The Game (CfP:TG), specially designed for teaching scientific writing in the training of future engineers. A non-probabilistic convenience sampling was carried out with the participation of engineering students from a Peruvian public university. The short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) was applied, and usability was qualitatively evaluated. The main results indicate that the Pragmatic Quality of CfP:TG is in the neutral range with a value of 0.729, and the Hedonic Quality receives a positive evaluation with a value of 1.089. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lingua (Language & Culture) is the property of Lingua Centre for the Development & Improvement of Communication in the Public Sphere and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Global competition in higher education has facilitated the growth of English‐medium instruction universities in countries where English is not a national language. In Europe, for example, the number of such programs at the bachelor's level has grown from only 55 in 2009 to 2900 in 2017. Colleges of business and management at these universities take a leading role in providing English‐taught programs and courses at undergraduate and graduate levels. A number of management education faculty and administrators encounter challenges related to teaching and course development in English as a second language. One of these challenges is teaching research paper writing. The purpose of this study was to explore how an approach to a research writing course used at a university in an English‐speaking country could be implemented at an English‐medium instruction university. The course involved 153 undergraduate students majoring in management and included seven sessions. To the students and the instructor English was a second language. Data were collected using qualitative and quantitative tools. Overall, the results indicate that a carefully designed course on writing a research paper can increase student writing self‐efficacy in just seven class sessions. We provide implications for instructors and administrators at English‐medium instruction universities and areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT has left people feeling ambivalent and disagreement among scholars, academicians, educators and the community at large prevails. While the artificial intelligence could potentially revolutionize how research is conducted and how research papers are written, a number of ethical concerns arise. In particular, the world of academia has reservations pertaining to whether this language model will actually do more good than harm, especially as far as academic writing is concerned. This paper argues that the cutting-edge technology is here to stay and the question is not whether to accept it, but rather, how to best utilize it judiciously, cautiously and responsibly to improve research performance by strictly adhering to academic integrity and transparency. Potential benefits and drawbacks of ChatGPT will be critically examined in light of current literature and, when relevant, potential solutions to the drawbacks will also be provided or commented on. Needless to say, the use of artificial intelligence in academic writing is still in its infancy and more discussion and debates pertaining to its use and merit are highly urged. This paper contributes to these on-going debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of academic writing, authors tend to mitigate the force of their scientific claims by means of hedging devices in order to reduce the risk of opposition and minimise the face threatening acts that are involved in the making of claims. This study explores the phenomenon of hedging in the research article (RA) from a cross-cultural perspective. To this end, a total of 40 RAs written in English and Spanish in the field of Clinical and Health Psychology were analysed in terms of the frequency of occurrence and distribution of the various strategies and the linguistic devices associated to each strategy which perform a hedging function in the different structural units of the articles. The results of the comparative quantitative analyses revealed that there are similarities between the two languages regarding the distribution of hedges across the structural units of the RAs, although a certain degree of rhetorical variation was also found mainly in terms of the frequency of use of the strategy of indetermination (i.e. modality devices and approximators) which occurs to a much greater extent in the English texts. This suggests that the English RAs in the field of Clinical and Health Psychology, as a whole, involve more protection to the author’s face.

Teachers as professionals play an essential role in the 21st Century in achieving the vision of national education. Teachers in the 21st Century must continue to improve their academic responsibilities, including writing scientific papers. However, the fact is that teacher activities are still focused on teaching and neglect scientific writing. Therefore, there must be an effort to explore their difficulties in writing. For this reason, this descriptive qualitative research aims to explore the difficulties of teachers in writing scientific papers identified through training activities. The research subjects were teachers of Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 2 Manggarai Ruteng, Indonesia (n=20). We followed a method of using a data collection process that includes document analysis, participatory observation, and focus group discussions. As a result of our research, we mapped the difficulties of teachers. Ongoing training, adding to the library collection, controlling and monitoring the implementation of Madrasah teacher working groups' activities, and mentoring experts need to be considered to support Madrasah teachers' professionalism. This finding has implications for applying a managerial reward and punishment pattern to increase teachers' motivation and interest in writing scientific papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many disciplines, most conference presentations end when the conference does; they do not go on to become peer-reviewed articles. Yet there is also research to suggest that continuing to work with a conference paper to turn it into an article leads to higher research productivity overall, with additional benefits of increasing a researcher's confidence, motivation, and capacity for further research (Lee & Boud, 2003). This article was itself once a conference presentation or, more precisely, a workshop entitled Transforming Your Conference Paper into a Journal Article developed for the University of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Library Association member librarians, and presented to researchers and writers from diverse disciplines. At those presentations attendees asked whether I would be turning this presentation into an article--a very meta question that did indeed seem like a logical next step! Synthesizing multidisciplinary scholarship on academic writing, resources from academic writing coaches, and case studies, this piece is intended to be a DIY workshop focusing on concrete strategies for addressing major barriers in the conference paper-to-article editing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the complex interplay between generative artificial intelligence (AI) and human intellect in academic writing and publishing. It examines the 'organic versus synthetic' paradox, emphasizing the implications of using generative AI tools in educational and academic integrity contexts. The paper critiques the prevalent 'publish or perish' culture in academia, highlighting the need for systemic reevaluation due to generative AI's emerging role in academic writing and reporting. It delves into the legal and ethical challenges of authorship and ownership, especially in relation to copyright laws and AI-generated content. The paper discusses generative AI's diverse roles and advocates for transparent reporting to uphold academic integrity. Additionally, it calls for a broader examination of generative AI tools and stresses the need for new mechanisms to identify generative AI use and ensure adherence to academic integrity and ethics. The implications of generative AI are also explored, suggesting the need for innovative AI-inclusive strategies in academia. The paper concludes by emphasizing the significance of generative AI in various information-processing domains, highlighting the urgency to adapt and transform academic practices in an era of rapid generative AI-driven change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Narrative pedagogy has the power to explore issues in a way that expository teaching cannot match. , for example, point out that fiction has much to offer in focusing creatively on issues, exploring subtleties and discussing related emotional dynamics. But they comment that in nurse education fiction is ‘a relatively untapped’ (though valuable) resource for teaching. ‘Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Plagiarised Paper’ is a fictional account that responds to Moon and Fowler’s challenge. It explores a controversial issue – student plagiarism. The narrative sets the discussion in a fictional context – an interaction between fictional characters and a real character. It explores difficulties that novice writers have in avoiding plagiarism. It debates how teachers may respond to student plagiarism. It contextualises student plagiarism in the wider world of academic plagiarism. Its purpose is to enable the reader to identify and act on these issues in a way that an expository examination of student plagiarism could not achieve. In response to suggestions from reviewers, the article has an Appendix which outlines some of the issues and techniques associated with the use of fiction in nursing education. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article asks the question: what are my responsibilities as a postcolonial geographical writer? It takes as its starting point three extracts from texts written by the writer on their journey towards becoming an academic: a catalyst moment, a moment of self-production as an academic, and a moment of (failed) academic production. This journey raises a problematic around the ways in which the body speaks in academic writing, and the remainder of the piece reviews the geographical literature on materiality in relation to the body, arguing that Deleuzian views of matter as agentic and creative are particularly helpful in comprehending and engaging responsibly with the indeterminate but insistent ways in which the body speaks in postcolonial academic writing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Copyright of Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Metadiscourse is the commentary on a text made by its producer in the course of speaking or writing. Here we take an interpersonal perspective, focusing on metadiscourse as a repertoire of resources available for writers to organise a discourse or their stance towards its content or the reader. In this paper we explore whether, and to what extent, metadiscourse has changed in professional writing in different disciplines over the past 50 years. Extending our diachronic work analysing a corpus of 2.2 million words from articles in the top journals in four disciplines, we show there has been a significant increase in interactive features and a significant decrease in interactional types. Surprisingly, interactional metadiscourse shows a marked decline in the discursive soft knowledge fields and a substantial increase in the science subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The requirement to submit and publish scientific articles in indexed journals has become a part and parcel of life in academia. Although Russian scientists are becoming more visible in the world of science due to their research achievements, they are not sufficiently recognised by a wide audience for several reasons. In this study, we scrutinize the published papers of Russian researchers working in the domains of social sciences and humanities. We aim at investigating the logic and organisation of such publications to see how the articles correspond to the meta-requirements established by the international academia. To achieve the goal we have analysed the logic and organisation of 55 published articles from the Russian scientometric database e-Library. The results emphasise that most Russian researchers do not follow the IMRaD format accepted by the majority of international journals. As a result, such articles have minimal chances to be accepted by international editors. This is not surprising, as unclear structure means lack of readability and, consequently, loss of readers accustomed to a certain article format. This situation causes concerns because Russian scientists do have a lot to say to the world of science.

This paper studies introduction and conclusion sections of papers produced by Spanish PhD Students in an academic writing workshop. Based on Swales's CARS model, the aim is to analyze the movements, steps, and substeps accomplished in the construction of the introduction (Carbonell-Olivares, Gil-Salom, y Soler- Monreal, 2009) and concluding sections (Yag y Alison, 2003). With regard to introductions, results of the study confirm, in line with previous studies, that movement 1 (M1) and 3 (M3) are considered compulsory by Spanish writers. Moreover, participants consider more important to establish the topic of the research than highlighting the significance and originality of the work. In the case of the conclusions, there is a presence of the three prototypical sections (M1-M2-M3). Nevertheless, the main focus in on the summary (M1) and the evaluation of the results (M2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nasleđe is the property of University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Philology & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)