Objective: This study aims at developing a list of academic and technical words commonly used in medical research articles. It is conducted in line with the specificity of academic literacy and vocabulary practices in every individual discipline. Methods: The corpus of this study consisted of 18,462,820 words extracted from 1,784 research articles accessed from three prestigious and widely known journals, i.e., The Lancet, The BritishMedical Journal (BMJ), and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), published between 2015 and 2019. To analyze the data, the RANGE program as a robust tool for developing viable academic word lists was used. Results: Our quantitative and qualitative data analysis yielded a final academic wordlist which consisted of 1,003 words, covered 1,972,420 words in the corpus, and accounted for 10.68% of the medical research articles. Discussion: The high coverage of the extracted academic and technical words provides a reliable source for medical students, medical educators, material designers, and those who are deeply involved in medical English education.

Context: In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on ensuring the accuracy and reliability of research findings. However, the reporting of reliability and validity measures in nursing research articles (RAs) remains underexplored. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the current trends in reliability and validity reporting within nursing RAs and explore the implications of these practices. Methods: The study analyzed 42 RAs published between 2021 and 2022 from seven key nursing journals. The inclusion criteria were defined to incorporate empirical studies that employed tests and/or questionnaires. To maintain consistency and homogeneity, we exclusively included studies that relied on data collected through these methods. Title and abstract screening were performed by two independent reviewers, followed by a full-text review. Results: The study revealed a concerning lack of attention to reliability and validity reporting. A significant portion of the reviewed articles (19.05%) did not explicitly report reliability measures, and an even larger proportion (38.10%) failed to report validity measures. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for a significant change in how nursing research reports reliability and validity measures. By improving the clarity of these reports, researchers can enhance the trustworthiness of their findings and ensure that they can be applied more broadly in nursing practice.

Context: This study investigated the uses of statistical techniques in nursing research articles (RAs) published within 2016 - 2020. Evidence Acquisition: Through stratified random sampling, 374 quantitative and mixed-method RAs were selected from five nursing journals (i.e., International Journal of Nursing Studies, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Nurse Education Today, Nursing Outlook, and Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing) published within 2016 - 2020. The statistical techniques used in these articles were derived, aggregated, and listed. Results: Descriptive statistics (20.59%) and multiple regression (15.74%) were the most frequent statistics used in the nursing RAs. Regarding the level of statistics, 49.83%, 17.00%, and 4.31% of the techniques were basic, intermediate, and advanced, respectively, indicating that basic statistical techniques are by far the most frequently used techniques in nursing RAs. The findings also revealed that students with basic and intermediate knowledge of statistics could understand 66.83% of the techniques used in nursing RAs. Conclusions: The classification of statistical techniques derived from RAs presented in this study can meet the needs of nurses who wish to understand the benefits of statistics in nursing practice and hopefully can encourage them to take this part of research and practice more seriously.

Non-native English speaking (NNES) scholars face great hardship when they attempt to publish in English. Upon submitting their manuscripts to English-language journals, these scholars usually receive comments from the reviewers criticizing the rhetorical structures they adopt. One of these criticisms is concerned with how they manage the relationship between the author and the potential addressee; that is, the scholars’ expression of their attitude and the way they adjust the certainty of their claims and establish a relationship with their readers. This study attempted to examine how the acceptably revised manuscripts written by Iranian scholars differ from the originally submitted versions regarding the changes happening to the Engagement system of the texts. Findings showed Iranian scholars’ inadequate knowledge of the interpersonal weightings of the lexico-grammatical structures they used —hence giving undue credit to other researchers in the field— was mitigated by giving more space to the feature of distance citations, thereby failing to achieve a typically sound and rigorous argumentation.

Objective: To analyze the uses of research methodologies applied in nursing articles published in esteemed journals. Nursing research uses various methodologies to examine different aspects of the field. Understanding the frequency and trends of these approaches is important. Methods: A comprehensive analysis of 697 peer-reviewed research articles (RAs) was conducted. These articles encompassed quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs. Results: The analysis revealed a dominance of quantitative methodologies (78%) among the examined RAs. Qualitative approaches were less prevalent (14%) but showed a growing presence. Mixed-methods studies constituted approximately 7% of the analyzed articles. Conclusions: This systematic exploration of research methodologies in nursing literature from 2018 and 2022 highlights the dynamic and diverse nature of research the field. This comprehensive understanding of research methodologies is a valuable guide for researchers, educators, and policymakers in shaping the future of nursing research.