Discussion section of a research article (RA) is an essential part of a paper where findings are interpreted and built into a broader context. This study looks at a corpus of 64 discussion sections from medical RAs. Using move analysis we examine texts produced by four groups of writers: (1) native English speakers (n=16), (2) non-native English speakers using English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) to communicate their research (n=16), (3) Russian authors employing ELF to communicate research in international journals (n=16), and (4) Russian authors publishing in ELF with Russian journals listed in international databases (n=16). In line with the Al-Shujairi et al.'s (2019) model of the Discussion section of medical RA, we identified nine moves. Three of these moves include steps, implying a more structured and detailed approach. Furthermore, an additional third step (Strengths) is identified in Move 7 in our corpus, indicating a preference among authors to further highlight effectiveness of their arguments. This study describes discrepancies between Russian authors’ approach to writing a Discussion section and the conventional rhetorical structure of medical articles. For scientific writing to integrate into English-medium scholarly community, it is imperative that authors rely on accepted rhetorical moves and steps. This way academic English functions as a lingua franca, ensuring effective global academic communication.
Discussion section of a research article (RA) is an essential part of a paper where findings are interpreted and built into a broader context. This study looks at a corpus of 64 discussion sections from medical RAs. Using move analysis we examine texts produced by four groups of writers: (1) native English speakers (n=16), (2) non-native English speakers using English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) to communicate their research (n=16), (3) Russian authors employing ELF to communicate research in international journals (n=16), and (4) Russian authors publishing in ELF with Russian journals listed in international databases (n=16). In line with the Al-Shujairi et al.'s (2019) model of the Discussion section of medical RA, we identified nine moves. Three of these moves include steps, implying a more structured and detailed approach. Furthermore, an additional third step (Strengths) is identified in Move 7 in our corpus, indicating a preference among authors to further highlight effectiveness of their arguments. This study describes discrepancies between Russian authors’ approach to writing a Discussion section and the conventional rhetorical structure of medical articles. For scientific writing to integrate into English-medium scholarly community, it is imperative that authors rely on accepted rhetorical moves and steps. This way academic English functions as a lingua franca, ensuring effective global academic communication.