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
Published online: 2 June 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
Abstract
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.
Resumen
De acuerdo con el interés despertado en los últimos años por el papel de la mediación como fenómeno
extendido en la publicación académica en lengua inglesa por parte de autores multilingües, este artículo presenta y analiza, por
medio de ejemplos, un enfoque metodológico para la investigación de las prácticas de publicación académica basado en historias
textuales (text histories). Se estudia la evolución retórica de dos artículos, cada uno escrito por un
investigador español en el sector biosanitario, lo que permite explorar las características textuales en la escritura de estos
autores y cómo sus trabajos fueron evaluados por un corrector en plantilla en primer lugar y posteriormente por los evaluadores de
calidad de las revistas académicas (editor y revisores). Datos sacados de entrevistas semiestructuradas con los dos autores
mediante la técnica de talk around texts (diálogos en torno a textos) revelan ciertos puntos en común y
diferencias entre ambos en su valoración de la mediación ejercida por miembros de sus propias comunidades epistemológicas y el
profesional del campo lingüístico (el corrector en plantilla). El análisis textual, que se centra en una modificación propuesta
por el corrector en cada manuscrito y con implicaciones retóricas, se utiliza para comparar la aceptación selectiva de uno de los
autores frente a la revisión extensiva llevada a cabo por la otra autora tras recibir unas observaciones parecidas. La discusión
hace hincapié en las ventajas y limitaciones del enfoque – que combina una versión modificada de las historias textuales y el
análisis del género textual – para la comprensión de la mediación, así como las orientaciones de los autores hacia ella. La
discusión incluye un análisis de las implicaciones para las prácticas de mediación textual en el ámbito académico.
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
References (44)
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.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22.
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.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123–145.
(2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150.
Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 39–52.
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37–57.
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.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (1st ed.). Pearson Education.
Hynninen, N. (2020). Moments and mechanisms of intervention along textual trajectories: Norm negotiations in English-medium research writing. Text & Talk. Advance online publication.
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.
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.
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.
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117.
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.
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.
(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.
(2015). The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 281, 127–150.
Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32.
Luo, N., & Hyland, K. (2017). Intervention and revision: Expertise and interaction in text mediation. Written Communication, 34(4), 414–440.
(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.
(2020). International publishing as a networked activity: Collegial support for Chinese scientists. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 164–185.
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.
Shashok, K. (2001). Author’s editors: Facilitators of science information transfer. Learned Publishing, 141, 113–121.
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.
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.
Solin, A., & Hynninen, N. (2018). Regulating the language of research writing: Disciplinary and institutional mechanisms. Language and Education, 32(6), 494–510.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Tribble, C. (2017). ELFA vs. genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 30–44.
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.
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.
(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.