Introduction

In the recent decades, the global spread of academic knowledge is fully dependent upon the quality of the English language and the requirement to the RAs (research articles) structure. Publishing in English in high-quality journals has become a common benchmark among non-Anglophone academia. International journals are focused on following the standards of academic writing in English thus making it essential for accepting manuscripts for further publication.

Unfortunately, for most non-Anglophone writers their inability to understand and follow the conventional RAs structure can become problematic. Moreover, even if the authors design their manuscripts dividing them into IMRAD sections they often fail to convey the necessary content through appropriate rhetorical organisation of the RA. The quality of argumentation in RAs is closely connected to its rhetorical organisation. That is why it becomes crucial to strengthen the author’s point of view by empirical evidence. This can be achieved through strict adherence to the models of moves and steps according to the RAs section.

ELF as a means of communicating research

The use of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as well as ability to engage in academic argumentation is pivotal in communicating research. The difficulties of articulating an effective argument and inability to follow rhetorical patterns or standards of academic discourse often become an obstacle for non-Anglophone writers when they try to have their research published. It starts with the stage of reviewing when non-Anglophone writers are criticised for their failure to present the results of their research clearly and critically. Moreover, ineffective English language also hurdles the publication process and deprives non-Anglophone writers of being read and cited.

ELF mainly used in academia does not coincide with English as a national language and an element of national culture (Faber, 2010). ELF is expected to be comprehensible and at the same time maintain the presence of other languages in one way or another, exerting an influence on the way the common language is used (Mauranen, 2017). The non-native speaker of English is not supposed to achieve an extremely high level of proficiency in the language, since ELF appears to be a vehicular language enabling non-natives to communicate their research. This way, to the forefront comes their ability to implement their academic writing skills and knowledge of academic conventions. Failure to meet the requirements leads to the insufficient argumentation and limited ability to participate in academic discussion. Potential to communicate via their manuscripts is inextricably linked to the skill of the non-Anglophone writers to leverage rhetorical organisation through following moves and steps of a RA realising the necessity of each component and applying the knowledge of ELF. The possibility of misinterpretations and misunderstandings in delivering the research in English by the non-Anglophones makes it essential to resort to some preventive strategies like rhetoric and enhanced explicitness (Mauranen, 2006).

Previous research on rhetorical organisation of RAs

Exploring rhetorical structure of the RA, Swales (2004) defined move in genre analysis as a discoursal or rhetorical unit that performs a coherent communicative function in a written or spoken discourse. Moreover, Pho (2009: 17) mentioned that there was its own communicative purpose in each move, and combined, these moves contributed to the general communicative purpose of the text. In move analysis, any section is considered as a series of moves within the general patterns of the text and all the moves together serve the overall communicative purpose of the genre (Fazilatfar and Naseri, 2014), steps being lower level parts of moves which fulfil the communicative function of the move to which they belong (Swales, 1990). Move can be a sentence or group of sentences or even a paragraph serving one or multiple functions in the text. Step is a very specific rhetorical means that is employed to reveal and realise multiple functions of a move.

Most of the studies about the Introduction section (Swales, 1990; Swales, 2004; Samraj, 2005; Cortes, 2013) were focused on the implementation of Swales’ Create a Research Space (CARS) model (Swales, 1990) where each move serves the communicative purpose of the article introduction. Examining an Abstract section, Samraj (2005), Jiang and Hyland (2017), Xiao et al. (2022) state that this section reflects all the moves in full RA (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2000). Disciplinary variations of RA abstracts revealed that even in the case of shared moves, the frequencies of occurrence may be different across disciplines and some of the moves become optional (Darabad, 2016; Xiao et al., 2022). Alhuqbani (2013), Musa et al. (2015), Tawalbeh (2021) scrutinised the disciplinary differences between RA abstracts in terms of their adherence to the existing models.

Research on the Method section also reflects different patterns of rhetorical structure for different disciplines (Kanoksilapatham, 2003; Peacock, 2011). Interestingly, for medical RAs and sociological RAs, similar main moves in Method Section were identified aiming at describing the process of data collection, concepts and variables in the study, statistical techniques of data analysis (Brett, 1994; Nwogu, 1997; Musa et al., 2015). Method section in engineering and biochemistry RAs is an integral section and needs detailing methodological procedure (Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Lim, 2006; Huang, 2014; Musa et al., 2015).

The Result section is considered to be a thoroughly constructed discourse aimed at persuading the readers of accuracy and validity of the scientific facts thus forming the ground for peculiar claims in the field (Gao and Pramoolsook, 2021). The organisational patterning of this section is highly dependent on the discipline (Brett, 1994; Yang and Allison, 2003; Lim, 2010; Gao and Pramoolsook, 2021). The scholars exploring the RA results section insist that there is a difference in the number of moves and section headings according to the subject area. Yang and Allison (2003) found out that the Result section in applied linguistics empirical RAs is cyclical and briefly comments on the findings. Brett (1994) stated the communicative categories of the Research section in sociological articles is based on the previous research and showed that there are certain similarities with Discussion sections of Science RAs. He also confirmed that the main difference across the disciplines appeared to be in the Method s and Results sections, and not in the Introduction and Discussion as it was expected (Brett, 1994). Moreover, some research shows that the Results section can be combined with the Discussion one. Such an approach is based on the point that the Discussion section starts with elaborating the results and explaining the outcomes within the existing literature (Irawati, 2022) thus merging the two sections.

Moves and steps in RAs Discussion section

Swales (1990) stated that the rationale for the genre designs the schematic structure of the discourse, influences and limits the choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is both a privileged criterion and one that operates to ensure that the framework of the genre is narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action (Swales, 1990: 58).

Discussion section in RAs appears to be the most challenging. Scholars have proposed the schematic structures of the RA Discussion section for several decades. They explored various corpora in a number of disciplines: sociology (Brett, 1994), biology (Hopkins and Dudley-Evans, 1988), biochemistry (Kanoksilapatham, 2005), physics, biology, environmental science, business, language and linguistics, public administration, and law (Peacock, 2002; Thanajirawat and Chuea-nongthon, 2022), dentistry (Basturkmen, 2012), medicine (Smith, 1984; Nwogu, 1997; Huang, 2014; Fernández, 2016; Al-Shujairi et al., 2019, 2020), applied linguistics and language teaching (Yang and Allison, 2003; Basturkmen, 2009; Irawati, 2022).

Later this model was modified (Holmes, 1997; Peacock, 2002) taking into account the differences in corpora from various disciplines and revealing the different number of moves and move cycles (Gao and Pramoolsook, 2021). Basturkmen (2012), having studied move-step structure in dentistry research, defined and commented on two patterns of argumentation in commenting moves: one centred on explanations and the other centred on comparisons and evaluations. Dujsik (2013) adopted Peacock’s (2002) revised model in analysing move-step structure of applied linguistic RAs and suggested intra-disciplinary variations within this field. Maswana et al. (2015) studied rhetorical structure of engineering RAs and found out that related studies deal with subdisciplinary variations.

Nevertheless, Ruiying and Allison (2003) criticised Hopkins and Dudley-Evans’ (1988) framework for being a single-level scheme of analysis (move) and proposed a two-level scheme (moves and steps) of the RA Discussion section. Their hierarchical seven-move framework with a number of steps implementing some of the moves still included all the features identified by Hopkins and Dudley-Evans (1988). The move ‘Commenting on Results’ due to its frequency of occurrence in the RA Discussion section turned to be an obligatory move while ‘Reporting Results’ and ‘Summarising Results’ were less frequent and considered as quasi-obligatory (Yang and Allison 2003; Soodmand Afshar et al., 2018). They also identified three optional moves in the Discussion section: ‘Summarising the Study,’ ‘Evaluating the Study,’ and ‘Deductions from the Research’.

Research on the rhetorical structure of the Discussion section in medical RAs is still scarce. Al-Shujairi et al. (2020) insisted that the Discussion section draws the attention of not only the discourse community but also the ordinary people. In their research (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019) they took Peacock’s model (2002) of eight moves and adopted it. As Peacock’s framework was based on the analysis of papers from both soft and hard sciences it was considered as a suitable one for medical RAs. As Peacock’s model had only moves, Al-Shujairi et al. (2019) introduced several steps that can contribute to the communicative purpose of a move due to its communicative function. The rhetorical structure of the medical RAs Discussion section based on Peacock’s (2002) model of rhetorical moves identified 9 moves (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019). Still, there are 7 moves (Concluding Information, Background Information, Findings, Explanation, Expected or Unexpected Outcome, Reference to Previous Research and Claim) seen as obligatory and conventional in medical RAs. This might indicate that researchers in medicine pay more attention to writing their Discussion section following more conventional moves and only few optional compared to RAs Discussion sections in other disciplines. The reason could be the multiple authors of research articles in the field of medical science. What is more, Move 7: Concluding Information involved the presentation of two steps (limitation and recommendation) and turned out to be an obligatory move in medical RAs proved by 100% occurrences (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019). Scholars believe that the frequency of occurrence of this move in the medical RAs Discussion section derived from the nature of the discipline. In other words, the medical science field is associated with the health of human beings and thus stating Move 7 can preserve the validity of the research article clearly (Huang, 2014; Al-Shujairi et al., 2019).

Research on rhetorical organisation of the RA Discussion section contributed to the literature significantly. Thorough examination of the moves and steps across disciplines made it possible to find similarities and distinctions between various fields. Still, little research reveals the difference between the Discussion section rhetorical structure in the articles written by Native and non-Native speakers of English. Moreover, no research was carried out on comparing different corpora including Anglophones, groups of the authors using ELF for communicating their research and Russian authors publishing in English in international journals and in Russian journals indexed in international databases. This prompts the following research questions: (1) Are native English-speaking authors more sensitive to the conventions of rhetorical organisation of the Discussion section in research articles?; (2) How independent are Russian authors in following the rhetorical structure of the Discussion section in research articles?

Materials and methods

Corpus

This study is designed as a move analysis using a qualitative approach. The corpus of the present study consisted of Discussion sections of 64 ELF articles in different medical publications. We selected articles in which Discussion is a standalone section, meaning that it is not merged with Results, Conclusions, or any other parts of a RA. The length of Discussion sections varies, since different journals have different requirements.

This corpus was subdivided into four sub-corpora according to the established criteria: the journal publishers’ origin and linguacultural background of the authors. To ensure that the sub-corpora are comparable, balanced and representative (Dash and Arulmozi, 2018), each of them was built according to the same principles: sources of RAs, number of RAs in each corpus, RA structure, background of the authors. This similarity in the status of publications can ensure consistency of linguistic data, which will be obtained.

Table 1. Sources presented in the corpus

Таблица 1. Источники, представленные в корпусе

All RAs were published between 2019 and 2022 and come from international peer-reviewed English-medium journals indexed in Scopus. We were aiming at including journals with similar indicators, such as average citations per document and source normalised impact per paper. Unfortunately, it was not always possible, so we chose journals with the closest parameters. Since the overall pool of available Anglophone and non-Anglophone non-Russian author’s publications in English-medium journals is large (MED INT), for these two groups the selected indicators were the closest and all the journals are indexed as Q2. These journals are published by Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press, American Physiological Society, and Springer Nature.

The pool of Russian author's publications is significantly smaller, so we had to allow for variations in journal parameters (see Table 1). Papers by Russian authors are published by international houses including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Wolters Kluwer Health, Wolters Kluwer Health (INT). The selected journal rankings range between Q1 and Q3. The Russian publishing houses selected for this research are Russian Photodynamic Association, Belgorod State National Research University, and Media Sphera Publishing Group (RUS). They all comply with our selection criteria: they have their medical journals indexed in Scopus and offer papers in English. The rankings are Q3-Q4, however, we included into the corpus only the papers published in years when the journal was indexed as Q3. It should be noted that some of the Russian journals explicitly state that they referred to translation services in order to publish selected papers in English.

According to the publishers’ origin, the RAs are subdivided into two groups: international non-Russian publications and international journals published by Russian institutions, the former represented by 48 RAs from twenty different titles, including International Immunology, Journal of Applied Physiology, Journal of Diabetes, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, The Lancet, Cancer Cell, European Respiratory Journal, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, BMC Medicine, Clinical and Experimental Allergy, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Viruses, Journal of Functional Biomaterials and Functional Materials, Pharmaceuticals, Indian Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Pathology Informatics, Brain Sciences, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, International Journal of Surgery Case Reports, and Dentistry Journal. The latter included 16 RAs in English and came from four Russian journals: Biomedical Photonics, Research Results in Pharmacology, Vestnik Oftalmologii, Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. All RAs are empirical papers which were published between 2019 and 2022 mainly by teams of authors with occasional single authorships.

The second criterion for creating sub-corpora is linguistic peculiarities of the RAs. The first group of papers was written by Anglophone authors (NS – 16 papers), the second one demonstrates the use of ELF for communicating research (MULT – 16 papers), and the third one includes only papers written by authors whose native language is Russian (RUS – 32 papers). By studying the authors’ affiliation, background and education (based on the information available on their web-sites or CV), we determined whether the author should be referred to the first, second, or third group. This classification will enable us to compare and contrast the organisation of the Discussion sections and the realisations of specific moves and steps in ELF medical papers written by Anglophone speakers, representatives of non-Anglophone linguocultural communities, Russian authors in international journals and Russian authors in Russian publications indexed in international databases. The NS sub-corpus represents the use of English by British, American, Australian and Indian researchers (NS). Non-Anglophone authors (MULT) include speakers of a variety of languages, including French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, German, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Greek, Turkish, Hebrew, who come from 18 different countries (Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Lithuania, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands). This range can ensure representativeness of the sample.

To mitigate the possible effect of the journal requirements and editing process on the RA text, wherever possible we selected the same number of NS and MULT RAs from every journal. This was not possible for RUS RAs due to their limited availability and a small number of publications by Russian authors in the same journal.

Data analysis procedures

After building the corpus, the moves and steps (if applicable) in each discussion section were manually tagged and coded. The moves were labelled with "M" followed by a numeral indicating the move number (e.g., M1 for Move 1, M2 for Move 2), and the steps were labelled with "S" followed by a numeral indicating the step number (e.g., S1 for Step 1, S2 for Step 2). For example, M1S2 represents Move 1 Step 2. Following the approach outlined by Holmes (1997), the sentence was used as the unit of analysis to identify and examine the moves. The communicative purpose of each move served as the defining characteristic.

The analysis of moves and steps was carried out according to Dudley-Evans' (1994) methodology. The identification of these moves and steps was based on linguistic indicators such as specific lexemes, expressions, verb forms, and conjunctions. For instance, a phrase like “the findings of this study showed that...” was seen as a clear sign of Move 2 (Findings). The analysis did not focus on how dominant a particular move was within the text, but rather it simply identified whether each move was present or not.

All three researchers, who are experienced instructors in academic writing for both English and Russian at university level, independently carried out an analysis of the rhetorical moves and steps in the Discussion sections of research articles. Their professional background and skills equip them with the necessary expertise for this task. Also they underwent specific training on the application of the coding procedure, which allowed them to perform move analysis at the sentence level, using both linguistic indicators and content as cues. The degree of agreement between the coders, known as inter-coder reliability, was found to be at 85%, a range which aligns with the approach suggested by Miles et al. (2013). Given that individual moves within the adopted approach are executed through a series of steps, the authors of the article regarded the presence of a step as equivalent to the presence of a move. The coding process caused discussions, negotiations and clarification of the criteria for assigning codes. This iterative process helps ensure the consistency and accuracy of the coding system used in the analysis.

The researchers use a frequency measurement methodology established by Kanoksilapatham (2005) to assess the prevalence of each rhetorical move in the discussion sections. This method employs a cut-off point of 60% to determine the significance of a move. According to this system, if a particular move is found in all (100%) the discussion sections analysed, it is categorised as 'obligatory.' If it's found in 60% to 99% of the sections, it's regarded as 'conventional.' Conversely, if it appears in fewer than 60% of the discussion sections, it's marked as 'optional.' This technique helps elucidate the differential application and significance of each rhetorical move in the discussion parts of scholarly research papers.

Results

Our study examined the moves and steps organisation of the RA Discussion section in medical papers written in English by Anglophone writers, groups of non-Anglophone writers and Russian writers using ELF for communicating research in international journals and Russian authors publishing the results of their research using ELF in Russian journals indexed in international databases. The comparison between these four sub-corpora was traced via rhetorical moves and steps usage. The analysis was based on the model of rhetorical organisation of the RA Discussion section in medical articles adopted by Al-Shujairi (2019). Table 2 reveals the moves and steps identified in the analysed corpora.

Table 2. Rhetorical moves and steps in medical sciences RAs Discussion section

Таблица 2. Риторические ходы и шаги в секции «дискуссия» в научных статьях по медицине

The findings of this study position it within the broader context of existing research in the field, underscoring its connection to the wider scientific community. In the Discussion section, nine moves were identified. These were classified as 'obligatory,' 'conventional,' or 'optional,' varying depending on whether the authors were native English speakers or non-native speakers, as well as the type of journal they intended their manuscripts for. This analysis highlights the potential influence of authors' linguistic backgrounds and target publication venues on the rhetorical structure of their academic writing.

Rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Anglophone writers

None of the moves in the Discussion section of medical articles by native English speakers are considered obligatory (see Table 3). Moves 2 (Findings), 4 (Reference to previous research), 5 (Explanation), and 7 (Concluding information) appear most frequently, making them conventional. The remaining moves are categorised as optional.

Table 3. Occurrence of the rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Anglophone writers

Таблица 3. Распространенность риторических ходов в секции «Дискуссия» в исследовательских статьях по медицине, написанных авторами-англофонами

Rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by non-Anglophone writers

Non-native English-speaking authors, who published their manuscripts in journals significant within their subject area, adhered more closely to the conventions of the rhetorical structure of the Discussion section. As you can see from Table 4. For this group of researchers, Move 2 (Findings) was deemed obligatory. Moves 1 (Background Information), 4 (Reference to previous research), 7 (Concluding information), and 9 (Summary of results) in the corpus of this group were classified as conventional.

Table 4. Occurrence of the rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by non-Anglophone writers

Таблица 4. Распространенность риторических ходов в секции «Дискуссия» в исследовательских статьях по медицине, написанных авторами-неанглофонами

This finding suggests a deliberate effort by non-native speakers to comply with established rhetorical norms in their field, possibly to enhance the clarity and credibility of their work.

Rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Russian writers in international journals

Russian authors who submitted their manuscripts to international journals indexed in international databases demonstrated different preferences in the selection of moves, showing less familiarity with the rhetorical organisation of the text in medical articles (See Table 5). Specifically, only Move 2 (Findings) and Move 4 (Reference to previous research) were categorised as conventional within this group's corpus, while the rest of the moves were labelled as optional.

Table 5. Occurrence of the rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Russian writers in international journals

Таблица 5. Распространенность риторических ходов в секции «Дискуссия» в исследовательских статьях по медицине, написанных российскими авторами в международных журналах

The fixed pattern could suggest different academic writing conventions or a need for more training in the rhetorical norms of medical articles in the international context for the Russian authors.

Rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Russian writers in Russian journals indexed in international databases

The corpus of this group exhibited similarities with that of the previous group. Russian authors who published articles in Russian journals indexed in international databases conventionally employed only Move 2 (Findings) and Move 4 (Reference to previous research).

Table 6. Occurrence of the rhetorical moves in medical sciences RAs Discussion section by Russian writers in Russian journals indexed in international databases

Таблица 6. Распространенность риторических ходов в секции «Дискуссия» в исследовательских статьях по медицине, написанных российскими авторами в русских журналах, индексируемых в международных базах данных

Discussion

Rhetorical moves and steps in Discussion section of medical papers

When comparing research articles (RAs) in the Discussion section within the same discipline between international and Russian journals indexed in international databases, similarities were observed in terms of move analysis, while differences were identified at the level of step analysis. The discovery of similarities at the level of move analysis indicates shared genre expectations and standards within the discipline, which apply to both international and Russian journals. At the same time, differences at the level of step analysis highlight specific characteristics and diversity within each subcorpus.

In Al-Shujairi's (2019) move model for the Discussion section, Move 1 (Background information) was categorised as a conventional move. In the present study, it retains this status within the non-English-speaking author community, while Russian and English-speaking authors consider it optional (see Table 7). However, there is significant variation in authors' preferences at the level of steps within this move. Notably, Russian authors in articles published in Russian journals indexed in international databases did not adhere to Step 1 (Restating objectives), and the remaining steps across all subcorpora fell significantly behind the overall Move 1 in terms of percentage ratio. Interestingly, Step 3 (Defining a construct) was expressed by a limited number of authors in all sub-corpora, although English-speaking authors used it more frequently than non-English-speaking authors.

Overall reflections and recommendations

Overall findings revealed differences in the implementation of moves and steps in the Discussion section across the sub-corpora. Steps involving stating findings and referring to past studies from Move 2 were the most frequently employed in corpora. Despite almost all moves and steps being represented in all four sub-corpora, the group of non-native English-speaking authors proved to be the most sensitive to their complete implementation. Following them in descending order were native English-speaking authors and Russian authors from both groups. Notably, Russian authors who published articles in Russian journals indexed in international databases demonstrated the lowest level of awareness regarding the quantity and functional content of the rhetorical move of the Discussion section in research articles, particularly those specific to medical articles.

The results obtained suggest the need for systematic measures to improve the academic literacy level of researchers. It is not enough to be involved in research activities; it is crucial to present the results to the scientific community in a way that both the authors' motivation for the research and the significance of the results against existing knowledge on the topic are clear and perceived unambiguously by all potential consumers of scientific content.

The rhetorical organisation of scientific discourse and global academic English, used as a lingua franca, ensure clarity of scientific communication. At the same time, academic English undergoes changes, continuing to evolve and adapt to the changing needs of research communities. For example, in the era of open science and digital technology development, academic English is becoming more accessible and global, affecting its form and usage.

The increasing number of English-speaking authors for whom English is not a native language transforms the architecture of academic English, broadening its lexical and stylistic range. This, however, requires greater clarity and standardisation to ensure mutual understanding. Here, the detailed rhetorical structure of each research paper section gains special significance, allowing filling all potential gaps in understanding and providing the reader with a roadmap for the research. In this context, the Discussion section plays a unique role because the author presents their argumentation to the scientific community, openly states their position, contrasts or compares their data with what is already known in the field. Hence, detailed rhetorical structure and academic literacy are significant success factors that determine the effectiveness of academic writing. Mauranen et al. (2010) emphasise a similar idea suggesting that if a vast majority of writers and readers are non-native English speakers, the focus should be on qualities such as clarity and effectiveness in communication. The concept that there are no native speakers of academic English is also supported by scholars (Lea and Street, 2006; Leibowitz, 2004). Everyone engaging in writing for an academic community should develop academic literacy and follow rhetorical conventions.

Conclusion

The present study has provided answers to the research questions regarding the degree of independence of national authors in adhering to international conventions of rhetorical organisation of scientific discourse in their field. It was achieved through the analysis of four sub-corpora of medical articles (Anglophone authors, non-Anglophone authors, Russian authors publishing articles in international and Russian journals indexed in international databases). Anglophone authors were found to be less committed to the rhetorical organisation of the Discussion section, while non-Anglophone authors showed greater sensitivity to its architecture. Interestingly, Russian authors publishing in international journals demonstrated a more attentive approach to representing all traditional moves and steps in the section, while Russian authors publishing in Russian journals indexed in international databases showed the least attention to the use of all traditional moves and steps for the Discussion section of medical articles. The results obtained indicate a blurring of the concept of the English language as a phenomenon that relies solely on native speakers in forming its standards. The necessity of systematising efforts to develop the academic literacy of authors from different countries also becomes apparent, as it not only serves a tool for effective presentation of research results, but also reflects the authors' respect for the potential readers of their articles.

As a limitation of the study, it should be noted that if at least one step in a move was present in the text of the article, the move was considered as implemented. Additionally, the study would have benefited from the addition of a fifth sub-corpus – articles by Russian authors published in journals not indexed in international databases. The data from such a sub-corpus would have helped to understand how much requirements set by journals indexed in international databases dictate communication standards for authors from different countries compared to those in national journals, which primarily target domestic readers.

As a further direction of research, a comparison is needed between the corpus of articles by Russian authors published in international publications indexed in databases, and those published in national publications not indexed in international databases, but highly rated in Russia. Analysing such a corpus would help to specify recommendations for developing academic literacy among medical researchers, which, in turn, will assist in promoting their manuscripts in the international scientific space.

Appendix. Corpora

Sub-corpus MED NS INT

1. Webb‐Robertson, B. M., Bramer, L. M., Stanfill, B. A. et al. (2021). Prediction of the development of islet autoantibodies through integration of environmental, genetic, and metabolic markers, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13093(In English)
2. McGill, J. B., Weiss, D., Grant, M. et al. (2021). Understanding inhaled technosphere insulin: results of an early randomized trial in type 1 diabetes mellitus' Journal of Diabetes, 13 (2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13099(In English)
3. McCarthy, K. L., Harris-Brown, T., Smits, E. J. et al. (2021) The MOBILISE study: Utilisation of ambulatory pumps in the inpatient setting to administer continuous antibiotic infusions—a randomised controlled trial, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 40 (12), 2505–2513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04294-3(In English)
4. Cao, Y., Dunstan, D. W., Sethi, P. et al. (2021). The association of TV viewing time with 2‐hour plasma glucose is modified by a prudent dietary pattern, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (8), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13153(In English)
5. Kinsella, P. M., Smibert, O. C., Whitlam, J. B. et al. (2021). Successful use of azithromycin for Escherichia coli–associated renal allograft malakoplakia: A report of two cases, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 40 (12), 2627–2631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04270-x(In English)
6. Edwards, S. J., Shad, B. J., Marshall, R. N. et al. (2021). Short-term step reduction reduces citrate synthase activity without altering skeletal muscle markers of oxidative metabolism or insulin-mediated signalling in young males, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (6), 1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00650.2021(In English)
7. Reynolds, G., Crawford, S., Cuenca, J. et al. (2022). Penicillin versus anti-staphylococcal beta-lactams for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: a retrospective cohort study, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04330-2(In English)
8. Kirby,  B. S., Winn, B. J., Wilkins, B. W. et al. (2021). Interaction of exercise bioenergetics with pacing behavior predicts track distance running performance, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (5), 1532–1542. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00223.2021(In English)
9. Peyton, P. J. (2021). Ideal alveolar gas defined by modal gas exchange in ventilation-perfusion distributions, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (6), 1831–1838. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00597.2021(In English)
10. Ferdinand, A. O., Akinlotan, M. A., Callaghan, T. et al. (2020). Factors affecting the likelihood of a hospitalization following a diabetes‐related emergency department visit: A regional and urban‐rural analysis, Journal of Diabetes, 12 (9), 686–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13066(In English)
11. Booth, J. S., Goldberg, E., Patil, S. A. et al. (2019). Effect of the live oral attenuated typhoid vaccine, Ty21a, on systemic and terminal ileum mucosal CD4+ T memory responses in humans, International Immunology, 31 (2), 101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxy070(In English)
12. Yee, R., Fisher, S., Bergman, Y. et al. (2021). Combined selective culture and molecular methods for the detection of carbapenem-resistant organisms from fecal specimens, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 40 (11), 2315–2321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04281-8(In English)
13. Wolf, S. T., Cottle, R. M., Vecellio, D. J. et al. (2022) Critical environmental limits for young, healthy adults (PSU HEAT Project), Journal of Applied Physiology, 132 (2), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00737.2021(In English)
14. Teelucksingh, K. and Shaw, E. (2022). Clinical characteristics, appropriateness of empiric antibiotic therapy, and outcome of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia across multiple community hospitals, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04342-y(In English)
15. Presby, D. M. and Capodilupo, E. R. (2022). Biometrics from a wearable device reveal temporary effects of COVID-19 vaccines on cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep physiology, Journal of Applied Physiology, 132 (2), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00420.2021(In English)
16. Roberts, G., Sires, J., Chen, A. et al. (2021) A comparison of the stress hyperglycemia ratio, glycemic gap, and glucose to assess the impact of stress‐induced hyperglycemia on ischemic stroke outcome, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (12), 1034–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13223(In English)

Sub-corpus MED MULT INT

1. Yu, S., Feng, Y., Qu, C. et al. (2022). Vitamin D receptor methylation attenuates the association between physical activity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A case‐control study, Journal of Diabetes, 14 (2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13239(In English)
2. Ajime, T. T., Serré, J., Wüst, R. C. I. et al. (2021) The combination of smoking with vitamin D deficiency impairs skeletal muscle fiber hypertrophy in response to overload in mice, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (1), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00733.2020(In English)
3. Khan, I. U., Ahmad, F., Zhang, S. et al. (2019). Respiratory syncytial virus F and G protein core fragments fused to HBsAg-binding protein (SBP) induce a Th1-dominant immune response without vaccine-enhanced disease, International Immunology, 31 (4), pp. 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxy078(In English)
4. Ibáñez, J., Angeli, C. A., Harkema, S. J. et al. (2021) Recruitment order of motor neurons promoted by epidural stimulation in individuals with spinal cord injury, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (3), 1100–1110. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00293.2021(In English)
5. Holma, T., Torvikoski, J., Friberg, N. et al. (2022). Rapid molecular detection of pathogenic microorganisms and antimicrobial resistance markers in blood cultures: evaluation and utility of the next-generation FilmArray Blood Culture Identification 2 panel, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (3), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04314-2(In English)
6. Chávez, A. C. F., Comas, L. G., Espinosa, L. M. et al. (2022). Impact of previous macrolide use on invasive pneumococcal disease due to erythromycin-resistant serotypes in adults over 59 years of age, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04368-2(In English)
7. Tittel,  S. R., Laubner, K., Schmid, S. M. et al. (2021). Immune‐checkpoint inhibitor‐associated diabetes compared to other diabetes types ‐ A prospective, matched control study, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (12), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13215(In English)
8. Wang, J., Sekai, M., Matsui, T. et al. (2019). Hassall’s corpuscles with cellular-senescence features maintain IFNα production through neutrophils and pDC activation in the thymus, International Immunology, 31 (3), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxy073(In English)
9. Shpitzer, H., Lazar, L., Shalitin, S. et al. (2021). Good glycaemic control at puberty in boys with type 1 diabetes is important for final height, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (12), 998–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13214(In English)
10. Özlüşen, B., Kozan, Ş., Akcan, R. E. et al. (2021). Effectiveness of favipiravir in COVID-19: a live systematic review, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 40 (12), 2575–2583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04307-1(In English)
11. Boattini, M., Bianco, G., Comini, S. et al. (2022). Direct detection of extended-spectrum-β-lactamase-producers in Enterobacterales from blood cultures: a comparative analysis, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (3), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04385-1(In English)
12. Park, S., Kim, S. and Shin, J. Y. (2021). Combined association of skeletal muscle mass and grip strength with cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (12), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13216(In English)
13. Huang, Y., Hu, Z., Hu, D. et al. (2021). Clinical characteristics, risk factors, and cardiac manifestations of cancer patients with COVID-19, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (3), 966–976. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00325.2021(In English)
14. Taczanowska, A., Schwandt, A., Amed, S. et al. (2021). Celiac disease in children with type 1 diabetes varies around the world: an international, cross‐sectional study of 57,375 patients from the SWEET registry, Journal of Diabetes, 13 (6), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13126(In English)
15. Enger, H., Larssen, K. W., Damås, E. S. et al. (2022). A tale of two STs: molecular and clinical epidemiology of MRSA t304 in Norway 2008–2016, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 41 (2), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04353-9(In English)
16. Tanabe, N., Kaji, S., Sato, S. et al. (2021). A homological approach to a mathematical definition of pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema on computed tomography, Journal of Applied Physiology, 131 (2), 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00150.2021(In English)

Sub-corpus MED RUS INT

Sub-corpus MED RUS RUS