“A Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles: Their Results, Discussions and Conclusions” The aim of this paper will be to deeply analyze different sections of two articles on the light of APA (2007). Despite the fact that they are from different fields, one of them belongs to the field of medicine and the other one belongs to the field of education, both articles share one main characteristic which is that they are research papers. The Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections, will be compared and contrasted so as to explore the differences and similarities of those sections in both papers. Barrs’s (2012) as well as Di Angelantonio’s et al.'s (2010) articles comprise all the elements required in an Action Research (AR) paper. The former belongs to the field of education and it is clearly divided into different sections which explore the results and the discussion of the investigation. Then, it is concluded by the analysis of the limitations of the study. The latter belongs to the medicine field and it is also divided into different sections so as to attempt to quantify associations of chronic kidney diseases with cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. Concerning the results sections in the articles, Barrs’s (2012) result section is divided into different parts which are: Planning the Action Research, Taking Action, Analyzing and Reflecting on the Data, Hypothesizing and Speculating based on the initial investigation, intervening, observing and reporting, writing and presenting, which is the reflection. Following the definitions provided by Swales (1990), and bearing in mind Barrs’s (2012) article, one may conclude that the author may both present the findings and interpret their meanings and outcomes. The result section, according to Swales (1990), should summarize the given information. Researchers resort to the use of texts, tables, and figures to state the results of their study. Barrs (2012) presents the results and the discussions in the same section. When referring to the results, the author divides the section into two sub sections that follow the steps undertaken throughout the investigation. The results are presented by means of tables which are explained and analyzed. These are clear, simple and they contain relevant information about the research that was carried out. All the tables included in the article follow the requirements of APA (2007) as all of them are properly numbered and titles are correctly italicized and capitalized. Apart from tables, Barrs (2012) also provides instances of interactions among participants that serve for the purpose of exemplifying and clarifying the information provided. As well as tables, these exchanges are subsequently analyzed and explained. The tense mostly used in the results section is the Past Simple. On the other hand, Di Angelantonio’s et al. `s (2010) Results section has subtitles which organize the information the authors want to deliver. Contrary to Barrs’s (2012) results section, Di Angelantonio’s et al. `s (2010) results section is full of numbers and percentages. There are tables and figures which appear in the type of scatter plots so as to show the correlation between variables. The tables have titles but the fact that they are not italicized and they are not presented with each word capitalized make one conclude that these authors are not following APA style. Below each table there are general and specific notes with a smaller font. The figures have a caption underneath them but the word “figure” and the corresponding number is not italicized. This is another instance in which the authors show that they do not follow APA style. The discussion section in Di Angelantonio et al.'s (2010) article is divided into two sub sections called strengths and limitations and conclusion respectively. When referring to the discussion itself, the authors describe the findings in relation to the initial hypothesis and they also remind the reader the main aim of the study. Before providing a conclusion, Barrs (2012) devotes a section of the paper to state and describe the limitations of the investigation as well as Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) do in the strengths and limitations section of their article. Finally, both research articles use the conclusion to tie the paper together. Barrs (2012) concludes the article emphasizing the fact that further investigation would be of great value for the research. Regarding Di Angelantonio et.al 's (2010) conclusion, they also express the fact that further studies are needed to investigate the association made at the beginning of the paper. In both articles, authors constantly use modal verbs to show and express possibility. To sum up, it can be said that although both articles come from different fields, authors from both papers intended to present a problem, analyze it and find a solution developing their papers in a similar way. The fact that they both refer to the limitations of the investigations makes the reader feel the need to continue reading more about the topic. References: Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh. J. & Gudnason, V. (2010). Chornic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: Prospective population based cohort study. BMJ (341), 1-7. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4986 Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.