Ädel, A. (2022). Writer and reader visibility in humanities research articles: Variation across language, regional variety and discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 49-62.
Aull, L. L., Bandarage, D., & Miller, M. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29-41.
Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Mohammadi, V. (2015). Stance in English research articles: Two disciplines of the same science. Teaching English Langauge, 9(1), 1-27.
Bacang, B. G., Rillo, R. M., & Alieto, E. O. (2019). The gender construct in the use of rhetorical appeals, hedges and boosters in Esl writing: A discourse analysis. Asian EFL Journal, 25(5), 210-224.
Bahrami, L., Dowlatabadi, H. R., Yazdani, H., & Amerian, M. (2018). Authorial stance in academic writing: Issues and implications for research in English language teaching. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6(2), 69-80.
Bondi, M. (2014). Changing voices: Authorial voice in abstracts. In M. Bondi, & R. Lores Sanz (Eds.), Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change (pp. 243-270). Peter Lang.
Brezina, V., Timperley, M., & McEnery, T. (2018). #LancsBox v. 4.x [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.
Can, T., & Cangir, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100796.
Candarli, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.
Chen, R. (2020). Single author self-reference: Identity construction and pragmatic competence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100856.
Crase, D., & Rosato, F. D. (1992). Single versus multiple authorship in professional journals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(7), 28-32.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121-150.
Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.
Ghazanfari, M., Barani, G., & Rokhsari, S. (2018). An investigation into metadiscourse elements used by native vs. non-native university students across genders. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 10(1), 61-94.
Güçlü, R. (2022). A diachronic and gender-based analysis of Turkish Ma theses: The use of metadiscourse markers [PhD disseration]. Hacettepe University. http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/25819/10259695.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22.
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134-50). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251-274.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). ‘We Believe That … ’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 139-161.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30.
Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (2021). “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50, 100973.
Jalali, H. (2017). Reflection of stance through it bundles in applied linguistics. Ampersand, 4, 30-39.
Jalilifar, A. R. (2007). Hedging as a pragmatic strategy: Variations across disciplines and cultures. Teaching English Language, 2(1), 43-69.
Latif, F., & Tahir Rasheed, M. (2020). An analysis of gender differences in the use of metadiscourse markers in Pakistani academic research articles. Science International, 32(2), 187-192.
Lei, C., & Chan, C. K. K. (2018). Developing metadiscourse through reflective assessment in knowledge building environments. Computers & Education, 126, 153-169.
Li, Z. (2021). Authorial presence in research article abstracts: A diachronic investigation of the use of first-person pronouns. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 100977
McGrath, L. (2016). Self-mentions in anthropology and history research articles: Variation between and within disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 86-98.
Mirzaei, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (2013). ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 35(1), 5-25.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian Linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 86-101.
Poole, R. (2021). A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for Legal Purposes instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 117-127.
Rahmat, N. H., Abdullah, N. A. T., Yahaya, M. H., Yean, C. P., & Whanchit, W. (2020). Gender differences on the use of metadiscourse on reflective essays: A case study of inbound students. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 10(5), 248-261.
Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (Linguistics, Economics and Medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20-40.
Salek, M., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of metadiscourse in ELT and theoretical linguistics research articles by native English vs. Iranian academic writers. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 2(1), 29-39.
Soodmand Afshar, H., Asakereh, A., & Rahimi, M. (2014). The impact of discipline and being native/non-native on the use of hedging devices. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 260 – 264.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Bagherieh, M. (2014). The use of hedging devices in english and persian abstracts of Persian literature and civil engineering MA/MS theses of Iranian writers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1820 – 1827.
Soodmand Afshar, H., Moradi, M., & Hamzavi, R. (2014). Frequency and type of hedging devices used in the research articles of humanities, basic sciences and agriculture. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 70 – 74.
Tafaroji Yeganeh, M., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 684 – 689.
Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 60-73.
Weisi, H., & Asakereh, A. (2020). Hedging devices in applied linguistics research papers: Do gender and nativeness matter? Glottotheory, 12(1), 71-83.
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36.
)