Mediation and uptake in manuscript revision

References

1. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. A.
   (2003) What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410609526
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526 [Google Scholar]
2. Belcher, D.
   (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
3. Burgess, S., & Lillis, T. M.
   (2013) The contribution of language professionals to academic publication: Multiple roles to achieve common goals. InV. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp.1–15). Chandos. 10.1016/B978‑1‑84334‑666‑1.50001‑1
   https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-666-1.50001-1 [Google Scholar]
4. Burrough-Boenisch, J.
   (2003) Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00037‑7
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7 [Google Scholar]
5. Burrough-Boenisch, J., & Matarese, V.
   (2013) The authors’ editor: Working with authors to make drafts fit for purpose. InV. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp.173–189). Chandos. 10.1016/B978‑1‑84334‑666‑1.50011‑4
   https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-666-1.50011-4 [Google Scholar]
6. Canagarajah, A. S.
   (1996) “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435–472. 10.1177/0741088396013004001
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001 [Google Scholar]
7. Casanave, C. P.
   (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship: (But should it be called “post-process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85–102. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00002‑X
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00002-X [Google Scholar]
8. Cho, S.
   (2004) Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(1), 47–72. 10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3
   https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3 [Google Scholar]
9. Englander, K.
   (2006) Revision of scientific manuscripts by nonnative-English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors’ criticism of the language. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 3(2), 129–161. 10.1558/japl.v3i2.129
   https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v3i2.129 [Google Scholar]
10. Flowerdew, J.
    (1999) Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123–145. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80125‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8 [Google Scholar]
11. Flowerdew, J.
    (2000) Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150. 10.2307/3588099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588099 [Google Scholar]
12. Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H.
    (2016) Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 39–52. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004 [Google Scholar]
13. Gosden, H.
    (1995) Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37–57. 10.1016/0889‑4906(94)00022‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)00022-6 [Google Scholar]
14. Harwood, N., Austin, L., & Macaulay, R.
    (2009) Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices, and experiences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 166–190. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002 [Google Scholar]
15. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (1st ed.). Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hynninen, N.
    (2020) Moments and mechanisms of intervention along textual trajectories: Norm negotiations in English-medium research writing. Text & Talk. Advance online publication. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0303 [Google Scholar]
17. Kamler, B.
    (2010) Revise and resubmit: The role of publication brokers. InC. Aitchison, B. Kamler, & A. Lee (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp.64–82). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kerans, M. E.
    (2001) Eliciting substantive revision of manuscripts for peer review through process-oriented conferences with Spanish scientists. InC. M. Lahoz (Ed.), Trabajos en lingüística aplicada (pp.339–347). University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kim, E.-Y. J.
    (2019) Korean Scholars’ use of for-pay editors and perceptions of ethicality. Publications, 7(1), 21. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/21
    [Google Scholar]
20. Li, Y.
    (2006) A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 456–478. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.002 [Google Scholar]
21. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J.
    (2007) Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.05.001 [Google Scholar]
22. Lillis, T. M.
    (2008) Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388. 10.1177/0741088308319229
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308319229 [Google Scholar]
23. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J.
    (2006a) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
24. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J.
    (2006b) Reframing notions of competence in scholarly writing: From individual to networked activity. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 531, 63–78. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/2169
    [Google Scholar]
25. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J.
    (2010) Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J.
    (2015) The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 281, 127–150. 10.1075/aila.28.06lil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil [Google Scholar]
27. Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M.
    (2007) Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32. 10.1558/japl.v4i1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5 [Google Scholar]
28. Luo, N., & Hyland, K.
    (2017) Intervention and revision: Expertise and interaction in text mediation. Written Communication, 34(4), 414–440. 10.1177/0741088317722944
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317722944 [Google Scholar]
29. Luo, N., & Hyland, K.
    (2019) “I won’t publish in Chinese now”: Publishing, translation and the non-English speaking academic. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 391, 37–47. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar]
30. Luo, N., & Hyland, K.
    (2020) International publishing as a networked activity: Collegial support for Chinese scientists. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 164–185. 10.1093/applin/amz071
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz071 [Google Scholar]
31. Martinez, R., & Graf, K.
    (2016) Thesis supervisors as literacy brokers in Brazil. Publications, 4(3), 26. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/3/26
    [Google Scholar]
32. McDowell, L., & Liardét, C. L.
    (2019) Japanese materials scientists’ experiences with English for research publication purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 371, 141–153. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.011 [Google Scholar]
33. Shashok, K.
    (2001) Author’s editors: Facilitators of science information transfer. Learned Publishing, 141, 113–121. 10.1087/095315101300059495
    https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101300059495 [Google Scholar]
34. Shaw, O., & Voss, S.
    (2017) The delicate art of commenting: Exploring different approaches to editing and their implications for the author-editor relationship. InM. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp.71–86). University of Adelaide Press. 10.20851/english‑pathways‑04
    https://doi.org/10.20851/english-pathways-04 [Google Scholar]
35. Shchemeleva, I.
    (2021) “There’s no discrimination, these are just the rules of the game”: Russian scholars’ perception of the research writing and publication process in English. Publications, 9(1), 8. Retrieved on16 February 2022fromhttps://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/1/8
    [Google Scholar]
36. Sheldon, E.
    (2011) Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238–251. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
37. Solin, A., & Hynninen, N.
    (2018) Regulating the language of research writing: Disciplinary and institutional mechanisms. Language and Education, 32(6), 494–510. 10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727 [Google Scholar]
38. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Tribble, C.
    (2017) ELFA vs. genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 30–44. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
40. Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A.
    (1991) Nonnative writing and native revising of scientific articles. InE. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp.457–492). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883527.457
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883527.457 [Google Scholar]
41. Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K.
    (2012) “Convenience editing” in action: Comparing English teachers’ and medical professionals’ revisions of a medical abstract. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 249–260. 10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001 [Google Scholar]
42. Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K.
    (2013) “Convenience editors” as legitimate participants in the practice of scientific editing: An interview study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 23–32. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007 [Google Scholar]
43. Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K.
    (2015) “We’re drifting into strange territory here”: What think-aloud protocols reveal about convenience editing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 271, 63–83. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010 [Google Scholar]
44. Wood, A.
    (2001) International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. InJ. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp.71–83). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008 [Google Scholar]