Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001



Knowledge production in collaborative writing for publication has tended to be studied as fixed in time and place; few studies have focused on the drafting and redrafting of texts and the interactions among the co-authors involved. Using a approach to a research article co-authored by an exiled academic and his two more experienced co-authors, all using English as an additional language, this study investigates the impact of interactions during text production on the focal academic’s understanding of writing for English-medium international publication. We analysed the co-authors’ comments on the academic’s drafts, examining their (levels of directness and explicitness) and (disciplinary, writing, and publishing conventions) and the academic’s responses to these interventions. Analysis focused on s (written interactions relating to a specific point in the text and relevant textual changes throughout drafts). Findings revealed that interventions focused on multiple areas, with the co-authors acting as knowledge brokers in all domains. The interaction dynamics changed across the drafts, in the focus of interaction episodes and the levels of co-authors’ interventions provided to the academic, which created a space to negotiate interventions and, consequently, to enrich his understanding of writing practices for international publication in English.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Barton, D.
    (2007) Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyatzis, R. E.
    (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, E., Gibbs, G., & Glover, C.
    (2003) Evaluation tools for investigating the impact of assessment regimes on student learning. Bioscience Education, 2(1), 1–7. 10.3108/beej.2003.02000006
    https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2003.02000006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buckingham, L.
    (2014) Building a career in English: Users of English as an additional language in academia in the Arabian Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 481, 6–33. 10.1002/tesq.124
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.124 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burke, D.
    (2009) Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 41–50. 10.1080/02602930801895711
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895711 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P.
    (2006) Developing Chinese scientists’ skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(3), 207–221. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T.
    (2017) Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Darvin, R., & Norton, B.
    (2019) Collaborative writing, academic socialization, and the negotiation of identity. InP. Habibie & K. Hyland (eds.). Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp.177–194). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dressen-Hammouda, D.
    (2008) From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 233–252. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Englander, K.
    (2014) Writing and publishing science research papers in English: A global perspective. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑7714‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7714-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flowerdew, J.
    (2012) English for Research Publication Purposes. InThe handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp.301–321). John Wiley. 10.1002/9781118339855.ch16
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch16 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2019) The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52(2), 249–260. 10.1017/S0261444819000041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000041 [Google Scholar]
  13. Flowerdew, J., & Habibie, P.
    (2021) Introducing English for research publication purposes. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429317798
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429317798 [Google Scholar]
  14. Geertz, C.
    (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K.
    (2013) Scientific writing in a second language. Parlor Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hyland, K.
    (2016a) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016b) Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 591, 116–125. 10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. James, M. A.
    (2010) An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general-academic-purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 183–206. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kettunen, J.
    (2016) Co-authorship networks of scientific collaboration. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(10), 3010–3015.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Khuder, B., & Petrić, B.
    (2020) Academic socialisation through collaboration: Textual interventions in supporting exiled scholars’ academic literacies development. Education and Conflict Review, 31, 24–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Khuder, B.
    (2021) Science in exile: EAL academic literacies development of established Syrian academics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Birkbeck, University of London.
  22. Khuder, B., & Petric, B.
    (2021) Walking on thin ice: Reflexivity in doing ethnography. InI. Guillén-Galve & A. Bocanegra-Valle (Eds.), Ethnographies of academic writing research. Theory, methods, and interpretation (pp.106–123). John Benjamins. 10.1075/rmal.1.06khu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.1.06khu [Google Scholar]
  23. Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A.
    (1995) Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619–632. 10.1016/0883‑0355(96)80441‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J.
    (2020) Teaching English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP): A review of language teachers’ pedagogical initiatives. English for Specific Purposes, 591, 29–41. 10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J.
    (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lillis, T., & Maybin, J.
    (2017) The dynamics of textual trajectories in professional and workplace practice. Text and Talk, 37(4), 409–414. 10.1515/text‑2017‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0017 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mungra, P., & Webber, P.
    (2010) Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43–53. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Oxford, R.
    (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Prior, P.
    (1998) Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Prior, P., & Bilbro, R.
    (2012) Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. InM. Castello & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp.19–31). Emerald. 10.1163/9781780523873_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780523873_003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Storch, N.
    (2018) Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277. 10.1017/S0261444818000034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1987) Cognition and language. InR. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, T.
    (2013) Big data needs thick data. Ethnography Matters, Ethnomining edition, 13May. Retrieved on17 February 2022fromethnographymatters.net/blog/2013/05/13/big-data-needs-thick-data/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wertsch, J.
    (1991) Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G.
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error