English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Over the last three decades or so, increasing interest has been paid to scientific discourse, and in particular to the research article, from a variety of perspectives. Sociological studies (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984; Latour & Woolgar, 1979) established that the research article is not an objective representation of scientific enterprise as it is performed, but a rhetorical artefact that seeks to construct knowledge and persuade readers to accept the validity of the claims made by writers, and thus to promote the personal and professional interests of the researchers and research groups (Hyland, 1998). Gilbert & Mulkay (1984) showed that scientists have two ways of representing science: a formal “empiricist repertoire” expressed through impersonal public statements of evidence and procedures, and an informal “contingent repertoire” that stresses personal and social factors and which they use to discuss their discipline and practices among themselves in less restricted and private settings. Myers (1994) refers to the narrative of science, which researchers use when writing up their research for publications in journals for their peers: “they follow the argument of the scientist, arrange time into a parallel series of simultaneous events all supporting their claim, and emphasize in their syntax and vocabulary the conceptual structure of the discipline” (Myers, 1994). In contrast, Myers found that the same scientists used the narrative of nature to popularise their research for a less specialised audience; in this sequential narrative “the plant or the animal, not the scientific activity, is the subject, the narrative is chronological, and the syntax and vocabulary emphasize the externality of nature to scientific practices” (Myers, 1994). Other studies (Knorr-Cetina 1981; Myers 1985) have investigated the changing shape of research articles and their discourse as they passed through the peer review system. Myers (1985) found that while the biologists he studied always sought to achieve the highest level claim they could, they inevitably had to lower their aims and accept a lower level. KnorrCetina (1981) performed a textual study tracing writing of a paper from laboratory notes to the final draft, and found that the Introduction and Discussion sections were those that underwent the greatest transformation. Again the language had to be carefully modified by eliminating “dangerous” claims and excessive speculation. These case studies, therefore, show how the discourse is reconstructed in the negotiation process and support the artefactual nature of the scientific article. It is pertinent here to return to Latour and Woolgar’s 1979 study since in their analysis of statements in scientific discourse, they sought to establish a hierarchical taxonomy of

Factors Affecting Discourse Structure and Style in Biomedical Discussion Sections