This paper reports on how undergraduate students evaluated writing outputs created with and without generative artificial intelligence (AI). The paper focuses specifically on two aspects of writing and AI: how prior writing knowledge influenced students’ thinking about AI tools, and how the writing skills to which they were exposed in the writing classroom helped them work with AI-generated materials. This research builds upon Bearman et al.’s (2024) work on evaluative judgement as a pedagogical tool to support learners as they work with AI-mediated texts. The paper uses this lens to identify challenges that learners have in applying writing knowledge to AI-mediated situations and to devise pedagogical means to support student learning in these contexts. We found that, while students could typically evaluate structural components of writing, they struggled to evaluate conceptual ideas both for AI and human generated texts. The findings speak more generally to the need for students to develop their evaluative abilities, as well as ways that AI may reveal and amplify existing challenges that learners have with evaluating the quality of writing, engaging with source materials, and applying genre knowledge to create meaning.

Doctoral education often treats academic writing as a solitary, human-centered activity, guided by conventions that emphasize structure, clarity, and discipline. These frameworks rarely consider how other-than-human entities shape the writing process. This article explores how multispecies assemblages inform doctoral writing, proposing that knowledge production can be understood as an eductive process – an unfolding of latent ideas through relationship with the so-called “natural” world. Drawing on examples from my own work, I share an excerpt from a multispecies duoethnographic project that seeks to recognize and incorporate other-than-human perspectives. I reflect on how these encounters have shaped my scholarly voice and academic identity, challenging dominant assumptions about writing as an isolated human endeavor. Reimagining writing as a relational, evolving practice, I offer reflections for integrating multispecies sensibilities into doctoral training and invite educators, researchers, and students to view academic writing as a collaborative process shaped by entanglements of human and more-than-human life.

For the past three general issues of the Journal of Academic Writing, we have had a number of authors help us explore approaches, adaptations, and boundaries of academic writing.In the Summer 2024 issue, we saw an emphasis on the human element in writing and the hidden risks of our specialisations when they blind us to the human and affective dimensions in our respective fields and disciplines.For the Winter issue 2024 authors problematise our toolboxes and the requirement on us in Writing Studies to make academic writing more transparent and less of a black box for students so they can fully benefit from the cornerstone it is.The Summer 2025 issue of JoAW exemplified some of that adaptation and what the attempts of unpacking the black box of writing and writing processes might seem like to students.JoAW's authors did that through exploring alternative approaches such as book sprints or through optimising student course participation with hybrid courses.

This paper introduces a new approach to support academic writing: the Journal Article Structure Template (JAST). In an ever-more competitive publishing landscape, academics face increasing pressure to produce high-quality papers quickly. The writing process can be time-consuming and being faced with a blank page can prove daunting. While submission guidelines typically outline formal requirements, the more nuanced stylistic and structural expectations of journals can be harder to discern. This is particularly apparent for the growing number of researchers working across disciplines. Shifting publishing trends within journals, evolving editorial orientations and tacit knowledge add further complexity. This article outlines the development of JAST, a set of Open Educational Resources designed to support researchers, particularly those new to academic writing,  to identify, explore and understand journal expectations in a more nuanced way beyond author guidelines. The paper provides an overview of the rationale for, and development of, JAST. Guidance is offered on how to use the stepwise template-based approach, along with the tool’s applications to date and feedback from scholars across a range of disciplines. Users consistently report that JAST is effective, time-efficient and flexible, helping them navigate structural conventions, stylistic preferences and content trends.

This is a book review of Change and Stability in Thesis and Dissertation Writing: The Evolution of an Academic Genre by Paltridge and Starfield (2024).

This article introduces booksprints as an innovative teaching and learning format for academic writing for undergraduate students. Booksprints foster writing with alternative concepts of authorship and enable students to collaboratively go through an almost authentic digital writing and publishing process in a minimum of time, and at the same time facilitate various future skills, such as written communication, coping with change, and digital literacy. Still being in a ‘prototype’ phase, booksprints are only just being tested as a potential educational format that is a bridge between subject matter and writing/teaching methodology. This article, therefore, presents the basic design of booksprints as well as some specific features, such as moderation of the process by the facilitator, explicit role assignments, visualized project management and the use of digital platforms, in order to introduce them as a writing-intensive learning setting for higher education.

How – and why – do students engage with an increasingly diverse range of learning opportunities in the digitised university? This paper investigates students’ motivations for choosing in-person, online or asynchronous study modes and explores the implications for academic writing provision. I reflect on student and teacher experiences on a non-credit, Masters-level academic writing course at a UK university which was delivered through a ‘hybrid-flexible’ approach (Beatty, 2019). Students could opt to learn through synchronous in-person (on-campus) classes, synchronous online classes or asynchronous activities delivered through a virtual learning environment; all study modes supported the same learning outcomes and students could switch between them as they choose. Course evaluations reveal students have different motivations for choosing in-person, online or asynchronous learning, and suggest that learning preference and practical motivations are not always aligned. I reflect on the opportunities and challenges I encountered as a teacher designing and delivering hybrid-flexible academic writing content. I conclude by exploring how tensions between learning preference and practical motivations might be addressed in the design and delivery of in-person, online and asynchronous learning activities.

The guest editors of this special issue of the Journal of Academic Writing present a selection of papers from the 12th Conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing, held at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Winterthur, Switzerland, on 5–‍7 June, 2023.

Academic writing has always posed a challenge to university students, regardless of the language they are writing in (first, second or foreign language) or the amount of digital support they have access to – for example, online dictionaries, thesauruses, or new generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) software such as ChatGPT. With the rise of GenAI as a legitimate digital tool in higher education, it is crucial to identify the professional development needs of teaching faculty in order to ensure quality teaching. Based on factors such as digital literacy, or access to digital tools, these needs might differ in various geographical regions. Within the context of the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu), this paper aims to provide a differentiated, international student perspective on the use of GenAI in the academic writing process, identifying professional development needs for faculty. We developed an online questionnaire that was filled out by 192 university students from 15 different countries. In addition to their academic and linguistic backgrounds, the respondents answered questions about their own experiences and competences with the use of GenAI within academic research. Results highlight clear discrepancies between geographic regions, for example, in their self-ranked digital proficiency or in what GenAI tools they use. This, along with further results from the analysis, provides the basis to identify some professional development needs.

GenAI has demonstrated functionality that seems, uncannily, to parallel reading and writing by identifying/reformulating information from source texts and generating novel content and argumentation. These skills are essential yet challenging for many students tasked with producing literature reviews. This study takes the first steps to investigating the feasibility of a GenAI-facilitated literature review. This investigation starts from the ‘human-in-the-loop’ position that complex processes can be deconstructed and compartmentalized, and that component functions needed for these processes can be delegated to machines while humans contribute to, or control, the overall process. We explore the hypothesis that certain functions of the literature review process, such as information extraction and content classification, might be able to be automated. Prompts modeled on recommended practices for research synthesis were designed to identify and classify particular types of content in research articles. Outputs produced by two GenAI models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o, were assessed for reliability with a human coder. Overall, the results posit concerns about the models’ performance on this task, cautioning against direct uses of GenAI output as learning scaffolding for students developing literature review skills.

The article presents results from a survey about the academic writing practices among the students of the University of Tartu (Estonia). We analyse how the use of generative artificial intelligence has changed between spring 2023 and spring 2024. Our data shows that there has been a small increase in the percentage of students who have used the help of AI while writing: in 2023, 43.9% of the students reported using or having used AI, in 2024 it was 51.6%. AI is most popular among the students of Science and Technology and least popular among the students of Humanities. In 2023, using AI was more common among undergraduates than master’s students, but by 2024 this situation had reversed. Among the activities that students use AI for, gathering ideas is most popular in both years. The biggest change between the two years is that the number of students using AI for summaries and overviews has nearly tripled. The paper discusses the possible reasons for these tendencies, as well as some relevant implications for learning and teaching (academic) writing.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of corpus-based interventions for enhancing writing skills in English L2 and French L2 among Romanian-speaking students. Following established intervention models, the study involved five stages: initial essay writing, corpus tool training, introduction to target language corpora, essay revision using corpora, and a satisfaction survey. Analysis of linguistic data (e.g., frequency lists, n-grams, and error correction rates) and survey responses from 40 participants reveals improvements in writing accuracy and diversity. Specifically, English L2 students demonstrated enhanced lexical accuracy and varied phraseology, while French L2 students improved syntactic precision and contextual use of academic terms. Both groups showed increased grammatical accuracy, especially in prepositions and articles, through corpus consultation. The findings underscore the pedagogical potential of corpora in writing instruction and the necessity of expanding corpus resources for under-resourced languages like French.

The proliferation of AI tools for text editing and generation has raised challenging but also interesting questions for writing classes. In this paper, we report on our experiences with an exercise exploring the use of AI in an academic writing class. We first outline our conceptualization of the writing process, breaking down the skills that students need to master the complex task of writing, visualized as a ‘writing pie’. This breakdown allows us to critically assess the capabilities of AI tools against our understanding of writing as a human process. We then share our experiences with an exercise with ChatGPT in an academic writing class, where students evaluate a text with respect to its academic style and suggest improvements. Students then compare their own suggestions to those made by ChatGPT and critically evaluate the output. We include both instructors’ and students’ evaluations to reflect on whether the inclusion of such exercises can aid in achieving the course’s learning outcomes. We share three key takeaways: (1) there is value to having students work with AI; (2) critical evaluation of AI output is key; (3) activities with AI should be evaluated against learning goals.

This symposium is an extension of a plenary forum on generative AI (hereafter GenAI) held at the EATAW Conference at Zurich University of Applied Sciences in Winterthur, Switzerland, in June 2023. Since the conference, AI – particularly the large language models (LLMs) shaping GenAI such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT – continue to develop rapidly with extensive integration and usage across disciplines and career sectors with educational and societal impacts. Given these developments, we recognize the central role that writing instruction has in fostering critical literacies and engaged usage and, at times, non-usage of GenAI. Just as we have adapted our teaching and learning to other technological developments, so too are we now at a time of transition and adaptation. Our initial discussion at EATAW was wide-ranging, intentionally so because (1) there is so much to explore in relation to GenAI, and (2) the EATAW membership is diverse, coming from a range of academic backgrounds. Thus in our original plenary and here in this symposium we have raised issues ranging from specific pedagogical approaches to questions of program and institutional administration, to broader public issues and conversations about the relationship of humans to machines. Here in this written symposium we each raise a different issue related to GenAI and writing with the aim to foster dialogue and discussion about GenAI in writing-related contexts.

Academic integrity continues to concern educators worldwide. Furthermore, general guidelines for ensuring academic integrity do not seem to encompass all the angles that are required to be taken into consideration when exploring the factors that contribute to multicultural students’ decision to adhere to the norms and values of academic integrity.  This literature review focuses on how academic values can be unified through academic integrity, and specifically explores factors and perspectives of utilising academic integrity to unify academic values when teaching academic writing. The dimensions of academic values explored in this paper are: a) beliefs and attitudes of multicultural undergraduate students and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), b) the value of academic performance in academic writing classes, c) exploring the development of multicultural students’ authorial voice while maintaining academic integrity, and d) using technology to encourage academic integrity in academic writing classes. Over 56 identified sources were chosen carefully to ensure unbiased approaches to the issues of academic integrity and development of academic writing skills. The authors explored the issues from a variety of perspectives. The gap noticed in the review of literature is the disconnection between academic values and academic integrity. The authors make recommendations for future research.

When students submit written assignments for assessment, they are generally trusted to have completed these honestly, and to have benefitted from the opportunity to learn. Academic integrity breaches are sometimes detected during the assessment process. Some common examples of integrity breaches during students’ academic writing include contract cheating, the unauthorised use of GenAI technology for completing assignments, and using AI tools to disguise existing work so that it appears to be original. None of these are new phenomena. Processes and procedures should be in place for managing suspected academic misconduct cases detected during the assessment process. But what happens when academic misconduct is detected retrospectively, sometimes after a student has moved degree programmes or graduated? This position paper sets out the case for universities and other academic institutions having procedures in place to deal with historic academic misconduct. It provides examples of how institutions can become aware of misconduct, including through whistleblowing and through development of more effective detection software. The authors bring together legal and educational expertise to suggest considerations that individual institutions should make towards future policy development. The discussion considers that students must be supported and prepared for success, but that institutions cannot ignore the reputational risks associated with cases of historic misconduct.

This paper recommends that explicit value be placed on promoting dialogue among staff and students with respect to academic integrity in higher education. A detailed literature review revealed a notable lack of literature on resources and practices for professional development of staff on academic integrity or the importance of engaging academic staff in such training. Through the authors’ experience in developing and facilitating workshops, they have designed a flexible approach to academic integrity professional development for academic staff that highlights the importance of discussion and communication. Throughout this workshop development, scenarios were created to prompt discussion on a wide range of academic integrity issues (including Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)). In total, 18 workshops addressing academic integrity have been run by the authors and attended by 180 staff and 85 students at local, national, and international levels. This experience-based paper situates the need for professional development on academic integrity within the current literature and shares the evolution of the authors’ training workshops and resource development. Readers are encouraged to use the resources in their own contexts to prompt dialogue within their institutions on academic integrity.

This article examines how four students in high school or college choose to integrate sources in their assignments using quotation and paraphrases. Implementing an innovative methodology, a digital screen capture software was used to record all the participants’ actions as they wrote a 500-word argumentative essay. A video of each participant’s actions was produced. These actions translated as quantitative results and showed the frequency of various actions grouped within five categories of strategies linked to various skills (informational skills, writing skills, referencing skills, basic computer skills and task compliance skills) and a sixth category linked to plagiarism actions. The four texts were also analysed for their quality and their level of plagiarism. Results show that the college students performed better on overall text quality, but their texts contained more plagiarism. When looking at the strategies used, all students spent more time on their informational and writing strategies than on their referencing strategies. When using sources, in general, participants had more difficulties with paraphrasing than with quoting, often not referencing their paraphrases, which resulted in plagiarism. Patterns emerged for the data showing four types of actions when integrating sources in assignments: the casual integrator, the aspiring integrator, the fearless integrator and the ethical integrator. For each profile, recommendations on how to better develop students’ paraphrasing, quoting, and referencing skills are provided.

Peer review is crucial for academic research, when checking manuscripts for publishing, considering proposals for research funding, and deciding which submitted contributions to include in conference programmes. Peer reviewers are tasked with assessing readability, scientific merit, accuracy, reliability, novelty, relevance, completeness and focus. Conscientious, experienced peer reviewers add considerable value to scientific manuscripts by working with authors, especially Early Career Researchers (ECRs), to help them achieve the required standards set by editors and publishers. Given the centrality of peer review to academia, it is easy to forget that peer review is often voluntary and unpaid, requiring considerable time and resources. Without peer reviewers, editors and publishers, and conference organisers, many of whom are also voluntary and unpaid, would be tasked with reviewing submissions. This would require considerable time and diverse knowledge and skills, even when the scope of topics for submissions is narrow. The recent substantial rise in the number of journal article retractions, affecting both large and small publishers, raises questions about why the traditional checks and balances put in place by the publishers, especially peer review, do not uncover the problems. This paper will explore both the merits of effective peer review and root causes of problems currently being experienced, with consideration of how peer review could be improved to serve future requirements.

This teaching practice paper shows how students may choose to work with ChatGPT, generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce essays and written assessment solutions in a manner that may be considered as either acceptable or as a breach of academic integrity depending on individual and institutional views. Following a brief introduction to how chatbots work, case study examples show how modified prompts can be used to generate writing in alternative styles, how a writing tutor review can be simulated, and how LLMs can be run locally and without Internet access. The paper is intended to inform academic writing tutors, instructors, and assessors what is possible using generative AI for writing as of January 2024. It is not positioned to make a judgement regarding what is acceptable, but rather to illustrate how technically proficient users can accomplish more than is often indicated by writing beginner level prompts for a chatbot. Such techniques are accessible to many students and the Academic Writing Development community will need to consider its response.

The standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), define, within the standard 1.1, that higher education institutions (HEIs) need to have public internal Quality Assurance (QA) policies that effectively support academic integrity and are battling academic fraud, among other points (ENQA et al., 2015). On a national level (standard 3.6), QA agencies need to assure the integrity of their activities, in that way assuring that the national higher education (HE) systems are reliable, resilient and fit for purpose. When it comes to student involvement in QA, students are becoming increasingly engaged in QA activities as equal partners (ESU, 2020); however, the extent of their involvement in the matters of academic integrity on a national level still varies based on the national legislation and the activities covered by national QA agencies. Some countries, such as Ireland and Croatia, do involve students in discussions about academic integrity, prevention of academic misconduct, and implementation of different methods to preserve academic values within the curricula. In this paper, we have described the differences between the two mentioned national systems in terms of legislation, practices in preserving academic integrity within the Quality Assurance (QA) of higher education, and students’ reflections based on the information available at the webpages of the respective NUSs (Union of Students in Ireland and Croatian Students’ Council). In Ireland, the national QA Agency, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, has formed a National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN), and is directly involved in monitoring academic integrity practices and preventing academic misconduct, with the possibility of persecuting said misconduct. NAIN’s members include students who engage through their NUS - Union of Students in Ireland (USI), and who actively contribute to co-creation of policies and practices related to academic integrity. The student members receive appropriate training and are able to train and organise capacity-building activities for other students. The students also organise different activities on their own, to raise awareness on the need for battling academic misconduct such as contract cheating. In Croatia, the national QA Agency, Agency for Science and Higher Education (ASHE), is monitoring academic integrity through institutional self-assessment reports within internal QA evaluations, while the Law on Students’ Council and Other Students’ Organisations defines the position of students’ ombudspersons at each HEI, independently from the QA system. Students’ ombuds are students who do not receive training, but are able to request institutional reports. They are selected for a period of 1 year by the institutional students’ representation body, and they can help other students in protection of their rights in disciplinary processes. QQI and ASHE were interviewed as part of this research, and the findings indicate that QQI was much more successful in terms of engaging students in academic integrity-related topics, while ASHE does not have a responsibility to independently work on this topic with students, although they periodically participate in activities related to academic integrity. Students involved in QQI’s NAIN Network are independent and they understand the academic integrity policy well. Both the agencies reiterated the importance of students’ involvement in academic integrity and the need for educating students on these topics within their study cycles. Students who are overall most engaged in academic integrity are already active students’ representatives, which means that additional efforts need to be made in order to ensure all students understand this topic.

Addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic writing is vital in higher education, especially when considering the lived experiences and education of undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. This paper acknowledges the challenges faced by students unfamiliar with Western academic integrity standards, emphasising the disparities experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged, racialised, and international students. The paper describes an innovative learner-agentic empowerment approach at a Canadian university designed to enable students from diverse backgrounds to gain the academic, cultural, disciplinary and linguistic capital required to practise academic integrity. Through a mixed-method analysis of 182 undergraduates in a writing support program, we found that students who responded to a reflective prompt on academic integrity at the start of the program wrote substantially more (mean 7050 words) than those who did not respond to the prompt (mean 1692 words) during the month-long program. Qualitative analyses revealed students' unfamiliarity with cultural differences, academic integrity practices, linguistic challenges, and penalty severity. This model suggests the importance of a proactive, learner-agentic approach to facilitate education about academic integrity and to address equity and inclusivity. The study underscores the importance of systemic pedagogical changes, furthering the dialogue on equity, diversity, and inclusion in higher education.

Here we report a teaching practice exploring integrity issues related to the use of images in scientific and/or academic writing or, more broadly, in communication. The practice is intended to raise students’ awareness of the need of complying with research integrity principles/norms. It is targeted at undergraduate students in the molecular biosciences, more specifically, to students enrolled in a First Degree in Biochemistry course. It has been implemented in the context of a course unit in which the students perform laboratory work – within a small project – usually originating data that is reported as graphs or as pictures in their laboratory reports. These visual representations are also normally used in articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. We implemented a group assignment based on the analysis of guidelines of different journals regarding the preparation of figures, including acceptable image processing and manipulation, as well as on the application of these guidelines on both written and oral reports. We could observe that the students performed the proposed activity with commitment and interest in the aspects explored. Moreover, the exercise improved their critical thinking ability as demonstrated through in-class discussions. In the present work, we discuss challenges of including illustrations in scientific texts in view of science teaching.

Authorial voice plays a key role in helping writers establish themselves as experts in their field as well as demonstrate their individual style (e.g., Tardy, 2012). Citation usage has an important impact on authorial voice in academic writing and can be implemented in various ways; namely, through citation types (e.g., integral, non-integral) and citation presentation (e.g., direct quotes, summaries, generalizations). While many researchers have examined citation type among novice and experienced writers, researchers have largely overlooked citation presentation across disciplines – that is, how experienced authors balance the use of quotations, summaries, and generalization to index authorial voice. Beginning academic writers may be encouraged to use quotations to prevent plagiarism, but it is unclear if this advice reflects patterns in published writing across disciplines. In this study, we examine the background sections (i.e., introductions and/or literature reviews) of 270 academic research papers to evaluate the extent to which various citation types and presentations are used in background sections across six disciplines. Findings which can inform disciplinary writing guides and educational materials indicate disciplinary variation in citation type, with applied linguistics using the most citations overall and physics and biology using the fewest integral citations. Disciplines also differed in their citation presentation, with some favoring summaries and others favoring generalizations while quotation was rare overall. These results have important implications for teachers and material developers who can use these patterns of source usage to compare and contrast disciplinary norms and provide direct instruction on features of academic voice. Cross-disciplinary awareness of voice features can also highlight disciplinary patterns for students, allowing them to write more like experts in their fields.

Self-efficacy is important for maintaining a person’s belief in their capacity to perform desired behaviours and achieve desired goals; without self-efficacy, in the context of academic writing, one may doubt their ability to achieve writing goals. Previous research showed that the Writing Meeting Framework (WMF) can enable desired changes in writing behaviours but did not consider the role of self-efficacy in this behaviour change. This UK-based study aimed to determine if the WMF could improve writing self-efficacy for postgraduate researchers (PGRs) and early career researchers (ECRs). Participants completed a baseline questionnaire to reflect on their writing experiences and then were randomly matched into 35 pairs. Each pair met online four times over eight weeks using the WMF and then completed a post-questionnaire, reflecting on their experiences. Analysis showed significant improvements in self-efficacy using the WMF: participants improved their ability to set realistic and achievable writing goals and increased their confidence in completing writing goals regularly. This study shows the WMF can develop PGRs’ and ECRs’ academic writing self-efficacy and suggests the WMF can develop writing attributes required to produce academic writing regularly and achieve individual writing goals. The WMF offers a mechanism for developing this important component of effective writing behaviour.

While there are a number of books that address how to research first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing, there are not many accessible research manuals that guide novice researchers on how to research cognitive processes associated with L1/L2 writing. Researching L1/L2 writing processes and development requires a consideration of a number of variables because writing typically occurs in many different contexts (e.g., in-class, at home), settings (e.g., ESL vs. EFL), modalities (e.g., paper and pen, digital), and conditions (e.g., individual, collaborative). We find the edited volume Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes by Rosa Manchón and Julio Rocaa (2023) to be insightful for two reasons. First, all the chapters in the volume provide step-by-step directions in researching L1/L2 writing processes, highlight methodological concerns, and offer ideas on addressing those concerns. Second, the volume provides an excellent overview of key considerations in employing diverse research instruments to study writing processes.

This teaching practice paper deals with some practical ideas of teaching the concept of ‘warrant’ in Toulmin’s mode of argumentation within EFL/ESL settings. While most students are familiar with making claims and providing evidence to support them, they may not understand the role of the warrant in connecting claims and reasons. Therefore, there is a strong need for teaching students how warrant plays a key role in argumentative writing. This teaching practice paper aims at bridging the gulf between some writing theories and useful examples to dissect the complexities of teaching warrant in writing classes.

The ability to carefully craft writing for an intended audience is crucial in creating persuasive rhetorical arguments. Learning to do so requires knowledge beyond IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). Many graduate students learn by mimicking this structure, yet lack audience awareness and overuse jargon, producing low-readability texts. What is more, they increasingly rely on AI-based writing tools that mimic the same structures that are already often poorly written. The results are too often uncommunicative articles that fail to persuade the intended audience. Therefore, we suggest writing pedagogy includes a deeper understanding of effective written science communication using the rhetorical triangle. As graduate students most readily understand the importance of logos, i.e., the scientific content, our job as writing instructors should be to emphasize the role a carefully aimed pathos and ethos plays in producing highly readable, persuasive, publishable articles. To this end, this paper first presents a brief background on the IMRaD structure before outlining the much-overlooked role of the rhetorical triangle in scientific writing. Specifically, we offer a detailed table for graduate students to use in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Professional writers are among several kinds of practitioner offering writing development to postgraduates and research staff in universities. As ‘third space’ professionals they bring expertise from the commercial world of writing into their academic writing interventions with students and staff. Yet, the difference professional writers’ experience can make for participants’ writing, in comparison to other writing developers, has hardly been examined. This paper begins to explore the contributions Royal Literary Fund Consultant Fellows (RLF CFs), a community of UK-based fiction and non-fiction authors, can make through their writing interventions. It explores these writers’ perceptions of their dual identities – as writers and writing developers – and their perceived benefits of having professional writers work with students and staff. The data reveal the central role writing plays for RLF CFs’ professional identity, which allows them to model a holistic approach to writing together with strategies for managing its affective dimension. Exploring their contribution to Higher Education (HE) writing development, the paper also prepares the ground for future studies into the impact of RLF CF interventions from the participants’ perspective.

This review considers Ethan Mollick's Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI and its implications for writing pedagogies.

Scholarly writing and publishing are activities marked by intellectual honesty, integrity, and excellence. Together, they are an indispensable requirement for academics to maintain and sustain their careers in various academic institutions. However, in higher education institutions, the infamous aphorism 'publish or perish' has resulted in unethical academic practices. These practices derail the quality expected of scholarly writing and publishing. This paper is a collection of advice to novice writers on the ten most common reasons why scholarly papers are rejected, offering sound solutions to these problems. Though an unpleasant experience, scholarly paper rejection keeps authors on guard against unethical academic writing practices. It helps them to transform their scholarly papers to meet the high standards of academia. The paper contends that scholarly paper rejection is an important activity in scholarly writing and publishing because it ensures quality in academic knowledge production and dissemination.

The emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT has attracted wide attention in the field of L2 writing and academic writing, but few papers to date have analysed GenAI’s potential application (positive and negative) in source use practices in academic writing. This article discusses three key aspects of source use – academic attribution, searching and reading sources, and source integration. AI tools are trialled for each aspect, followed by an overall SWOT analysis. While writers can use AI tools to assist on several source use practices, they are not recommended to use AI without a deep understanding of academic writing and source use principles. This article concludes with suggestions for student writers, academic support providers, and institutions.

Editorial for the issue. Addresses the themes of the articles along the lines of situating and contextualising academic literacies.

This study examines how learners’ perceptions of their academic writing difficulties changed over the course of a four-week intensive English for Academic purposes (EAP) programme at a British university. The participants of this qualitative study were 14 Chinese undergraduate students who engaged in interviews and completed learning journal entries. The results of the thematic analyses indicate that vocabulary which constituted the biggest perceived challenge in Week 1 was no longer mentioned in Week 4 as a source of writing difficulty. Another finding is that after four weeks, students felt they had a better understanding of argumentation in a UK academic context and were not facing major difficulties with using sources and the understanding of argumentation in a UK academic context; they also reported that they were not facing major difficulties with using sources and understanding plagiarism in written assignments. Upon completion of the EAP course, students also reported that they tended to experience noticeably fewer challenges with academic reading. This qualitative study provides insights into the contribution of pre-sessional programmes in the development of learners’ writing as they transition into the academic community.

In writing groups (WGs), participants exchange drafts so that their partners’ feedback can be used to improve writing. These groups accompany participants while they face authentic dissertation or publication writing projects, are linked to situated and real demands, and promote participants’ engagement. Nevertheless, this type of pedagogical initiative continues to be uncommon, especially in Latin America. This qualitative exploratory study analyses participants’ perspectives about the benefits and drawbacks found in joining doctoral WGs in the Humanities and Social Sciences. It focuses on three separate sets of doctoral writing groups implemented and facilitated within the last eight years in Argentina. Despite some drawbacks, participants considered these groups as valuable not only for the advancement of dissertation and publication writing, but also as horizontal spaces to develop as scholarly writers. Higher education institutions worldwide could benefit from similar pedagogical initiatives to enhance and promote research writing at the graduate level.

In this teaching practice article, we discuss the possibilities of integrating AI into the writing classroom utilizing prompt engineering techniques. We propose a strategy for prompt engineering in which we see AI as an audience and interlocutor during the invention process. We consider using the method in preparation for argument composition and with that we propose an ethical model for teaching writing based on a view of rhetoric as both technê and praxis. To draw attention to the ethical question in relation to human—non-human interactions, we use as metaphor for AI tools the image of Klara, an android who serves as a children’s companion in Ishiguro’s novel Klara and the Sun (2021).

In this review of Frost, Kiernan, and Malley's collection Translingual Dispositions: Globalized Approaches to the Teaching of Writing, I propose that the collection fills a necessary gap of augmenting translingualism discourse globally and beyond the classroom. The contributors to Frost, Kiernan, and Malley's collection develop the theory of translingualism as an attitude, lived experience, an advocacy issue, and a classroom practice by showing a myriad of application sites for this concept. In so doing, the collection also demonstrates the messy operationalization and embodiment of translingualism in U.S. academic and non-U.S. academic settings.

Richmond’s Academic Literacies Programme (ALP) is a content-based form of instruction for university students which teaches critical reading, research skills, content synthesis, and writing and presentation skills. It is designed to empower all students to research and write effectively throughout their undergraduate studies. This article is a quantitative case study review of a British-American university’s ALP, examining student feedback across academic disciplines on specific taught ALP skills and comparing their improvement from 2014 to 2022. Chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests showed students valued research, critical reading, academic writing, essay structure, understanding academic honesty, using tutor feedback, and referencing skills; however, survey development and recommendation reports were not meeting student needs in their majors and so were removed from the programme. In comparison, in a follow-up review conducted in 2022, the skill of identifying research gaps was not effectively used or applied. However, independent group testing found the usefulness of skills at the lower learning level improved from 2014 to 2022, as did the application of skills at the higher level. This study concludes that ALPs are valuable for all university students beginning higher education research, regardless of first language or degree course.

Academic literacies refer to academic writing as social practices. This study describes first-term nursing students’ perceptions of the academic literacy education provided and its significance for their forthcoming training and clinical practice. Nine student nurses at the Swedish Red Cross University participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using latent content analysis. Two categories were identified: A challenging but rewarding step focused on the students’ struggles to become academically literate. A professional outlook targeted the students’ perceptions of the requirement to acquire academic literacies for their training and future clinical practice. The results provide insights of dichotomous perspectives among nursing students regarding their need to acquire academic literacies. Some of the students convey a resistant and sceptical view of adding academic education to nursing training. Others acknowledge the requirement of being academically literate, a competence sometimes hard-won. However, in their struggles, teacher guidance was requested; an appeal that needs to be met with creative solutions. Repetitive approaches by teachers combined with the use of student initiatives are proposed to enable improved academic literacy levels among the students.

In creative nonfiction, the genre of the braided essay is common. This creative art of braiding different strands and outside voices might also be liberating for academic writers as an expansion of academic writing that allows hidden meaning to shine through. This teaching practice paper shares how this genre was used for writing about teaching practice at EATAW 2021. It introduces the genre of the braided essay and uses the steps of the EATAW workshop as an example of how to teach it.

This paper aims to interrogate a writer-researcher’s journey through practice-led inquiry (Gray, 1996) within a broader discourse that acknowledges academic writing as contested. Indeed, the quest of a migrant writer for recognition of their writing in another land requires a deep understanding of the many layers that make up the provenance of their writing practice: A second language, and both their cultural identity and literary background, provide layers of knowledge and experience that fuse to form a 'style' and ultimately a writing ‘niche’. The readership of their writing carries its own provenance and therefore the additional bias of ‘the home ground’. As it reads in the title, palimpsest, in its figurative sense, is a notion that implies levels of meaning in a literary work. Although not the first writer to use the concept figuratively, it was Thomas De Quincey who wrote an essay entitled “The Palimpsests” (1845), which would inaugurate “the substantive concept of the palimpsest” (Dillon, 2005, p. 243). Similarly, Barthes (1989, p. 99) referred to a text as a layered discourse, an onion, a superimposed construction of skins (of layers, of levels, of systems) whose volume contains, finally, no heart, no core, no secret, no irreducible principle, nothing but the very infinity of its envelopes—which envelop nothing other than the totality of its surfaces. As a writer surfaces, discriminates, and understands the different layers that fashion their writing, and wields their particular use of English as a second language, their practice becomes more authentic. That authenticity becomes a dual threshold element of an exegesis argument, representing faithfulness to the practitioner, and translating or bridging the gap between first language readers and second language voices.

The title of this editorial is adapted froma lineinthebook review published in this issue of the Journal of Academic Writing (JoAW). The review iswritten by Livingstone,whoargues for the importance of texts that push,“those of us in academia, who have become too fixed in our ways, who are afraid of thinking outside-the-box.”This line reflects a core value of JoAW, as the journal has always endeavoured to serve as a reflexive space for innovation and development for EATAW members and the wider community of researchersand practitionersinterested in academic writing. The various genres JoAWpublishes that go beyond the traditional research article, the formative approach it takes to publishing, and the value it attributes to open-access, practice-oriented researchdemonstratejust some of the waysin which JoAWhasaimedto push boundariesin academic writing research and practice.

This paper centres around the use of Eduflow, a novel online learning management system (LMS) which was introduced in a university-level Academic Writing course in response to the challenges brought about by the mandatory switch from face-to-face to online writing instruction (OWI) over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, Eduflow is piloted with a group of second-year university students of English language and literature at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. These students chose to fulfil their Academic Writing course requirements by compiling a writing portfolio. The rationale behind the use of this platform was the assumption that it would facilitate the online management of all the stages of the essay writing process: Writing a first draft, doing a peer review of essays created by fellow students, considering the comments received from fellow students, reflecting on one’s own writing by doing a self-review, and finally, submitting the final version. The relentlessness of the pandemic led to the continuous application of this learning management system over the course of two entire academic years, each year with a different group of students. An online survey on the perceived usefulness and effectiveness of Eduflow was administered among the second generation of students who used this platform. As this small-scale analysis demonstrates, despite experiencing some easily resolvable minor technical difficulties, these students generally found Eduflow effective and useful as a supplementary tool for online writing instruction and showed particular appreciation for the collaborative peer review experience.

The use of digital tools in academic literacies remains an emerging field, having advanced greatly in recent years. This dialogue responds to Schcolnik (2018), by arguing the benefits of considering the use of such tools in light of advances in digital pedagogies and applied linguistics. Going beyond understanding how academic writing developers engage with digital tools, an important next step is to consider whether their use of such tools is effective.