Academic conflicts in research article discussions: the case of Indonesian and Malaysian authors

Since academic authors aim to enhance the value of their current research findings compared to earlier studies, understanding how to convince journal gatekeepers is crucial. This study analysed the use of academic conflict units in English research article discussions (RADs) published in reputable Indonesian and Malaysian journals within the discipline of language education. The analysis employed four academic conflict units as an analytical framework. The results revealed that both Indonesian and Malaysian RADs tended to employ proposing claims (PC), but the other three academic conflict units, namely, inconsistency indicator (II), opposing claims (OC), and conflict resolution (CR) were rarely used. Regarding gaining visibility and recognition in international knowledge sharing, this finding appears to contradict English RADs written by native English authors published in highly reputable journals. It also suggests that authors discuss their research findings by establishing a global context, comparing them with international literature, and concluding their research articles by considering broader impacts. This finding may offer insights into the literature and draw implications for designing academic writing instruction.