As my nearly four-year term as a graduate co-editor with The Peer Review ( TPR ) is coming to an end, I considered it an opportunity to assess the journal’s contribution to the field in some way. Through brainstorming ideas with the rest of the editorial team, I decided to identify and track key themes addressed in TPR articles, exploring main topics of conversation that we have published during this time; in essence tracing the themes that I helped give voice to through my role. Given the significance of timely review of scholarship to take stock of the field, in this article, I present a brief content analysis of selective scholarship published in TPR journal in an approximately two-and-a-half-year period ranging from Winter 2023 to Fall 2025. This content analysis is meant to highlight popular thematic trends. I identified a total of 14 themes in 27 articles published in four regular issues. From this small data set, tutor professional development emerged as the predominant theme. More than half of other themes—such as institutional assessment, oral histories, and African American writers, among others—appeared just once. Given that the journal places a concerted effort to welcome and support emerging voices in the field, these findings not only shine a light on what is worthwhile to this group but also points to where the field is likely headed (presuming these authors continue to grow and publish). I hope both new and established scholars will turn to this analysis when writing new articles or designing new studies. Journal editors may also find this analysis relevant to understand broad publishing trends.

This contribution analyzes the current state of and conditions for writing center research in German-speaking countries and points to future possible directions. It addresses the following key questions: 1.) What kind of work do writing centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland engage in? As a result, what fields of inquiry lend themselves to writing center research? 2.) Under what conditions is research possible at writing centers? 3.) And, given the responses, what is the current state of writing center research? In order to answer these questions, the online presence of 70 writing centers was surveyed. In addition, a review was conducted of empirical and theoretical research on writing centers published in disciplinary journals and edited collections between 2012 and 2017. After presenting the results of web-based searches and a literature review, desired outcomes and future paths for writing center research are discussed.

This case study examines how collaboration between a writing centre manager and an educational developer created new opportunities to advance writing pedagogy at a mid-sized Canadian university. Initially born from our university’s response to generative artificial intelligence, our effort both responds to perceived threats to the future of writing studies and attempts to preserve our work through new opportunities. Collaboration between writing centres and faculty development is under-represented in the literature, yet we have found the marginality of the third space to be a productive one from which to grow our campus’ writing community from “under the curriculum” (Hunt, 2006, p. 371). In this paper, we present three examples of collaborations between a writing centre manager and an educational developer—creating a community of practice, facilitating workshops for graduate students, and presenting to our university’s Senate. The outcomes of our reflections offer perspectives on AI and writing pedagogy, highlight the importance of cross-unit partnerships, and illustrate how third space professionals can offer critical writing-related perspectives to institutions where formal writing programs do not exist—ultimately helping make visible the often decentralized work of writing studies professionals in Canada.

In this embedded case study of a mid-Atlantic writing center, I interviewed and observed 3 writing center tutors regarding their academic language ideologies and conceptualizations of academic writing. I found that tutors focused on “grammar” when discussing academic language, and tutored in adherence with “rules” they expected professors to enforce. This demonstrated that tutors may hold a standard language ideology regarding academic writing. However, tutors also focused on student voice through style and word choice, and were concerned with overriding student voice through their tutoring practices. Because of these two conceptualizations of professor focused rules and student centered voice, tutors shifted between prioritizing the two in their tutoring sessions. Ultimately, I argue that tutors need to reimagine what it means to “sound academic” for a more linguistically just tutoring praxis.

This conversation shaper synthesizes research on neurodiversity, intersectionality, and writing center pedagogy, highlighting how these elements can shape inclusive practices for all students, particularly neurodivergent students. By focusing on the intersections of neurodiversity, race, and gender, this review aims to challenge writing center practices to better serve diverse learners and foster more accessible educational environments. Understanding the complexity of students’ identities is essential in crafting more inclusive, flexible pedagogical strategies that cater to neurodivergent students.