Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non‐native writers vs. native writers

Abstract

Metadiscourse markers (MDMs) are lexical resources that writers employ to organize their discourse and state their stance towards the content or the reader. This study investigated the frequency with which interactive and interactional MDMs were employed in biological research articles (RAs). It also explored the possible relationship between the frequency of these markers and Impact Factor (IF) of journals as an index of quality. Moreover, it aimed at finding out the difference(s) between two groups of authors (Iranian and American) in their use of these markers. Forty biological RAs published in years 2008-2011 written by Iranian non-native authors and published in four ISI journals with different IFs and 40 articles with the same characteristics published by American native authors were selected and examined for the use of the markers. The results showed that there was a strong positive correlation between the frequency of MDMs and IF of the journals. Regarding the frequency of MDMs, it was observed that Iranian authors employed interactive and interactional markers slightly more than their American counterparts. These results may provisionally confirm the considerable role of MDMs in enhancing the coherence and organization of articles for possible publication in high-impact journals. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 44(4):349-360, 2016.

Metadiscourse Devices in English Scientific Research Articles Written by Native and Non- Native Speakers of English

“…T-test results revealed that Arab researchers of English Articles (NNSs) differ in terms of the amount of metadiscourse devices used in Scientific Research Articles from English researchers of English articles and therefore differ in their level of proficiency from English researchers (NSs). These findings are consistent with those reported in previous studies (Khedri, & Konstantinos, 2018;Gholami, & Ilghami, 2016;Keshavarz, & Kheirieh, 2011). For example, consistent with the finding of this study Khedri, and Konstantinos (2018) observed differences in metadiscourse devices applied in introductory sections of chemistry…”

“…International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2019 and applied linguistic research articles by native speakers of English and native speakers of English. Similarly, Gholami, and Ilghami (2016) found that native writers (American writers) and non-native English writers (Iranian writers) of biological research articles significantly differ in the frequency of interactional and interactive metadiscourse devices confirming that natives are significantly more proficient in English than non-natives in writing scientific research articles. In particular, Gholami, and Ilghami (2016) confirmed that native English writers employ significantly more interactional and interactive in scientific articles than non-native writers.…”

“…Such traits imply the critical role metadiscourse plays in passing the desired message to the audience via text and to enlighten people why the topic is believed to be a critical topic of study for researchers. The role of metadiscourse and its elements has raised interests among researchers for conducting studies in this field (Salek, 2014;Asghar, 2015;Gholami and Ilghami, 2016). Most of these studies have considered metadiscourse and its influence on researchers' academic writing across disciplines and cultures.…”

Colleagues helping each other to publish in medical sciences: Iranian field specialists' convenience editing strategies

“…This study looked only at RAs and not other types of MSs (Rezaee & Sayfouri, ). These articles commonly use the IMRAD structure ( Introduction , Method , Results and Discussion ) (Gholami & Ilghami, ). To establish consistency in our analysis, articles with a separate conclusion were excluded from this study.…”

Cross-Cultural Analysis of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Persuasive Local Newspaper Articles

“…Due to its importance, metadiscourse markers have been investigated in various genres including research articles (e.g. Abdi 2009, Afros & Schryer 2009, Dahl 2004, Gillaerts & Van de Velde 2010, Gholami & Ilghami 2016, Mur-Dueñas 2011, students' writings (e.g. Cheng & Steffensen 1996, Crismore, Markkanen & Steffensen 1993, Hyland 2004a, Intaraprawat & Steffensen 1995, textbooks (e.g.…”