scieditorScience Editor and PublisherНаучный редактор и издатель2542-02672541-8122АНРИ10.24069/SEP-24-14scieditor-406Research ArticleACADEMIC WRITINGАКАДЕМИЧЕСКОЕ ПИСЬМОDiscussion of results in original research: Rhetorical moves and their implementationОбсуждение полученных результатов в оригинальном исследовании: риторические шаги и их воплощениеhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-6150ТихоноваЕ. В.TikhonovaE. V.

Елена Викторовна Тихонова, кандидат исторических наук, доцент; заместитель научного журнала «Journal of Language and Education», НИУ «Высшая школа экономики»

г. Москва

Elena V. Tikhonova, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Associated Professor; Vice Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Language and Education, HSE University

Moscow

etihonova@gmail.comМГИМО Университет МИД РФРоссияMGIMO University, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian FederationRussian Federation20242609202491637Copyright © Tikhonova E.V., 20242024Тихонова Е.В.Tikhonova E.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/406

The Discussion section in the manuscript of an original empirical study is the most creative and challenging part to construct. Incorrect discussion of results in many manuscripts submitted to scientific journals often leads to their rejection, even if the results themselves hold potential significance for the scientific community. The absence or poor quality of interpretation of results by the authors can negatively affect the overall perception of the study by readers. The most complete functional implementation of the Discussion section is achieved by adhering to its rhetorical structure. The purpose of this article is to analyze the functions, content, and rhetorical organization of the Discussion section of an original empirical study. The main function of the Discussion section is to interpret and explain the significance of the study’s results, highlight the current state of knowledge on the stated problem, and explain new aspects arising from the results obtained. Authors also need to specify the external validity of the data and demonstrate how these data can be generalized. The most effective way to implement the stated function is by relying on a model of the interdisciplinary rhetorical structure of the Discussion section, which can be modified according to the conventions of the discipline and the characteristics of the specific study. Depending on the study’s logic, certain rhetorical moves or steps of the structure may be omitted; however, a more comprehensive list of moves provides a more thorough interpretation of the results. Understanding the content of each move and its steps allows authors to present all necessary information regarding the obtained results in a way that ensures their objective and unambiguous perception by readers.

Секция Обсуждение результатов в тексте рукописи оригинального эмпирического исследования является самой творческой и сложной для конструирования ее частью. Некорректное обсуждение полученных результатов во многих рукописях, подаваемых в научные журналы, часто становится причиной их отклонения, даже если сами результаты имеют потенциальную значимость для научного сообщества. Отсутствие / низкое качество интерпретации результатов со стороны авторов может исказить восприятие всего исследования читателями. Наиболее полное функциональное воплощение секции Обсуждение результатов достигается при соблюдении ее риторической структуры. Цель данной статьи – проанализировать функции, содержание и риторическую организацию секции Обсуждение результатов оригинального эмпирического исследования. Основная функция секции Обсуждение результатов заключается в интерпретации и объяснении значимости результатов представленного исследования, освещении текущего состояния знания по заявленной проблеме и объяснении новых аспектов, вытекающих из полученных результатов. Авторам также необходимо уточнить валидность полученных данных и показать, как эти данные могут быть обобщены. Наиболее эффективно реализовать указанную функцию можно с опорой на модель междисциплинарной риторической структуры секции Обсуждение результатов, которая может быть модифицирована в соответствии с конвенциями дисциплины и характеристиками конкретного исследования. В зависимости от логики исследования отдельные ходы или шаги риторической структуры могут быть опущены, однако чем полнее список ходов, тем тщательнее будет представлена интерпретация результатов. Понимание содержания каждого из ходов и реализующих его шагов позволяет авторам представить всю необходимую информацию относительно полученных результатов таким образом, чтобы их восприятие читателями оказалось объективным и однозначным.

научная публикацияструктура статьисекция Обсуждение результатовобсуждение результатов исследованияинтерпретация результатовсуммирование результатовриторическая структура секцииscientific publicationarticle structureDiscussion sectiondiscussion of research resultsinterpretation of resultssummarizing resultsrhetorical structure of the sectionReferencesIrawati L. Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections. Studies in English Language and Education. 2022;9(1):115–131. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21267Irawati L. Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections. Studies in English Language and Education. 2022;9(1):115–131. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21267Cargill M., O’Connor P. Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. 173 p.Cargill M., O’Connor P. Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. 173 p.Тихонова Е. В. Межличностные стратегии академического письма: значимость признания ограничений исследования и рекомендаций для будущих исследований в научном дискурсе. Хранение и переработка сельхозсырья. 2023;(4):8–15. https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2023.526Tikhonova E. V. Interpersonal strategies in academic writing: the significance of acknowledging research limitations and recommendations for future studies in scientific discourse. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2023;(4):8–15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2023.526Тихонова Е. В., Косычева М. А. Дискуссия в контексте эмпирической статьи. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2021;3(3):7–16. https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i3.s127Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A. Discussion section in research articles: content and structure. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2021;3(3):7–16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i3.s127Martinez I. A. Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2003;2(2):103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1Martinez I. A. Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2003;2(2):103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1Parkinson J. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes. 2011;30(3):164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001Parkinson J. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes. 2011;30(3):164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Establishing rapport with the reader: Engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article. Integration of Education. 2023;27(3):354–372. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.354-372Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Establishing rapport with the reader: Engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article. Integration of Education. 2023;27(3):354–372. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.354-372Yang R., Desmond A. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1Yang R., Desmond A. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1Mauranen A., Hynninen N., Ranta E. English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes. 2010;29(3):183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.10.001Mauranen A., Hynninen N., Ranta E. English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes. 2010;29(3):183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.10.001Tessuto G. Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes. 2015;37:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2014.06.002Tessuto G. Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes. 2015;37:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2014.06.002Iruskieta M., Cunha I., Taboada M. A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation. 2015;49(2):263–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10579-014-9271-6Iruskieta M., Cunha I., Taboada M. A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation. 2015;49(2):263–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10579-014-9271-6Cunha I., Iruskieta M. Comparing rhetorical structures in different languages: The influence of translation strategies. Discourse Studies. 2010;12(5):563–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371054Cunha I., Iruskieta M. Comparing rhetorical structures in different languages: The influence of translation strategies. Discourse Studies. 2010;12(5):563–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371054Al-Shujairi Y. B. J., Tan H., Abdullah A. N., Nimehchisalem V., Imm L. G. Moving in the right direction in the discussion section of research articles. Journal of Language and Communication. 2019;6(2):165–180.Al-Shujairi Y. B. J., Tan H., Abdullah A. N., Nimehchisalem V., Imm L. G. Moving in the right direction in the discussion section of research articles. Journal of Language and Communication. 2019;6(2):165–180.Cotos E., Link S., Huffman S. R. Studying disciplinary corpora to teach the craft of Discussion. Writing and Pedagogy. 2016;8(1):33–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.27661Cotos E., Link S., Huffman S. R. Studying disciplinary corpora to teach the craft of Discussion. Writing and Pedagogy. 2016;8(1):33–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.27661Day R. A., Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6 th ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 2006. 302 p.Day R. A., Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6 th ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 2006. 302 p.Glasman-Deal H. Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London, UK: Imperial College Press; 2010. 257 p.Glasman-Deal H. Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London, UK: Imperial College Press; 2010. 257 p.Foote M. The proof of the pudding: How to report results and write a good discussion. Chest. 2009;135(3):866–868. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2613Foote M. The proof of the pudding: How to report results and write a good discussion. Chest. 2009;135(3):866–868. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2613Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing. 1993;11(1):33–36. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.342Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing. 1993;11(1):33–36. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.342Annesley T. M. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry. 2010;56(11):1671–1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358Annesley T. M. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry. 2010;56(11):1671–1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358Ghasemi A., Bahadoran Z., Mirmiran P., Hosseinpanah F., Shiva N., Zadeh-Vakili A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: discussion. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2019;17(3):e95415. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415Ghasemi A., Bahadoran Z., Mirmiran P., Hosseinpanah F., Shiva N., Zadeh-Vakili A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: discussion. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2019;17(3):e95415. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415Hofmann A. H. Scientific writing and communication: Papers, proposals, and presentations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. 728 p.Hofmann A. H. Scientific writing and communication: Papers, proposals, and presentations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. 728 p.Kearney M. H. The discussion section tells us where we are. Research in Nursing & Health. 2017;40(4):289–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21803Kearney M. H. The discussion section tells us where we are. Research in Nursing & Health. 2017;40(4):289–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21803Docherty M., Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: much the same as that for structuring abstracts. British Medical Journal. 1999;318(7193):1224–1225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224Docherty M., Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: much the same as that for structuring abstracts. British Medical Journal. 1999;318(7193):1224–1225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224Wallwork A. English for writing research papers. 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. 384 p.Wallwork A. English for writing research papers. 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. 384 p.Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Research article discussion moves and steps in papers on medicine: Academic literacy and respect for readers. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023;9(2):97–128. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Research article discussion moves and steps in papers on medicine: Academic literacy and respect for readers. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023;9(2):97–128. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6Swales J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 260 p.Swales J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 260 p.Swales J. Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 314 p.Swales J. Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 314 p.Pho P. D. An evaluation of three different approaches to the analysis of research article abstracts. Monash University Linguistics Papers. 2009;6(2):11–16.Pho P. D. An evaluation of three different approaches to the analysis of research article abstracts. Monash University Linguistics Papers. 2009;6(2):11–16.Smith D. E. A. Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal. 1984;3(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0Smith D. E. A. Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal. 1984;3(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0Hopkins A., Dudley-Evans T. A Genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes. 1988;7(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4Hopkins A., Dudley-Evans T. A Genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes. 1988;7(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4Al-Shujairi Y. B. J. Review of the discussion section of research articles: Rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal. 2021;8(2):9–25. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17099Al-Shujairi Y. B. J. Review of the discussion section of research articles: Rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal. 2021;8(2):9–25. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17099Dudley-Evans T. Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. Advances in Written Text Analysis. 1994;219:223–242.Dudley-Evans T. Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. Advances in Written Text Analysis. 1994;219:223–242.Nwogu K. N. The Medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes. 1997;16(2):119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4Nwogu K. N. The Medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes. 1997;16(2):119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4Peacock M. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System. 2002;30(4):479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7Peacock M. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System. 2002;30(4):479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7Ruiying Y., Allison D. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1Ruiying Y., Allison D. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1Darabad A. M. Move analysis of research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Linguistics. 2016;8(2):125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379Darabad A. M. Move analysis of research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Linguistics. 2016;8(2):125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379Alhuqbani M. N. Genre-based analysis of Arabic research article abstracts across four disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2013;3(3):371–382. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v4n3p371Alhuqbani M. N. Genre-based analysis of Arabic research article abstracts across four disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2013;3(3):371–382. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v4n3p371Musa N. F., Khamis N., Zanariah J. The structure of method section in engineering research articles. Asian Social Science. 2015;11(17):74–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n17p74Musa N. F., Khamis N., Zanariah J. The structure of method section in engineering research articles. Asian Social Science. 2015;11(17):74–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n17p74Tawalbeh A. Genre analysis of accounts of methodology in Arabic educational research articles. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures. 2021;13(2):281–301. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.6Tawalbeh A. Genre analysis of accounts of methodology in Arabic educational research articles. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures. 2021;13(2):281–301. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.6Brett P. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes. 1994;13(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8Brett P. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes. 1994;13(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8Berkenkotter C., Huckin T. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995. 208 p.Berkenkotter C., Huckin T. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995. 208 p.Nundy S., Kakar A., Bhutta Z. A. How to write the discussion? In: How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? Singapore: Springer; 2022, pp. 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_21Nundy S., Kakar A., Bhutta Z. A. How to write the discussion? In: How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? Singapore: Springer; 2022, pp. 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_21Bavdekar S. B. Writing the discussion section: Describing the significance of the study findings. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 2015;63(11):40–42. Available at: https://www.feg.unesp.br/Home/Pos-Graduacao20/pgproducao-mestradoacademico/06_aow_writing_the_discussion-1.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).Bavdekar S. B. Writing the discussion section: Describing the significance of the study findings. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 2015;63(11):40–42. Available at: https://www.feg.unesp.br/Home/Pos-Graduacao20/pgproducao-mestradoacademico/06_aow_writing_the_discussion-1.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).Şanlı Ö., Erdem S., Tefik T. How to write a discussion section? Turkish Journal of Urology. 2013;39(Suppl 1):20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049Şanlı Ö., Erdem S., Tefik T. How to write a discussion section? Turkish Journal of Urology. 2013;39(Suppl 1):20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049Alexandrov A. V. How to write a research paper. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2004;18(2):135–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079266Alexandrov A. V. How to write a research paper. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2004;18(2):135–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079266Barusch A. S. Causality conundrums and advice to authors. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2011;54(2):135–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.550512Barusch A. S. Causality conundrums and advice to authors. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2011;54(2):135–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.550512Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Mezentseva D. A. Ineffective strategies in scientific communication: Textual wordiness vs. clarity of thought in thesis conclusion section. Integration of Education. 2024;28(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.115.028.202402.249-265Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Mezentseva D. A. Ineffective strategies in scientific communication: Textual wordiness vs. clarity of thought in thesis conclusion section. Integration of Education. 2024;28(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.115.028.202402.249-265Conn V. S. How to craft a strong discussion section. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2017;39(5):607–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916650196Conn V. S. How to craft a strong discussion section. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2017;39(5):607–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916650196Walsh K. Discussing discursive discussions. Medical Education. 2016;50(12):1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13103Walsh K. Discussing discursive discussions. Medical Education. 2016;50(12):1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13103Bagga A. Discussion: The heart of the paper. Indian Pediatrics. 2016;53(10):901–904.Bagga A. Discussion: The heart of the paper. Indian Pediatrics. 2016;53(10):901–904.Moore A. What’s in a discussion section? Exploiting 2-dimensionality in the online world. BioEssays. 2016;38(12):1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201600242Moore A. What’s in a discussion section? Exploiting 2-dimensionality in the online world. BioEssays. 2016;38(12):1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201600242Coverdale J. H., Roberts L. W., Balon R., Beresin E. V. Writing for academia: Getting your research into print: AMEE guide No. 74. Medical Teacher. 2013;35(2):e926–e934. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.742494Coverdale J. H., Roberts L. W., Balon R., Beresin E. V. Writing for academia: Getting your research into print: AMEE guide No. 74. Medical Teacher. 2013;35(2):e926–e934. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.742494Ioannidis J. P. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(4):324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011Ioannidis J. P. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(4):324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011Masic I. How to write an efficient discussion? Medicinski Arhiv. 2018;72(4):306–307. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307Masic I. How to write an efficient discussion? Medicinski Arhiv. 2018;72(4):306–307. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307Vieira R. F., Lima R. C., Mizubuti E. S. G. How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy. 2019;41(1):e42621. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v41i1.42621Vieira R. F., Lima R. C., Mizubuti E. S. G. How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy. 2019;41(1):e42621. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v41i1.42621Тихонова Е. В., Кириллова О. В. Культура цитирования: поведение цитирующих авторов vs доверие к результатам научных исследований. Научный редактор и издатель. 2022;7(2):166–181. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-58Tikhonova E. V., Kirillova O. V. Citation culture: Citing authors behaviour vs trust in research results. Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(2):166–181. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-58Кириллова О. В. Редакционная подготовка научных журналов по международным стандартам: рекомендации эксперта БД Scopus. М.: Нобель пресс, 2013. 90 с. Режим доступа: https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/106592/ (дата обращения: 22.06.2024).Кириллова О. В. Редакционная подготовка научных журналов по международным стандартам: рекомендации эксперта БД Scopus. М.: Нобель пресс, 2013. 90 с. Режим доступа: https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/106592/ (дата обращения: 22.06.2024).Masic I. How to search write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica. 2011;19(2):68–79. Available at: https://ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/how-to-search-acta-inform-med-2011-i-masic.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).Masic I. How to search write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica. 2011;19(2):68–79. Available at: https://ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/how-to-search-acta-inform-med-2011-i-masic.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.