Research Article Rhetoric in a Changing Academic Landscape: A Systematic Review of Genre Structures, Discursive Practices, and Emerging Trends

Research article rhetoric has become increasingly complex as scholarly communication responds to disciplinary diversity, globalization, digitalization, multimodality, and advances in artificial intelligence. This systematic literature review synthesizes recent research on the rhetorical and discursive characteristics of research articles and examines how academic rhetoric is evolving within this changing landscape. Guided by the PRISMA framework, relevant studies were identified through Scopus and Web of Science, screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and subjected to quality assessment. A total of 37 studies published between 2021 and 2026 were included in the final qualitative synthesis. The analysis generated five major themes: (1) rhetorical move structures and genre organization; (2) metadiscourse, stance, and lexico-grammatical realisations; (3) scholarly positioning, citation, research gaps, and recommendations; (4) digital, multimodal, and AI-mediated academic genres; and (5) trends, diachronic change, and meta-research in academic writing. The findings indicate that rhetorical move and genre organization remains the dominant research area, while increasing attention is being directed towards the linguistic resources through which rhetorical purposes, authorial stance, and scholarly positioning are realised. Emerging research further demonstrates a shift towards multimodal scholarly communication and AI-assisted rhetorical analysis. Overall, the review shows that research article rhetoric is dynamic and shaped by disciplinary, linguistic, cultural, and technological contexts. Future research should integrate rhetorical, linguistic, multimodal, and computational perspectives and extend investigation across disciplines, languages, and evolving digital genres.

Academic discourse; Genre analysis; Metadiscourse; Research article rhetoric; Rhetorical moves

1. Ahmadi, L. (2022). Rhetorical structure of applied linguistics research article discussions: A comparative cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Language and Education, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Mudhaffari, M., Hussin, S., & Abdullah, I. H. (2024). Comparative analysis of interactional metadiscursive resources in academic writing by L2 and L1 English writers. Studies in English Language and Education, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i2.35456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amnuai, W. (2021). A comparison of niche establishments in English research article introductions published in international and Thai journals. Discourse and Interaction, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-2-24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bhatia, V. K. (2017). Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Capkin, C. (2024). Trends in genre analysis articles on scientific abstract structures: A quantitative content analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 56(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221132274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Casal, J. E., Zhang, G., Matouq, G., & Alqabba, H. (2024). ‘These results are inconsistent’: ‘This/these + shell noun’ patterns in engineering theses and research articles. Journal of Second Language Studies, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00031.cas [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chen, S., & Xu, J. (2024). Interdisciplinary variations of metadiscursive verb patterns in English research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dagnev, I. (2026). Metaphor impact on rhetorical structure: A comparative study of Bulgarian and international research medical article introductions in the English language. Ezikov Svyat, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.37708/ezs.swu.bg.v24i1.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Duan, J., & Wei, J. (2021). A genre analysis of English and Chinese legal research article abstracts: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1205.21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gao, J., Pham, Q. H. P., & Polio, C. (2025). Citations in post-methods sections of quantitative and qualitative research articles in second language learning: A corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 74, Article 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101473 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2023). A cross-cultural move analysis of electronic engineering research article introductions: The case of Chinese, Thai, and native English scholarly writers. Ampersand, 10, Article 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ghahraman, V., Karlsson, M., Kazemi, A., Saeedi, S., & Elhami, A. (2023). On the functions of hedging in research articles (RAs): A study on RA discussions. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7513380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gholaminejad, R. (2021). A comparison of two genres: Lexical bundles in the discourse of applied linguistics. Atlantis, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2021-43.2.05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hanh, N. T. T. (2026). Rhetorical moves and metadiscourse in English–Vietnamese literature reviews: Variations in niche construction and authorial positioning. Training, Language and Culture, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2026-10-1-22-37 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hong, J. Y., & Yoon, H. (2023). Analyzing rhetorical structure development in Korean EAP students from an intercultural rhetoric perspective: A corpus-based genre study. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 23. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202312.1194 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hong, N. B., & Pham, H. (2024). A contrastive analysis of rhetorical structures of English and Vietnamese linguistic research articles. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2024-3001-14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Insua, E. S., Juan, C. A. S., & Miranda, L. V. (2023). A discursive-rhetoric model for the research article genre in law: The academic discourse on equality in national legal doctrine. Revista Signos, 56(112). https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342023000200325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Katip, P., & Gampper, C. (2025). Genre-based analysis and interactional metadiscourse analysis of the unstructured abstracts for research articles in Scopus-indexed Q1 journals: Experimental abstracts on COVID-19. Reflections, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v32i3.284136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (Version 2.3, EBSE Technical Report). Evidence-Based Software Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kurniawan, E., Putri, M. E., & Lintao, R. B. (2026). A corpus-based move analysis of highly-cited biochemistry research articles in high-impact Scopus journals. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17509/z03ztb73 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lu, X., Yoon, J., & Kisselev, O. (2021). Matching phrase-frames to rhetorical moves in social science research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.10.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Luzón, M.-J. (2026). Multimodal genre analysis of plain language summaries of publications: “The purpose is to help you understand findings from research”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 83, Article 101738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2026.101738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Magday, W. D., Jr., Razalan, M. A., Uhuad, K. V., Concepcion, R. E. J., Pacursa, L. B., & Bartolome, F. O. (2022). Comparative genre analysis of research abstracts: Philippine versus international colloquia. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(6), 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1206.05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Menzel, K. (2022). Medical discourse in Late Modern English: Insights from a multidisciplinary corpus of scientific journal articles. In Corpus pragmatic studies on the history of medical discourse (Vol. 330). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.330.04men [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mohammadi, S., Sharafzadeh, M. H., & Hooshmand, M. (2023). Metadiscourse in Persian-text research articles: A comparative study on hard and soft sciences. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 123–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Montgomery, D. P. (2023). “This study is not without its limitations”: Acknowledging limitations and recommending future research in applied linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 65, Article 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Nasirizadeh, Z., Paramasivam, S., Nimehchisalem, V., & Omar, N. (2022). Rhetorical structures and cyclical patterns in forestry research articles. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.17576/gema- 2022-2202-15 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Nguyen, M. H. (2025). Rhetorical moves and linguistic realisations of economics research article abstracts in international and Vietnam-based journals. SAGE Open, 15(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251338936 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2023). Native experts and reputable journals as points of reference: A study on research-article discussions. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i2.29282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Saidi, M., & Talebi, S. (2021). Genre analysis of research article abstracts in English for academic purposes journals: Exploring the possible variations across the venues of research. Education Research International, 2021, Article 3578179. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schmied, J., Bondi, M., Dontcheva-Navratilova, O., & Perez-Llantada, C. (2023). Language variation and change in academic writing: Recent trends through globalisation and digitalisation. Token, 16. https://doi.org/10.25951/11257 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Shokri, A., Khany, R., & Aliakbari, M. (2022). Two decades of research articles keywords in corpus-based studies in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2022.17426 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Suntara, W., Xingbin, T., Saouy, M., Thongchalerm, S., & Chansiri, N. (2026). Stances in research article abstracts: An analysis of abstracts in literary journals. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.64731/jsel.v21i1.287235 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

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

41. Wang, X., Zeng, T., & Wen, J. (2025). Stance and engagement in OASIS and scientific abstracts: A comparative study. English for Specific Purposes, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2025.04.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Xue, S., & Qu, M. (2026). Beyond “more research is needed”: Paradigmatic variations in the content and rhetorical force of recommendations in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 82, Article 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2026.101716 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Yu, D., Yu, R., Bondi, M., & Hyland, K. (2026). Enhancing LLM-assisted move annotation: A focus on inter-model inconsistencies. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5(2), Article 100328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2026.100328 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2026). Do rhetorical moves/steps have local grammars? An exploratory study on indicating a gap in social science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2026.04.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Zhou, W., Li, Z., & Lu, X. (2023). Syntactic complexity features of science research article introductions: Rhetorical- functional and disciplinary variation perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 61, Article 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Zuo, J., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2026). Rhetorical organization of discussion sections across research articles, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations: A move-based analysis of frequency, sequencing, and embedding. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 82, Article 101720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study