Prospects of Indonesian Research Articles (RAs) Being Considered for Publication in 'Center' Journals: A Comparative Study of Rhetorical Patterns of RAs in Selected Humanities and Hard Science Disciplines

Convincing the audience to accept the research (in this case a manuscript submitted to an international journal) is an important rhetorical act that an author has to make in order to gain attention (Swales 1990). To win the audience, specifically the 'gate-keeping' editors and reviewers, authors also use several strategies including stating the significance of the research field, critically reviewing the literature, and providing the justifications (positive or negative). When choosing these strategies authors are influenced by values and norms applicable in their cultures, including both their local and their academic cultures. It has been reported that Asian, including Indonesian, authors use less negative justification strategy than positive ones (Safnil 2000; Ahmad 1997). However, little attention has been given to the extent their values and norms potentially affect their chance of their papers getting serious attention and getting published. This paper will report and discuss variations across disciplines in selected Indonesian Humanities and Hard Sciences empirical research articles regarding the extent to which their own values and norms form potential obstacles that need to be overcome by the authors to achieve their purpose. This paper will focus on the rhetorical styles employed by Indonesian authors to win the audience in three Hard Science disciplines (Agriculture, Biology and Medical Science) and 3 Humanities disciplines (Education, Linguistics and Social-Political sciences). It will compare the two groups of disciplines, among the disciplines in each group, and across all the disciplines. Which of these disciplines will be likely to need to change their styles if the authors have to write for and possibly gain publication in an international journal and why? To answer these questions, this study used a mixed method approach. It employed a simple quantitative method to find the number of strategies used in each discipline. It also employed qualitative method to probe the reasons for the quantitative results through in depth interviews with some authors and editors. The study also used findings from various studies about problems experienced by EAL (English as an additional language) authors when trying to publish their manuscripts in an international English language journal (published in the 'Center' of knowledge development) to form a framework of analysis.