02491nas a2200217   4500008004100000245013800041210006900179260000900248300001200257490000700269520173800276653001302014653002402027653001402051653001002065653001002075653002102085653001202106100001602118856013902134       2008                        eng d00aThe Evolutionary Nature of Genre: An Investigation of the Short Texts Accompanying Research Articles in the Scientific Journal Nature0 aEvolutionary Nature of Genre An Investigation of the Short Texts  c2008  a22–410 v273 aThe present empirical analysis of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientificjournal Nature covering a period from 1991 to 2005, not only shows that these texts are significantly
different from prescriptive models of abstracts, but that they have also recently undergone a further
change. Up until 1996, in contrast to the traditionally viewed structure of abstracts (Introduction-
Methods-Results-Conclusion/Discussion (IMRC/D)), the short texts in Nature vary considerably
in structure with only 18% of those studied having the basic IMRC/D format and the Results being
the only obligatory move. This manipulation of structure, accompanied by the predominant use of
the Present and Present Perfect active, the use of modifiers, the apparent removal of hedging to
strengthen claims all contribute to make these texts eye-catching, to advertise a paper’s contribution.
With the introduction of the e-version of the journal in 1997, further changes occurred. Many promotional
elements have been retained, and though the texts have become much more standardized in
their structure, the Methods have been completely removed and the Results incorporated into the
Conclusion which becomes the only obligatory move. This change in structure, combined with the
inclusion of a greater amount of commentary, greater inclusion of information concerning the
study’s effect of the field as a whole, and the inclusion of explicit definitions, shows an evident concern
for the ‘‘general reader’’ and indicates a kind of ‘‘democratization’’ of the scientific community.
Technological advancements in the field of science appear to have also contributed to these modifications
coming about.
10aabstract10aapplied linguistics10aevolution10agenre10aIMRAD10aresearch article10ascience1 aAyers, Gael  uhttps://genreacrossborders.org/es/biblio/evolutionary-nature-genre-investigation-short-texts-accompanying-research-articles-scientific00566nas a2200181   4500008004100000245005400041210004800095260003700143300001400180653001100194653001000205653001000215653001300225100002600238700002000264700001800284856008200302       1994                        eng d00aThe Lab vs. the Clinic: Sites of Competing Genres0 aLab vs the Clinic Sites of Competing Genres  aLondonbTaylor and Francisc1994  a105–12410aclinic10agenre10aIMRAD10apractice1 aSchryer, Catherine, F1 aFreedman, Aviva1 aMedway, Peter  uhttps://genreacrossborders.org/es/biblio/lab-vs-clinic-sites-competing-genres01966nas a2200193   4500008004100000245009400041210006900135260000900204300001400213490000700227520138700234653001401621653001001635653001001645653001201655100002401667700002501691856005601716       2004                        eng d00aThe Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) Structure: A Fifty-Year Survey0 aIntroduction Methods Results and Discussion IMRAD Structure A Fi  c2004  a364–3710 v923 aBackground: The scientific article in the health sciences evolved from the letter form and purely descriptive style in the seventeenth century to a very standardized structure in the twentieth century known as introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD). The pace in which this structure began to be used and when it became the most used standard of today's scientific discourse in the health sciences is not well established.Purpose: The purpose of this study is to point out the period in time during which the IMRAD structure was definitively and widely adopted in medical scientific writing.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of articles written under the IMRAD structure was measured from 1935 to 1985 in a randomly selected sample of articles published in four leading journals in internal medicine: the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Results: The IMRAD structure, in those journals, began to be used in the 1940s. In the 1970s, it reached 80% and, in the 1980s, was the only pattern adopted in original papers.
Conclusions: Although recommended since the beginning of the twentieth century, the IMRAD structure was adopted as a majority only in the 1970s. The influence of other disciplines and the recommendations of editors are among the facts that contributed to authors adhering to it.
10aevolution10agenre10aIMRAD10ascience1 aSollaci, Luciana, B1 aPereira, Mauricio, G  uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/