CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The medical research paper: Structure and functions

Nwogu, Kevin Ngozi·1997·English for Specific Purposes
DOI 10.1016/s0889-4906(97)85388-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0889-4906(97)85388-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Adams-Smith, 1984, Medical discourse: Aspects of authors' comments, The ESP Journal, 3, 25, 10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0 · DOI
  2. Adams-Smith, 1987, Variation in field-related genres, ELR Journal, 1, 10
  3. Belanger, 1982, A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion sections in ten neuroscience journal articles
  4. Bley-Vroman, 1984, Research design in rhetorical/grammatical studies: A proposed optional research strategy, English for Specific Purposes, 82/83, 1
  5. Bley-Vroman, 1984, Research design in rhetorical/grammatical studies: A proposed optional research strategy, English for Specific Purposes, 84, 1
  6. Crookes, 1986, Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure, Applied Linguistics, 7, 57, 10.1093/applin/7.1.57 · DOI
  7. Dubois, 1981, The construction of noun phrases in biomedical journal articles
  8. Gosden, 1992, Discourse functions of marked themes in scientific research articles, English for Specific Purposes, 11, 207, 10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80010-9 · DOI
  9. Gosden, 1993, Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles, Applied Linguistics, 14, 5775, 10.1093/applin/14.1.56 · DOI
  10. Hemminki, 1982, Quality of clinical trials — A concern of three decades, Methods in Information in Medicine, 21, 81, 10.1055/s-0038-1635396 · DOI
  11. Hibberd, 1980, Information contained in clinical trial reports, Journal of Information Science, 2, 165, 10.1177/016555158000200305 · DOI
  12. Hopkins, 1988, A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations, English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113, 10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4 · DOI
  13. Malcolm, 1987, What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles?, English for Specific Purposes, 6, 31, 10.1016/0889-4906(87)90073-1 · DOI
  14. Mcphill, 1911, Style and medical writing, Medical Journal, 70
  15. Nwogu, 1991, The structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts, English for Specific Purposes, 10, 111, 10.1016/0889-4906(91)90004-G · DOI
  16. Peng, 1987, Organisational features in chemical engineering research articles, ELR Journal, 1, 315
  17. Pettinari, 1982, The functions of grammatical alternation in fourteen surgical reports, Applied Linguistics, 4, 55, 10.1093/applin/4.1.55 · DOI
  18. Rumelhart, 1980, On evaluation of story grammars, Cognitive Science, 4, 313, 10.1207/s15516709cog0403_5 · DOI
  19. Salager, 1986, Specialist medical English lexis: Classificatory framework and rhetorical function — A statistical approach, EMP Newsletter, 2, 5
  20. Selinker, 1979, On the use of informants in discourse analysis and language for specialised purposes, IRAL, 7, 189, 10.1515/iral.1979.17.1-4.189 · DOI
  21. Skelton, 1994, Analysis of the structure of original research papers: An aid to writing original papers for publication, British Journal of General Practice, 44, 455

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nwogu, K. N.
Venue
English for Specific Purposes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-01
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
119-138
ISSN
0889-4906
DOI
10.1016/s0889-4906(97)85388-4
Cited by
270
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review