Working within the framework of the genre analysis and systemic linguistics, this thesis presents a comparative analysis of published native and Pakistani geology experimental research articles (RAs) with a view to examining differences in the Pakistani geologists' scientific reporting vis-a-vis their native counterparts': differences in discourse organisation (genre), thematic choices (thematic configuration), the method of development, and the use of interpersonal (mood/modality, attitudinal adjuncts, etc.) and textual rhetoric (discourse adjuncts, metalinguistic comments, etc.). Following are the most important findings: (1) The Pakistani geologists did not give as much importance to the crucial Swalesian Move-2 (Establishing the niche) as their native counterparts; (2) the Pakistani geologists used longer introductory Moves in both the introduction and the discussion sections; (3) the Pakistani discussions had a shorter Move 2 (Discussing the findings) and a shorter Move 3 (Generalising the findings); (4) the Pakistani scientists used fewer interpersonal and textual points of departure than their native counterparts; (5) the Pakistani geologist had problems with chaining topical themes, crucial for having a uniform focus and a consistent method of development; (6) the Pakistani writers also used fewer interpersonal prosodies, and fewer First Person pronouns, though they used more modal expressions (hedges). As all the differences were found to be statistically significant, the main conclusion drawn from this study is that the Pakistani writers are more tentative and less assertive in their claims. Another distinctive feature of this study was the use of actual records of native referees' comments on Pakistani manuscripts submitted to international journals. The native referees' comments corroborate all the findings reported in the study. Finally, a series of workshops are proposed to address the problems identified in the course of this study. Directions for further research are also pointed out.