I have repeatedly noticed a significant difference in the style of academic and student writing in the social sciences and humanities between the English-language writing traditions and the traditions of the former Soviet Union, which largely persist in many of the independent states that formerly made up the USSR.
 
In the English-writing tradition, great importance is attached to the clear and precise formulation of the main argument at the very beginning of the work. This argument is then developed and defended throughout the text. While in the traditions of the former Soviet Union, due attention is often not paid to this aspect: authors often come to the main idea only at the end of the work, based on the material presented. Roughly speaking, in one tradition the work begins with the identification of a key argument, and in another tradition this argument is revealed at the end.
 
According to my observations, one of the reasons for the difficulties in publishing articles by our scholars in leading English-language academic journals lies precisely in this difference in approaches. Reputable English-language journals will most likely not consider articles that do not briefly and clearly formulate the author’s main argument from the outset. Or, if the material is very good, they may advise the author to present the key argument at the very beginning of the article.