Scientific writing involves multiple dimensions, including epistemic, methodological, theoretical, and textual. Focusing on the last of these, this study examines selected linguistic features related to stance, authorial presence, voice and agency, framing expressions, and conditional structures in the closing sections of educational research articles (RAs) in internationally indexed Q1-rated journals and locally indexed non-Q-rated Turkish journals. It seeks to identify recurrent rhetorical tendencies across these publication contexts and offer linguistically grounded insights to support authors’ strategic choices when navigating different publication environments. The corpus comprised 60 empirical RAs: 30 RAs from SSCI/Scopus-indexed Q1 journals and 30 RAs from locally indexed Turkish journals. The two corpora were compared statistically using a log-likelihood test. Results indicated that international authors employed hedges, obligation modals, boosters, and subjunctive structures more frequently and with greater lexical variety, reflecting nuanced rhetorical positioning, while personal pronouns and active voice were more prevalent, signaling stronger authorial presence and agency; however, Turkish authors relied more on impersonal constructions and passive voice. Both groups used conventionalized expressions to frame recommendations, though international authors demonstrated slightly broader lexical and structural variation. These patterns highlight systematic differences in how stance and agency are realized across publication contexts. Making these patterns explicit through instruction may help authors develop greater rhetorical awareness and flexibility when engaging with the expectations of high-visibility journals, which are often shaped by recurrent editorial, review, and publication practices rather than fixed or universal norms. This, in turn, may support more informed and strategic positioning across different publication venues.