Seeking to appear cogent and communicative, rather than self-evident or detached, is one of the main features of academic writing which has mostly gone unnoticed or devalued by some novice and even seasoned writers (Adel, 2006; Hyland, 2005a; 2005b). Thus, this study set out to explore how authorial presence markers work in the introduction and method sections of 50 research articles and 50 graduate thesis proposals. The coding process included the identification of I, my, me, we, us, our, self-citations, and meta-comments in the as well as assigning appropriate pragmatic functions based on the categories suggested by Hyland (2002) and typologies proposed by other researchers in this regard (e.g., Harwood, 2005; Sheldon, 2009; Vessileva, 1928). The results revealed that we should not ascribe similarities to the concerned genres in relation to strategies employed by writers. More precisely, whereas academics tended to connect themselves to their writings, students are inclined to be more cautious about situating their own views and arguments in the text through personal authorial references. The study does not suggest that writers extend and generalize research findings but rather invites academics and researchers to make a connection between elements of the study and their own experience.