Cover not available
Article published In:
The dynamics of academic knowledge production: Text histories and text trajectories
Edited by Theresa Lillis and Mary Jane Curry
[Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 3:1] 2022
► pp. 6–28

Mediation and uptake in manuscript revision

A text history approach to Spanish biomedical article writing

In line with recent interest in mediation as a widespread phenomenon in multilingual academic publication in English, this paper describes and exemplifies a method of researching production practices that is based on text histories. The evolution of rhetorical patterning in two published articles by established Spanish biomedical authors is used to explore the authors’ writing and how their texts were evaluated by an in-house language editor and later by journal gatekeepers. Semi-structured interviews with the two authors using talk around texts reveals commonalities and differences in author orientations towards mediation from discourse community members (journal gatekeepers) and the language professional (the in-house editor). Textual analysis as exemplified by a single rhetorically significant modification proposed by the language editor to each of the two manuscripts is used to compare the selective engagement of one author with the language editor’s contributions against the extensive reassessment of the other author in response to similar feedback. Discussion highlights the advantages and limitations of the modified text history and genre approach to understanding mediation and author orientations to mediation. Implications for textual mediation practices are discussed.
Keywords: text histories, language editing, genre, biomedical research, research article, in-house editor
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Informant selection and study timeline
    • 3.2Text histories
      • 3.2.1Textual materials and mediators
      • 3.2.2Genre analysis and uptake
    • 3.3Orientations to mediation
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
References (44)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgess, S., & Lillis, T. M. (2013). The contribution of language professionals to academic publication: Multiple roles to achieve common goals. In V. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp. 1–15). Chandos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, J., & Matarese, V. (2013). The authors’ editor: Working with authors to make drafts fit for purpose. In V. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp. 173–189). Chandos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 39–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (1st ed.). Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. (2020). Moments and mechanisms of intervention along textual trajectories: Norm negotiations in English-medium research writing. Text & Talk. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamler, B. (2010). Revise and resubmit: The role of publication brokers. In C. Aitchison, B. Kamler, & A. Lee (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp. 64–82). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerans, M. E. (2001). Eliciting substantive revision of manuscripts for peer review through process-oriented conferences with Spanish scientists. In C. M. Lahoz (Ed.), Trabajos en lingüística aplicada (pp. 339–347). University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Kim, E.-Y. J. (2019). Korean Scholars’ use of for-pay editors and perceptions of ethicality. Publications, 7(1), 21. [URL]
Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 456–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b). Reframing notions of competence in scholarly writing: From individual to networked activity. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 531, 63–78. [URL]
(2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015). The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 281, 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luo, N., & Hyland, K. (2017). Intervention and revision: Expertise and interaction in text mediation. Written Communication, 34(4), 414–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). International publishing as a networked activity: Collegial support for Chinese scientists. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 164–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinez, R., & Graf, K. (2016). Thesis supervisors as literacy brokers in Brazil. Publications, 4(3), 26. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shashok, K. (2001). Author’s editors: Facilitators of science information transfer. Learned Publishing, 141, 113–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, O., & Voss, S. (2017). The delicate art of commenting: Exploring different approaches to editing and their implications for the author-editor relationship. In M. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp. 71–86). University of Adelaide Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 on 16 February 2022 from [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solin, A., & Hynninen, N. (2018). Regulating the language of research writing: Disciplinary and institutional mechanisms. Language and Education, 32(6), 494–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tribble, C. (2017). ELFA vs. genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A. (1991). Nonnative writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 457–492). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). “We’re drifting into strange territory here”: What think-aloud protocols reveal about convenience editing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 271, 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 71–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar