Efficient introduction to scoping review: From theoretical modeling to practical application

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.

1. Munn 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-x

2. Peters 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-20-00167

3. Mak 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-22-00620.1

4. Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

5. Tricco 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/M18-0850

6. Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

7. Maggio 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.14431

8. Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018. 352 p.

9. Ridley D. The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. 232 p.

10. 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/s10459-019-09932-2

11. Munn 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-21-00483

12. McElravy 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.20517

13. Swales J. M. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 328 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524827

14. Booth 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-x

15. Grant 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.x

16. Tikhonova 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/10.18413/2313-8912-2025-11-2-0-4

17. Swales J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 280 p.

18. 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.2017.11.006

19. Sun 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.2023.10.001

20. Cotos 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.2017.01.001

21. 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/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6

22. Farhang-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.2024.101387

23. Gao 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.2022.100106

24. Lin 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.2011.10.002

25. Kosycheva 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.s155

26. Mak 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-22-00621.1

27. Tikhonova 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.2021.257

28. Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

29. Hyland K., Zou H. Titles in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2022;56:101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101094

30. Hyland, K. Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; 2004. 256 p. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927