A cornucopia of research has been conducted on the use of metadiscourse across disciplines and languages. Still, this present study is the first to identify and analyse how metadiscourse markers (MDMs) help realize the functions of moves and steps in the Methods sections of research articles (RAs) across disciplines and Englishes. The present study is an investigation of the distribution of MDMs in the formulation of moves and steps in the Methods section of social science, business, and linguistics RAs written by American English (the inner circle), Philippine English (outer circle), and Chinese English (expanding circle) RA writers. Utilizing a qualitative-quantitative mixed methodology, it shows that engagement markers are the most frequently used interactional markers, that culture and discipline are two variables that account for the variations in MDMs use, that soft disciplines like humanities and social sciences seem to demand more writer accountability to assertions made, and that both the outer and the expanding circles of Englishes sometimes behave like the inner circle English with pronounced similarities and differences in the utilization of MDMs. Instructional implications were suggested based on the findings of the present study.