The readers' first impression of the articles' overall contents relies on what is presented and how they are presented in the abstract. Previous studies have quite extensively looked at the rhetorical structure of abstract, specifically comparing abstracts of different fields of study, languages, and authors' background. However, inquiries that especially examine the extent to which the authors' organizational affiliations may reflect the rhetorical organization and linguistic features of their research articles' abstracts have escaped attention. This study aims to compare the rhetorical moves and linguistic features of research article abstracts by authors with different organizational affiliations. The abstracts represented in this study were all published in Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology (IJoST) and were Scopusindexed. A total of six abstracts were chosen to be analyzed in which the authors of three abstracts were affiliated with Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) while the other three were affiliated with other universities. Hyland's (2000) model was employed to analyze the rhetorical organization of the abstracts. The findings revealed that the rhetorical move with the highest number of occurrences is Move 1 -Introduction, and the move with the least number of occurrences is Move 5 -Conclusion. Furthermore, the use of present tense and active voice was dominant in all six abstracts. The final results and findings of this study is expected to carve an in-depth insight for related future studies within this scope of analysis and is meant to act as a guideline for novice academic writers in constructing RA abstracts.

A well-written abstract is considered as the reflection of a qualified journal article which can be read by academic readers. It also serves as a determining point whether the reader decides to continue reading the text. Some of the previous studies examined abstracts based on the background of the writers as an expert-novice and a native-non-native. Meanwhile, this study presents research in progress on rhetorical moves of accepted research article (RA) abstracts, influenced by the different forms of collaboration which may have different realizations of abstract rhetorical patterns and linguistic features, i.e., voice and tense. Six abstracts of Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL) articles published in 2020 and 2021 were selected. The selected abstracts are compared based on Hyland's (2000) theory of rhetorical move analysis. The data are taken from those written by lecturers of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) and those by UPI's lecturers and other Indonesian universities' lecturers. The results of this study revealed differences in rhetorical moves and steps. On the other hand, the linguistics features in selected abstracts showed similarities in terms of tense and voice. Implications of the present research findings to English for academic writing courses and journal writing workshops will be discussed.

Abstracts in research articles are important for readers in determining whether to continue reading the article or not. A plethora of studies involving abstracts’ rhetorical moves has previously been published, but scant attention has been given to the relationship between the rhetorical moves and authors’ nationalities. This study is aimed at comparing the rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations of abstracts by authors of different nationalities. This study analyzed 30 hard sciences abstracts written by national and international authors published in the International Journal of Science and Technology (IJoST). Hyland’s (2000) model of rhetorical moves was employed as the framework of analysis. Findings showed that both groups similarly spent more space in manifesting the method and findings moves. However significant differences were evident in the steps of the introduction and method moves. National authors considered the conclusion move as optional, whereas the other moves in both groups were considered conventional. International authors considered topic generalization step as conventional, while all other steps in the introduction move of both groups were optional. No difference was found in the voices used. However, tense-wise, the international authors favored present tenses in describing the research purpose while the national authors favored past tenses. This study concludes that the differences in the rhetorical organizations between the international and national authors can mostly be found in the steps, instead of the moves. Additionally, as the use of voice does not show any difference, the use of different tenses in each move distinguishes the two groups of authors.