scieditorScience Editor and PublisherНаучный редактор и издатель2542-02672541-8122АНРИ10.24069/SEP-25-39scieditor-459Research ArticleACADEMIC WRITINGАКАДЕМИЧЕСКОЕ ПИСЬМОEfficient introduction to scoping review: From theoretical modeling to practical applicationЭффективное введение к обзору предметного поля: от теоретической модели к практическому применениюhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-6150ТихоноваЕлена ВикторовнаTikhonovaElena V.

кандидат исторических наук, доцент; заведующий редакцией научного журнала «Journal of Language and Education»

Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Associated Professor, MGIMO University; Head of the Editorial Office of the Journal of Language and Education, HSE University

tikhonova.e.v@inno.mgimo.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0328-3109КосычеваМарина АлександровнаKosychevaMarina A.

кандидат филологических наук, доцент, доцент Школы иностранных языков, ответственный секретарь журнала Journal of Language and Education; Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» (НИУ ВШЭ); доцент кафедры русского и иностранных языков, Российский государственный геологоразведочный университет имени Серго Орджоникидзе

Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the School of Foreign Languages, Executive secretary of the Journal of Language and Education; HSE University; Associate Professor of the Department of Russian and Foreign Languages, Sergo Ordzhonikidze Russian State University for Geological Prospecting

mkosycheva@hse.ruМГИМО Университет МИД РФ, г. Москва, Российская ФедерацияMGIMO University, Moscow, Russian FederationРоссийский государственный геологоразведочный университет имени Серго Орджоникидзе, г. Москва, Российская ФедерацияSergo Ordzhonikidze Russian State University for Geological Prospecting (MGRI), Moscow, Russian Federation202510092025101631Copyright © Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A., 20252025Тихонова Е.В., Косычева М.А.Tikhonova E.V., Kosycheva M.A.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/459

Despite the number of internationally recognized recommendations for the efficient conducting of scoping reviews, the writing of their introductions remains conceptually and methodologically undeveloped, which leads to fragmentation of argumentation, decreases the persuasiveness of the text, and limits interdisciplinarity. This study aims to develop recommendations for the effective design of introductions to scoping reviews, highlighting the genre-specific features that distinguish them from introductions to original empirical studies. The analysis is based on a corpus of 40 introductions published in first-quartile Scopus-indexed journals in the field of education. The procedure of genre-rhetorical analysis was used with recording the moves and steps of the introduction, their functions, possible focuses, and typical errors. The reliability of the annotation was ensured by independent marking by two experts with subsequent checking of inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s Kappa). The conceptual support was provided by international guidelines for conducting reviews (Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis; PRISMA-ScR), as well as studies on genre analysis of academic discourse and knowledge mapping. The three-move structure of the introduction to scoping reviews was reconstructed by the authors and further developed by specifying the functions of each step and possible variants of their implementation. The resulting model is considered in a multi-aspect perspective: as a tool for academic writing instructors, as a guide for editorial and peer review practice, and as methodological support for authors. The proposed structure of the introduction to the scoping review can serve as a teaching tool for students and novice researchers and support editors and reviewers in assessing manuscripts.

Несмотря на существование целого ряда международно признаваемых рекомендаций по эффективному созданию обзоров предметного поля, конструирование введений к обзорам предметного поля остается концептуально и методологически неразработанным, что приводит к фрагментации аргументации, снижению убедительности текста и ограничивает междисциплинарный научный обмен. Цель настоящего исследования заключается в формулировании рекомендаций по эффективному конструированию введения к обзору предметного поля исходя из его риторической функции. Эмпирической базой послужил корпус из 40 введений к обзорам предметного поля, опубликованным в журналах первого квартиля, индексируемых в базе данных Scopus. Применялась процедура жанрово-риторического анализа с фиксацией ходов и шагов введения, их функций, возможных фокусов и типичных ошибок. Надежность аннотаций обеспечивалась независимой разметкой двумя экспертами с последующей проверкой межэкспертного согласия (Cohen’s kappa). Концептуальной опорой послужили международные руководства по подготовке обзоров (Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis; PRISMA-ScR), а также исследования по жанровому анализу академического дискурса и картографированию знаний. Реконструированная авторами трехходовая структура введения к обзору предметного поля была подвергнута дальнейшей разработке посредством уточнения функций каждого хода и возможных вариантов их текстовой репрезентации в тесте рукописи статьи. Полученная модель рассмотрена в многоаспектной перспективе: как инструмент в контексте обучения академическому письму, как ориентир для редакционной практики и практики рецензирования, а также как методологическая опора для авторов. Предложенная структура введения к обзору предметного поля может служить инструментом обучения студентов и начинающих исследователей, поддержкой для редакторов и рецензентов при оценке рукописей.

введение к обзору предметного поляструктура академического дискурсаакадемическое письмориторическая организация введениянаучная коммуникацияредакторские практикиscoping reviewscoping review introductionacademic discourse structureacademic writingintroduction rhetorical organizationscholarly communicationeditorial practicesReferencesMunn Z., Peters M. D. J., Stern C., Tufanaru C., McArthur A., Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018;18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xMunn Z., Peters M. D. J., Stern C., Tufanaru C., McArthur A., Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018;18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xPeters M. D. J., Marnie C., Tricco A. C., Pollock D., Munn Z., Lyndsay A. et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167Peters M. D. J., Marnie C., Tricco A. C., Pollock D., Munn Z., Lyndsay A. et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167Mak S., Thomas A. An introduction to scoping reviews. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2022;14(5):561–564. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00620.1Mak S., Thomas A. An introduction to scoping reviews. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2022;14(5):561–564. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00620.1Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616Tricco A.C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O’Brien K. K., Colquhoun H., Levac D. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850Tricco A.C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O’Brien K. K., Colquhoun H., Levac D. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69Maggio L. A., Larsen K., Thomas A., Costello J. A., Artino A. R., Jr. Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review. Medical Education. 2021;55(6):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431Maggio L. A., Larsen K., Thomas A., Costello J. A., Artino A. R., Jr. Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review. Medical Education. 2021;55(6):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018. 352 p.Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018. 352 p.Ridley D. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. 232 p.Ridley D. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. 232 p.Thomas A., Lubarsky S., Varpio L., Durning S. J., Young M. E. Scoping reviews in health professions education: Challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology. Advances in Health Science Education. 2020;25(4):989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2Thomas A., Lubarsky S., Varpio L., Durning S. J., Young M. E. Scoping reviews in health professions education: Challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology. Advances in Health Science Education. 2020;25(4):989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2Munn Z., Pollock D., Khalil H., Lyndsay A., Mclnerney P., Godfrey C. M. et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(4):950–952. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00483Munn Z., Pollock D., Khalil H., Lyndsay A., Mclnerney P., Godfrey C. M. et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(4):950–952. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00483McElravy L. J. Form follows function: Research and assessment design for leadership learning. New Directions for Student Leadership. 2022;(175):31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20517McElravy L. J. Form follows function: Research and assessment design for leadership learning. New Directions for Student Leadership. 2022;(175):31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20517Swales J. M. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 328 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827Swales J. M. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 328 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-xBooth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-xGrant M. J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.xGrant M. J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.xTikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Scoping review rhetorical structure of discussion section: Genre specifics and principles of modeling. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2025;11(2):80–118. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2025-11-2-0-4Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Scoping review rhetorical structure of discussion section: Genre specifics and principles of modeling. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2025;11(2):80–118. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2025-11-2-0-4Swales J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 280 p.Swales J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 280 p.Moreno A. I., Swales J. M. Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes. 2018;50:40–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006Moreno A. I., Swales J. M. Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes. 2018;50:40–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006Sun H., Mei X., Zhang H. Understanding news & views articles: Rhetorical structures across different disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 2024;73:61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.001Sun H., Mei X., Zhang H. Understanding news & views articles: Rhetorical structures across different disciplines. English for Specific Purposes. 2024;73:61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.001Cotos E., Huffman S., Link S. A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes. 2017;46:90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.01.001Cotos E., Huffman S., Link S. A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes. 2017;46:90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.01.001Tikhonova 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/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6Farhang-Ju M., Jalilifar A., Keshavarz M. H. Specificity and generality of lexical bundles in the rhetorical moves of applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2024;69:101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101387Farhang-Ju M., Jalilifar A., Keshavarz M. H. Specificity and generality of lexical bundles in the rhetorical moves of applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2024;69:101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101387Gao S., Pramoolsook I. A cross-cultural move analysis of electronic engineering research article introductions: The case of Chinese, Thai, and native English scholarly writers. Ampersand. 2023;10:100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100106Gao S., Pramoolsook I. A cross-cultural move analysis of electronic engineering research article introductions: The case of Chinese, Thai, and native English scholarly writers. Ampersand. 2023;10:100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100106Lin L., Evans S. Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes. 2012;31(3):150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002Lin L., Evans S. Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes. 2012;31(3):150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002Косычева М. А., Тихонова Е. В. Введение к эмпирической статье: от структуры к функциональному содержанию. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2022;4(2);6–16. https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2022.i2.s155Kosycheva M. A., Tikhonova E. V. Research article introduction: From structure to functions. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2022;4(2):6–16. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2022.i2.s155Mak S., Thomas A. Steps for conducting a scoping review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2022;14(5):565–567. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1Mak S., Thomas A. Steps for conducting a scoping review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2022;14(5):565–567. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1Тихонова Е. В., Шленская Н. М. Обзор предметного поля как метод синтеза научных данных. Хранение и переработка сельхозсырья. 2021;(3):11–25. https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2021.257Tikhonova E. V., Shlenskaya N. M. Scoping review as a method for synthesizing scientific data. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2021;(3):11–25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2021.257Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Hyland K., Zou H. Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2022;56:101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094Hyland K., Zou H. Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2022;56:101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094Hyland, K. Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; 2004. 256 p. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927Hyland, K. Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; 2004. 256 p. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927

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