264 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature) Vol. 8 No. 2, August 2023 ISSN (print): 2502-7816; ISSN (online): 2503-524X Available online at https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/index.php/joall/article/view/24934 https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v8i2.26491 Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions in applied linguistics research articles Warsidi English Literature Study Program, Universitas Islam Makassar, INDONESIA Jalan Perintis Kemerdekaan Km.9 No. 29, Makassar 90245 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Received: Feb 07, 2023 Revised: Feb 10, 2023 & Mar 25, 2023 Accepted: May 05, 2023 Since authors intend to publish their academic research in reputable journals, promoting their research significance is pivotal to convincing journal gatekeepers for accepting their research articles (RAs). However, studies on research promotion within RAs are still limited, and none has comparatively studied this essential issue in English RAs published in reputable international journals and Indonesian highly-accredited journals as data sets. Thus, comprehending this gap has encouraged me to conduct the present study, by analyzing how claiming centrality and research contribution are employed in both data sets. For the data analysis, I employed a top-down approach for analyzing both data sets and used combined qualitative and quantitative approaches for the analysis reports. Then, the analysis results revealed that while claiming centrality appeared in most of both data sets, presenting research contribution appeared only in a few RAs of both data sets. Then, authors tend to express these two communicative steps using simple sentences more than the other three sentence types, except those published in reputable international journals as they mostly employ complex sentences in expressing their research contribution. These findings imply that promoting research by stating that the current research topic is important for research is important in the data, but using claiming centrality is more dominant than presenting research contribution. These findings also indicate that promoting the significance of current research topics is very essential. Keywords: Claiming centrality promoting research research articles research contribution Conflict of interest: None Funding information: None Correspondence: Warsidi, English Literature Study Program, Universitas Islam Makassar, INDONESIA warsidi.dty@uim-makassar.ac.id ©Warsidi This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA 4.0 international license. How to cite (APA Style): Warsidi. (2023). Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions in applied linguistics research articles. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 264- 280. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v8i2.26491 Since scholars intend to publish their research works in public spheres, such as journals, promoting their research articles to journal gatekeepers https://ejournal.unib.ac.id/index.php/joall/article/view/24934 https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v8i2.26491 https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.33369/joall.v8i2.26491&domain=pdf https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v8i2.26491 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-842X Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 265 becomes essential. The purpose is to convince journal editors and journal reviewers, and by this, their research articles have a high possibility to be accepted and published in their targeted academic journals. Some previous studies have investigated this fundamental research writing issue to promote their research articles (Abdi & Sadeghi, 2018; Afros & Schryer, 2009; Moreno, 2021; Wang & Yang, 2015; Zibalas & Šinkūnienė, 2019), but their focuses seem different between one and the others. Afros and Schryer (2009) analyzed promotional (meta) discourse in two related disciplines: language and literary studies in cross sections, including the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. In this regard, they employed three rhetorical strategies for identifying research promotion: importance, novelty, and uniqueness of authors' current research. The analysis results showed that in the introduction section, authors presented claiming centrality, interestingness, and novelty of the research as communicative moves to promote their research. Then, in the discussion section, they employed citation and intertextuality for comparing, supporting, or contrasting their findings. In the conclusion section, they present their claims as a central purpose of the research, construct agreements with readers, and conclude their analysis results. All these communicative moves are to promote authors' current research. Another way of promoting research strategies is conducted by claiming centrality in the introduction section of research articles. It has been investigated in various studies of rhetorical structures within research article introductions (RAIs) (Adnan, 2011; Arsyad, 2013; Arsyad & Adila, 2018; Rochma et al., 2020; Samanhudi, 2017; Sheldon, 2011). However, all these studies investigated broader communicative moves in RAIs, while investigation on more specific to claiming centrality is still limited. During my review, only two studies were focused on analyzing claiming centrality (Abdi & Sadeghi, 2018; Wang & Yang, 2015). Wang and Yang (2015) investigated how promoting RAs through claiming centrality was conducted in fifty-one corpus of applied linguistics published in top journals: TESOL Quarterly, Modern Language Journal (MJL), and Applied Linguistics (AL). The purposes are to find out the appealing types to promote that their research topic is significant, attitudes to convey it, and patterns of appeals. The results revealed that RAIs in this selected discipline tend to employ a magnitude type of appeal more than the other three types (salience, topicality, and problematicity). Then, they prefer employing indirect ways to promote their RAs. Lastly, they oriented their research topics toward research world significances rather than real-world significances. This study implies that promoting RAs through claiming centrality is essential in RAIs in the applied linguistics discipline. Warsidi 266 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 Then, although the above study implies that claiming centrality is an important strategy to promote RAs in applied linguistics, Abdi and Sadeghi (2018) found a bit difference from it, particularly in the type of appeal occurrences. Appeal occurrences in this regard are strategies employed to present claiming centrality in RAIs. Abdi and Sadeghi (2018) investigated how promoting research through claiming centrality is employed in English RAIs in applied linguistics written by English first-language authors (L1) and English second-language authors (L2) using 50 corpora for the analysis: 25 RAIs from each corpus. The findings showed that silence appeals dominate over the other three types of appeal. In this regard, L1 authors employed it in 41% of the total data, and L2 authors employed it in 51% of the total data. This finding also still indicates that emphasizing the significance of the current research topic plays an important role in promoting research articles. The above reviews suggest that promoting research in RAs is significant, particularly through claiming centrality. Besides, the reviews also indicate that RAs in the disciplines of language, linguistics, applied linguistics, and literary studies published in top-rank journals are more dominantly investigated this far. However, although studies on promoting research in English RAs have been conducted thus far, comparative studies on this issue written by academicians in reputable international journals and Indonesian-accredited journals are still very limited. To my knowledge, none has comparatively investigated research promotion in English RAs between those published in reputable international journals and Indonesian accredited journals, while comparing how they promote their research may provide a more complete and comprehensive understanding for readers, particularly for those whose English is their L2. Also, none has analyzed research promotion through research contribution. Comprehending all these gaps, I intend to analyze comparatively how English RAs in the applied linguistics discipline published in reputable international journals and Indonesian- accredited journals promote their research through claiming centrality and research contribution. For this purpose, I formulate the following research questions: 1. To what extent are claiming centrality and research contributions employed in RAs published in reputable international journals and Indonesian accredited journals to promote their RAs, and do these two data sets have differences? 2. What syntactic strategies do these two data sets employ to realize claiming centrality and research contribution to promote their RAs? By investigating these two research questions, the results may provide understandings for readers about how authors of reputable international journals and Indonesian-accredited journals promote their research. Besides, Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 267 conducting this study may also contribute to design teaching materials for teaching practice, particularly for teaching writing research articles. METHOD The Context of this Study This study included five English foreign language (EFL) students who program a subject of genre theory. They were trained and practiced genre analysis within RAs for eight meetings. After that, in meeting nine and ten, each of them was given assignments analyzing claiming centrality and research contribution in 10 English RAIs in the linguistics discipline published in Indonesian accredited journals. In meeting eleven, their analysis results were discussed in class regarding the appropriateness of their data analysis results. After that, in meeting twelve and thirteen, each of them was then given more assignments to analyze these two communicative steps in a different context, 10 English RAIs in the linguistics discipline published in reputable international journals. In the following meeting (meeting fourteen), their analysis results were also discussed to ensure their validity, and regarding the validity, it was presented in different sub-section, the last sub- section of this method. Research Designs This study employed a combination of descriptive qualitative and quantitative approaches for analyzing both data sets because one approach may not be clear enough to describe the findings. In this regard, a descriptive qualitative approach was used to describe the findings of claiming centrality and research contribution in both data sets descriptively. In contrast, a quantitative approach was used to report the analysis results in nominal form, quantity percentages, and inferential statistical comparison. Data Sets This study used 94 English RAs in the linguistics discipline for the data analysis; 47 of which are published in reputable international journals, while the other 47 are published in Indonesian accredited journals (most of them are also in Scopus). The reason for employing these numbers is that they may have represented both data sets because many earlier studies employed fewer corpus or corpora in their data analysis (Abdi & Sadeghi, 2018; Amnuai, 2021; Lim, 2012). In selecting these two data sets, I employed some selection criteria to find high-quality papers. In selecting international reputable English RAs, all the English articles must be published in Quartile 1 (Q1) of Scopus-indexed journals in the linguistics discipline. Then, the journals must have Scimago Journal Ranks (SJR) 0,35 or above because journals in these ranks may have Warsidi 268 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 high quality standards. After using these criteria, five Q1 Scopus-indexed journals were determined; they are Annual review of applied linguistics, Language learning and technology, computational linguistics, journal of specialised translation, and TESL-EJ. In selecting articles as corpus, nine to ten empirical English articles published in these five journals between 2018 and 2022 were randomly selected to find 47 RAs for the international corpus. In selecting the Indonesian accredited journals, the articles must be published in English journals, and best-accredited linguistics journals in Indonesia (Sinta 1, and Sinta 2). After employing these standard criteria, five well-accredited journals in the linguistics discipline are found: the Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), the International Journal of Language Education (IJoLE), Studies in English Language and Education (SiELE), TEFLIN Journal, and the Journal of English Foreign Language (JEFL). Mostly, these journals are also Scopus-indexed. Then, nine to ten empirical English articles published from 2018 to 2022 in each of these five journals were also selected randomly to meet 47 RAs for the Indonesian corpus. Data Analysis Procedures Analyzing and coding claiming centrality and research contributions Identifying and coding claiming centrality and research contribution in both corpora were conducted by five EFL students programming genre studies. As I have presented in the earlier sub-section (the context of this study), all these five students had been trained for eight meetings for the analysis. Thus, they must have been ready and have abilities to analyze the data. In the analysis, an analytical framework developed by Swales (1990, 2004) was employed to analyze claiming centrality because it had been widely employed for analyzing rhetorical structures in research article introductions (Alharbi, 2021; Arsyad & Arono, 2016; Suryani et al., 2015). Then, another analytical framework to analyze research contribution was designed based on information found in both data sets. More details of the analytical framework to analyze both data sets are presented in Table 1. Table 1. An Analytical Framework to Analyze Claiming Centrality and Research Contribution in Research Articles Communicative steps Definition Signal words Examples Presenting claiming centrality In this communicative step means, authors present that their current research topic is significant or important (Swales, 1990, 2004). Important, Interest, Growth, Greater attention, Commonly, Increase, etc. Studies on genre analysis have received greater attention over the period. "Recently there has been a spate of interest in ..." "Knowledge of X has great importance for ..." Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 269 Communicative steps Definition Signal words Examples Translation courses, …………………… are commonly offered to undergraduate students ……... Presenting research contribution The current research contributes to either theories or practices or contributes to both of them. Contribute, contribution, signify, significance, benefit, beneficial, useful, etc. By analyzing this, the present study may contribute to………. This study has theoretical and practical contributions……….. This research has theoretical and practical significance………… The present research is useful for………… The current study signifies to develop………………….. In applying the above framework to analyze both data sets, student analysts were first trained and instructed to employ a top-down analysis strategy to identify claiming centrality by identifying language signals indicating this communicative step. Once they find the language signals indicating this communicative step, then the context of the texts was deeply analyzed to ensure as it is. Then, the data were coded and reported in a table form. The same strategy and tactic were also employed to analyze the research contribution in both data sets. To identify the level of importance of claiming centrality and research contribution, the researcher employed an earlier classification approach regarding levels of importance (Warsidi, 2022; Ye, 2019; Zhang & Wannaruk, 2016). This approach is to identify whether these two communicative steps are optional, conventional, quasi-obligatory, or obligatory in the data. Analyzing syntactic strategies Syntactic strategy analyses in the present study are to discover whether authors in both data sets tend to employ simple, compound, complex, or compound-complex sentences in expressing both claiming centrality and research contribution. For this purpose, this study employed a syntactic framework for the data analysis (Verspoor & Sauter, 2000). Then, the results were reported in a table form regarding the appearances and the percentages of appearances. Warsidi 270 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 Validities of Data Analysis Results As this study involved five EFL students programming genre analysis, t-test inferential statistics was applied to ensure the validity of data analysis results. After seven meetings completing a lecture and training in genre analysis, the five EFL students as a group together were instructed to analyze claiming centrality and research contribution within five RAs as samples. Their analysis results were then checked and compared with the researcher's results. The comparison between the students and the researcher's results is presented in Table 2. Table 2. T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Researcher Students Mean 1,2 1 Variance 0,2 0 Observations 5 5 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 4 t Stat 1 P(T<=t) one-tail 0,19 t Critical one-tail 2,13 P(T<=t) two-tail 0,37 t Critical two-tail 2,78 As shown in Table 2, the p-value of comparative statistics between the researcher and students is 0.37 (bolded number); it is higher than the alpha value (0.05 or 5%). This comparison means that there is no significant difference between the researcher's analysis and the students' analysis results. After comprehending these comparative results, each of the five students was then instructed to continuously analyze claiming centrality and research contribution in ten international corpus and ten Indonesian corpus. Then, their results were also checked, given feedback, and discussed when an issue appears. These activities are to ensure that they are on the right analysis and to ensure the validity of their data analysis results. FINDINGS The Uses of Claiming Centrality and Research Contributions to Promote RAs After analyzing both data sets, the results revealed that most RAs employ claiming centrality to promote their research papers, but only less than 50% of them present their research contributions. Summary analysis results regarding the employments of claiming centrality are presented in Table 3. Then, summary analysis results regarding the employment of research contribution are described in the next table, Table 4: Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 271 Table 3. The Employments of Claiming Centrality to Promote Research Articles in The Linguistics Discipline Claiming centrality Reputable international journals Indonesian accredited journals Number of appearances 38 36 Number of data samples 47 47 Mean 0.8085 0.7660 Variance 0.1582 0.1831 P-value 0.6188 As presented in Table 3, both data sets tend to present a claiming centrality to promote their RAs. This communicative step only appears in their introduction section. However, international journals employ this step more than Indonesian accredited journals, which appear in 80,85% of international journals and 76,60% of Indonesian journals. Using levels of important classification (Warsidi, 2022; Ye, 2019; Zhang & Wannaruk, 2016), this finding suggests that promoting RAs through claiming centrality is conventional in both data sets, but it is more critical in reputable international journals rather than in Indonesian accredited journals. The difference in employing claiming centrality in these two data sets is not significant because the p-value of inferential statistics shows 0,6188, which is higher than the alpha value of 0,05 (5%). Thus, this inferential statistical comparison implies that the difference between the two data sets in employing claiming centrality is not significant, which means both data sets nearly similar in employing this communicative step. Table 4. Presenting Research Contributions to Promote Research Articles in The Linguistics Discipline Research contribution Reputable international journals Indonesian accredited journals Number of appearances 13 22 Numbers of data analysis 47 47 Mean 0.2766 0.4681 Variance 0.2044 0.2543 P-value 0.0557 As presented in Table 4, Indonesian-accredited journals present research contributions more than those in reputable international journals to promote their RAs. Indonesian accredited journals employed it in 22 (46,81%) RAs, while international journals employed it in 13 (27,66%) RAs. Employing important levels of earlier studies (Warsidi, 2022; Ye, 2019; Zhang & Wannaruk, 2016), this finding indicates that presenting research contributions Warsidi 272 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 is optional in both international and Indonesian accredited journals. Articles in Indonesian accredited journals employed this strategy more than those of reputable international journals; their differences are not significant, but the inferential statistic comparison shows that the p-value (0,0557) is nearly the alpha value (0,05). Thus, this finding indicates that although their difference is not significant, their p-value is nearly significant. This communicative step mostly appears in their conclusion section. More details about presenting research contributions from both data sets are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Research contributions to promote RAs As shown in Figure 1, presenting research contributions appears to be dominant in the conclusion section and then followed in the introduction section in both data sets. However, as shown in the data, not all RAs employ this communicative step in their RAs. None of international authors presents this communicative step either in their abstract, literature review, or discussion. This finding implies that presenting research contribution is optional in both data sets. To show more clearly the ways employing claiming centrality and presenting research contribution, the researcher describes and exemplifies them as follows: Claiming centrality This communicative step appears in most RAs from both data sets. It indicates that this step is conventional in both data sets. Its appearances are exemplified as follows: Ex.1: English language teaching and learning is growing significantly in the "expanding circle" (Kachru, 1985), and Asia is becoming the largest market area for education (Hengsadeekul, et al., 2014). IndoJAL02 Ex.2: English has gradually increased in importance in Indonesia at all levels of education, more so than when it was appointed as the first foreign language to be taught in Indonesia after its independence in 1945 (Candraningrum, 2016). IndoJAL04 0 5 0 0 8 1 7 1 3 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Abstract Introduction Literature review Discussion Conclusion English RAIs in international journals English RAIs in Indonesian accredited journals Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 273 Ex.3: The ability to comprehend social norms and use language appropriately is what we understand as pragmatic competence (Kasper & Ross, 2002) and is an essential component of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972). Being pragmatically appropriate when speaking to others is important for successful social interaction. InterJAL05 The above examples are the ways authors present their centrality claims because, in these regards, authors promote their current research topics as significant, important, and pivotal in their fields. Thus, these examples are included as parts of claiming centrality. Research contributions This communicative step is optional in both data sets because its appearances are less than 50% of the total corpus in both data sets. More details about the ways authors present their research contribution in their RAs are exemplified below: Ex.4: The findings of this study shed light on the types of linguistic problems; Grammarly detects in students’ critical book reviews, critical article reviews, and mini-research assignments. Instructors of English as a second or foreign language can use the findings of this study to help their students develop their writing skills. IndoJAL12 Ex.5: The main pedagogical implication of our findings is that GT has the potential to be used as a pedagogical tool for self-directed language learning via a combination of its translation, TTS, and ASR capabilities, using some of the learning strategies uncovered by our research. InterJAL04 Ex.6: Second, since this study focuses on how learners consulted corpora in pattern- hunting and pattern-refining activities in the drafting stage of writing, it would be useful for future research to explore the process and learning effects of pattern-hunting and pattern-refining activities in different stages of the writing process, such as the revising stage of writing. InterJAL06 The above examples, particularly those in bolded texts, are the ways authors present their research contributions. Here, the authors show that conducting their research may contribute to knowledge development practically and theoretically. However, only less than half of them present this communicative step. Syntactic Strategies to Express Claiming Centrality and Research Contributions This section aims to report the analysis results regarding syntactic choices to campaign claiming centrality and research contributions found in both data sets as research promotions. Here, simple sentence is the most dominant syntactic type to campaign claiming centrality in both data sets, which appears in 55,32% of international journals and 46,15% of Indonesian accredited journals. However, to campaign research contributions, Indonesian accredited journals still tend to employ simple sentences (59,26%), while international journals mainly use complex sentences (69,20%). More details about syntactic strategies used to campaign claiming centrality and research contributions are presented in Table 5. Warsidi 274 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 Table 5. Syntactic Strategies to Express Claiming Centrality and Research Contributions Syntactic Strategies Claiming centrality Research contributions Reputable international journals Indonesian accredited journals Reputable international journals Indonesian accredited journals No. % No. % No. % No. % Simple sentences 26 55.32% 24 46.15% 4 30.80% 16 59.26% Compound sentences 1 2.13% 3 5.77% - - - - Complex sentences 19 40.43% 24 46.15% 9 69.20% 11 40.74% Compound- complex sentences 1 2.13% 1 1.92% - - - - Total numbers 47 100% 52 100% 13 100% 27 100% Table 5 shows that in expressing claiming centrality, both data sets are similar; they tend to employ simple sentences more than other sentence types. However, in campaigning research contributions, while Indonesian accredited journals still mainly use simple sentences, international journals tend to utilize complex sentences. These findings indicate that authors in both data sets mostly employ simple sentences to promote their research, except international journals employ different syntactic strategies from those publishing RAs in Indonesian accredited journals. In short, the data analysis results revealed that in promoting research, both reputable international and Indonesian accredited journals tend to employ claiming centrality more than presenting research contributions. In employing these two communicative steps to promote their research, however, there is no significant difference in both data sets. Then, regarding syntactic strategies that they employed, both data sets tend to employ simple sentences more than the other sentence types, except reputable international journals which tend to employ complex sentences to express research contribution. These findings are discussed more in the discussion section in the following section below. DISCUSSION Claiming Centrality and Research Contribution to Promote Research The data analysis results revealed that both reputable international journals and Indonesian accredited journals mostly employed claiming centrality to promote their research, and indicate that this communicative step is taken into account as conventional for promoting research in both data sets. However, these two data sets rarely present their research contribution for promoting their research and indicate that this communicative strategy is only optional in both data sets. In this regard, although these two data sets employed different numbers of claiming centrality and research contribution, their Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 275 differences are not significant. The reason for their difference may be because authors of reputable international journals may suppose that demonstrating the significances of their current research topics may promote their research in public sphere (Wang & Yang, 2015). On the other hand, authors of Indonesian accredited journals may still follow their earlier assumption that emphasizing explicit research contribution in their RAs may convince their targeted audiences because they are expected to overcome practical problematic issues, and thus, they must produce more explicit research contributions (Adnan, 2010; Warsidi, 2021). These findings indicate that while describing the importance of the current research topics plays an essential role significantly in promoting research to audiences, particularly journal editors and reviewers, presenting research contributions does not have a significant role in promoting research. These also reinforce earlier studies in applied linguistics RAs published in top international journals that claiming centrality also has a big role in promoting research in their data sets (Abdi & Sadeghi, 2018; Wang & Yang, 2015). These findings indicate that authors in top journals tend to employ claiming centrality in their RAIs. The reason for these authors mostly employing this communicative step may be that presenting the significance of the current research topics may attract their audiences' attention significantly, particularly journal editors and reviewers. The present findings may be also similar to earlier studies found in Indonesian accredited journal of applied linguistics (Samanhudi, 2017) and those in American and French RAIs (Helal, 2014) because all the data sets in these two earlier studies employed Move 1 of the CARS model. However, this claim is very weak because Move 1 of the CARS model has three possible steps, which they may not employ claiming centrality, but employ the other two communicative steps. Thus, although Move 1 appeared in all RAIs of earlier studies by Samanhudi (2017) and Helal (2014), their data do mean employing claiming centrality because they do not show explicitly whether they employ this step. In contrast, the present findings are different from those found in the introduction section of the conference paper in the language and linguistics disciplines, which of twelve papers, only five of them employ claiming centrality (Anthony & Sajed, 2017). These findings also seem different from those found in Indonesian RAIs in that they rarely employed Move 1 of the CARS model (Adnan, 2009, 2011; Arsyad, 2013; Mirahayuni, 2002), which also indicates rarely employing claiming centrality. This communicative step is optional in RAs in the English language teaching (ELT) discipline in Indonesia (Rochma et al., 2020), but the corpus-specific accreditation of this study is not clear whether they are accredited or not. Warsidi 276 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 This comparison implies that the authors in the current research findings consider presenting their current research topics as a significant strategy to promote their research and to attract their audiences’ interests, and by doing so, their audiences may read their manuscript further. On the other hand, those that are different from the current research findings may also establish important knowledge backgrounds, but their purpose is not to justify their study. They prefer justifying their study by making subjective reasons, practical reasons, and local claims (Arsyad & Arono, 2016; Mirahayuni, 2002). By doing so, their research may create practical benefits, such as solving problems in the fields. Regarding explicit research contribution, our data analysis results revealed that this communicative step is optional in both data sets. Its appearances tend to be in the conclusion section more than the other sections. The reason may be that authors in both data sets intend to show their research implication to their audiences that their research just been carried out has significant contributions. In this manner, however, Indonesian corpus (as shown in example 4 and 5) seems to show real world contribution, while international corpus (as exemplified in example 6) seems to show research world contribution. Furthermore, as the present finding shows that this communicative strategy is optional in both data sets, it may not be too significant to promote research in this selected discipline. The reason for this rare employment may be that authors' target audiences may be experts and may understand their research significance, and thus, they do not mention their research contribution explicitly. Syntactic Strategies for Promoting Research Concerning syntactic strategy to express claiming centrality, both data sets tend to employ simple sentences more than the other sentence types. However, to express explicit research contribution, while Indonesian accredited journals still favored simple sentences, international preferred employing complex sentences. Thus, these syntactic findings imply that both data sets mostly favor expressing their research promotion in simple ways, except those of international journals in expressing research contribution. The reason for the difference is possibly that authors of Indonesian accredited journals intend their promotion more easily and comprehended that their current research has a significant contribution. In contrast, authors of reputable international journals may suppose that they need complex ways to express their research contribution for promoting their research. By doing so, they may assume that their research is interesting and may attract audiences' attention, particularly journal editors and reviewers. Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 277 This finding is similar to those of my Ph.D. thesis (Warsidi, 2021) that Indonesian RAs in the History and Law disciplines tend to employ simple sentences. Besides, it is also similar to RAs in the social science discipline (Lu et al., 2020), and to realize communicative moves in applied linguistics article abstracts (Andika et al., 2018), which they also tend to use simple sentences. However, this present finding is different from those of Turkish and American research article sections as they mostly employ complex sentences (Deveci, 2019). Unfortunately, these comparisons are not equal, not comparing apple to apple, because the context of the present study is syntactic strategies to promote research, particularly focusing on claiming centrality and research contribution, while these studies in the literature focus on syntactic strategies in one section, some others on whole RA sections, and different disciplinary RAs. Thus, this comparison does not represent equally. CONCLUSION After analyzing 94 English RAs in the applied linguistics discipline published in reputable international journals and Indonesian accredited journals, reporting them, and discussing them with literature, I finally conclude that both data sets employed both claiming centrality and research contribution for promoting their research. However, the appearance of claiming centrality is more dominant than research contribution, in which claiming centrality is conventional in both data sets while presenting explicit research contribution is optional in both data groups. Then, both data sets have differences in employing these communicative strategies for promoting research, but their difference is not significant. To express claiming centrality, both data sets tend to communicate it in simple way more than the other ways. However, to express explicit research contribution, while authors of Indonesian accredited journals still tend to employ simple ways, authors of reputable international journals tend to employ complex ways. This study theoretically strengthens the claim that genre is very dependent on specific standard criteria of a discourse community. The present finding is evidence that because the standard of both data sets is similar (both are in English, and well and high-standard journals), genre of international journals and Indonesian well-accredited journals has similarities when promoting their research; both of them tend to employ claiming centrality more than presenting explicit research contribution. Practically, it may significantly draw to pedagogical contribution for designing teaching materials for academic purposes, particularly for publishing purposes. Unfortunately, this study has a limitation, only analyzing claiming centrality and research contribution for promoting research, while it ignores some more communicative strategies for promoting research. Because of this limited scope, further studies on promoting research that are uncovered in Warsidi 278 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 this study are recommended for further research to accomplish the current research findings, so audiences may receive a complete comprehension regarding promoting research in high-quality journal articles. REFERENCES Abdi, J., & Sadeghi, K. (2018). Promotion through claiming centrality in L1 and L2 English research article introductions. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/297381 Adnan, Z. (2009). Some potential problems for research articles written by Indonesian academics when submitted to international English language journals. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 107-125. Adnan, Z. (2010). Rhetorical patterns of Indonesian research articles: A genre of Indonesian academic writing. VDM Verlag Dr Müller. Adnan, Z. (2011). ‘Ideal-problem-solution’(IPS) model: A discourse model of research article introductions (RAIS) in education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 75-103. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.34.1.05adn Afros, E., & Schryer, C. F. (2009). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001 Alharbi, S. H. (2021). A comparative genre-based analysis of move-step structure of rais in two different publication contexts. English Language Teaching, 14(3), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n3p12 Amnuai, W. (2021). A Comparison of Niche Establishments in English Research Article Introductions Published in International and Thai Journals. Discourse and Interaction, 14(2), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-2-24 Andika, R. P., Arsyad, S., & Harahap, A. (2018). Rhetorical moves and linguistic features of journal article abstracts by postgraduate students, national and international authors in applied linguistics. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics & Literature), 3(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v3i1.6539 Anthony, P., & Sajed, S. I. (2017). Genre analysis of linguistics research introductions. University of Mindanao International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(1), 1-12. Arsyad, S. (2013). A genre-based analysis on the introductions of research articles written by Indonesian academics. TEFLIN Journal, 24(2), 180- 200. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v24i2/180-200 Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2018). Using local style when writing in English: The citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/297381 https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.34.1.05adn https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n3p12 https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-2-24 https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v3i1.6539 https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v24i2/180-200 Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions… JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 279 introductions. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835 Arsyad, S., & Arono. (2016). Potential problematic rhetorical style transfer from first language to foreign language: A case of Indonesian authors writing research article introductions in English. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(3), 315-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1153642 Deveci, T. (2019). Sentence length in education research articles: A comparison between Anglophone and Turkish authors. Linguistics Journal, 13(1), pp, 73-100. Helal, F. (2014). Genres, styles and discourse communities in global communicative competition: The case of the Franco–American ‘AIDS War’(1983–1987). Discourse Studies, 16(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613496352 Lim, J. M.-H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre- based investigation into management researchers' rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002 Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2020). The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 44, 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832 Mirahayuni, N. K. (2002). Investigating generic structure of English research articles: Writing strategy differences between English and Indonesian writers. TEFLIN Journal, 13(1), 22-57. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v13i1/22-57 Moreno, A. I. (2021). Selling research in RA discussion sections through English and Spanish: An intercultural rhetoric approach. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.002 Rochma, A. F., Triastuti, A., & Ashadi, A. (2020). Rhetorical styles of Introduction in English language teaching (ELT) research articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 304-314. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28593 Samanhudi, U. (2017). Introduction of research articles in applied linguistics by Indonesian and english academics. IRJE| Indonesian Research Journal in Education, 58-71. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v1i1.4339 Sheldon, E. (2011). Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 Suryani, I., Yaacob, A., & Abd Aziz, N. H. (2015). “Indicating a research gap” in computer science research article introductions by non-native https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835 https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1153642 https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613496352 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832 https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v13i1/22-57 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.002 https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28593 https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v1i1.4339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 Warsidi 280 JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 8(2), 2023 English writers. Asian Social Science, 11(28), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n28p293 Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 Verspoor, M., & Sauter, K. (2000). English sentence analysis: An introductory course. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.100 Wang, W., & Yang, C. (2015). Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 162-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002 Warsidi. (2021). Rhetorical Patterns of Indonesian Research Articles in Law and History Disciplines: A Genre-Based Analysis [Dissertation, University of New England, Australia]. Warsidi, W. (2022). Genre analysis of English vs. Indonesian application letters. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(2), 419- 435. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i2.857 Ye, Y. (2019). Macrostructures and rhetorical moves in energy engineering research articles written by Chinese expert writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.007 Zhang, B., & Wannaruk, A. (2016). Rhetorical structure of education research article methods sections. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 51, 155-184. Zibalas, D., & Šinkūnienė, J. (2019). Rhetorical structure of promotional genres: The case of research article and conference abstracts. Discourse and Interaction, 12(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-2-95 THE AUTHOR Warsidi is a senior lecturer at English Literature study program, Faculty of Literature and Humanities of Universitas Islam Makassar, Indonesia. His research interests include discourse structural analysis of research papers and professional texts, academic writing, and English language teaching. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n28p293 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 https://doi.org/10.1075/z.100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002 https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i2.857 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.007 https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2019-2-95