IJRISS Logo

Structuring Scholarly Discourse: A Six-Dimensional Meta-Framework for Academic Manuscripts

Authors

Zulkiffly Baharom

Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy (TISSA-UUM), College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia (Malaysia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.1026EDU0469

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 10/26 | Page No: 6388-6403

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-07-15

Accepted: 2026-07-20

Published: 2026-07-30

Abstract

Academic writing instruction has traditionally relied on structural conventions such as the Introduction–Methods–Results–and–Discussion (IMRaD) format, genre-based move analysis, and discipline-specific style guides. While these frameworks address discrete aspects of scholarly composition, they rarely offer writers, particularly novice, doctoral, and multilingual researchers, an integrated, sequential model that links contextual framing to disciplinary voice. This conceptual article undertakes an integrative review of the academic writing, genre analysis, and scholarly identity literatures to propose a six-dimensional meta-framework: Context, Scope, Method, Evidence, Structure, and Voice (CSMESV), that positions manuscript development as a cumulative, recursive process rather than a template to be filled in. Each dimension is theorized through synthesis of the extant literature and mapped onto specific decision points that authors, supervisors, and journal reviewers encounter across the writing lifecycle. The article situates the framework in relation to existing structural models, including IMRaD and the symmetry-of-specificity model, as well as genre-based move analysis and discoursal-identity scholarship. It further considers the emerging role of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools as scaffolds for applying the model, rather than as substitutes for scholarly judgment, and illustrates the framework's application through worked examples drawn from business, management, and social science manuscript types. The article contributes a parsimonious, transferable heuristic for academic writing pedagogy, doctoral supervision, and manuscript preparation across disciplines, and outlines an agenda for empirically validating the model in future research.

Keywords

Academic writing, scholarly discourse, higher education, genre analysis, CSMESV framework

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Altmäe, S., Sola-Leyva, A., & Salumets, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: A friend or a foe? Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 47(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.04.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bhatnagar, V., Duari, S., & Gupta, S. K. (2022). Quantitative discourse cohesion analysis of scientific scholarly texts using multilayer networks. IEEE Access, 10, 88538–88557. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3198952 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371492 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Calle-Arango, L., & Ávila Reyes, N. (2023). Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review. Studies in Continuing Education, 45(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2022.2026315 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chemaya, N., & Martin, D. (2024). Perceptions and detection of AI use in manuscript preparation for academic journals. PLoS One, 19(7), e0304807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304807 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cheng, A., Calhoun, A., & Reedy, G. (2025). Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: Recommendations for ethical use. Advances in Simulation (London, England), 10(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-025-00350-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dergaa, I., Chamari, K., Zmijewski, P., & Ben Saad, H. (2023). From human writing to artificial intelligence-generated text: Examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biology of Sport, 40(2), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Donaghue, H. (2025). An embedded genre-based writing pedagogy for early-stage doctoral students. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 17(2), 223–240. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34794/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dubey, N. (2026). Developing the structure of high-quality research: A practical Academic Framework. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 10(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55041/IJSREM59406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Eriksson, D. (2024). The art and science of scholarly writing: framing symmetry of specificity beyond IMRAD. European Business Review, 36(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-01-2023-0004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Garcia, M. B. (2025). ChatGPT as an academic writing tool: Factors influencing researchers’ intention to write manuscripts using generative artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(24), 15514–15528. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2499158 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Johnson, C. W., Lester, J. N., & Paulus, T. M. (2024). Generating a reflexive AI-assisted workflow for academic writing. The Qualitative Report, 29(10), 2772–2792. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7634 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Research article structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(4), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2012.2223252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kearns, J., O’Connor, B. C., & Moore, F. B.-G. (2007). Provocations on the structure of scholarly writing in the digital era. On the Horizon, 15(4), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120710836246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Khoutyz, I. (2023). Addressee factor in written academic discourse. Communication Studies, 10(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.24147/2413-6182.2023.10(1).146-162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kim, J. (2024). Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2020). Academic writing, scholarly identity, voice and the benefits and challenges of multilingualism: Reflections from Norwegian doctoral researchers in teacher education. Linguistics and Education, 60(100883). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lendvai, G. F. (2025). ChatGPT in academic writing: A scientometric analysis of literature published between 2022 and 2023. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 20(3), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251350203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lim, J. S. (2026). Introduction to generative artificial intelligence tools for academic article writing. Science Editing, 13(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.393 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Liu, R. (2025). The construction of authorial voice in thesis writing: A multidimensional comparative perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04880-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2021). Towards the synergy of genre- and corpus-based approaches to academic writing research and pedagogy. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2021010104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Naidoo, M., Suthiram, K. T., & Dullie, L. (2025). Writing for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD): A guide to developing a strong and coherent thesis. African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 17(2), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v17i2.5164 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organisation of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Phyo, W. M., Nikolov, M., & Hódi, Á. (2025). International doctoral students’ socialization into English academic writing proficiency. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(3), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2429428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Qi, Q., & Zhao, C. G. (2023). Discoursal scholarly identity in research writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62(101052). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2022). An in-depth glimpse into research on academic writing. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.14586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(00)00023-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Semrl, N., Feigl, S., Taumberger, N., Bracic, T., Fluhr, H., Blockeel, C., & Kollmann, M. (2023). AI language models in human reproduction research: Exploring ChatGPT’s potential to assist academic writing. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 38(12), 2281–2288. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dead207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Tang, A., Li, K. K., Kwok, K. O., Cao, L., Luong, S., & Tam, W. (2024). The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 56(2), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12938 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tang, B. L. (2025). Undeclared AI-assisted academic writing as a form of research misconduct. Science Editor, 48. https://doi.org/10.36591/se-4804-02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Wang, C. (2025). Exploring students’ generative AI-assisted writing processes: Perceptions and experiences from native and nonnative English speakers. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 30(3), 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09744-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Zhang, Y., & Hyland, K. (2021). Elements of doctoral apprenticeship: Community feedback and the acquisition of writing expertise. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53(100835). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100835 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Zhao, J., & Liu, Y. (2021). A developmental view of authorial voice construction in master’s thesis: A case study of two novice L2 writers. Sage Open, 11(4), 21582440211054483. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211054483 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles