Evaluative language and interactive discourse in journal article highlights

• I analyse the structure and lexico-grammar features of research article highlights.
• Textual analysis shows disciplinary differences in how authors emphasise key aspects of their research.
• Key lexis and discoursal markers in stance and engagement vary in soft and hard disciplines.
• Use of inclusive we is inconsistent with assumed knowledge of research genres.
• Editors and writers held different and even contradictory views on the necessity and actual effects of highlights.

Today many academic publications are not only descriptive and evaluative, but also promotion-oriented. Numerous studies have examined how journal article authors persuade readers by deploying discourse markers to present their arguments, and how they acknowledge the presence of and connection to readers. While studies have examined various sections of published articles; however, a novel genre with a periphery status, highlights preceding many journal articles, has received relatively less attention. To address this void, the present study analysed the highlights from 240 journal articles from both the soft disciplines and hard science using mixed methods. Textual analysis, keyword analysis and the analysis of writers' stance and engagement revealed that different disciplines have different highlight preferences, and found contradictions with the conventional assumptions regarding disciplinary differences in personal pronoun in the making of claims in the soft and hard disciplines. Moreover, in the questionnaire survey with both journal editors and writers, they generally acknowledged the promotional value of highlights, but held different and sometimes even contradictory views on their necessity and actual effect. This paper demonstrates that highlights, although an attendant academic genre, can support the academic stance of the main paper and a credible scholarly image, while promoting relevant disciplinary values, beliefs and conventions.