English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes

journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

Teaching English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP): A

review of language teachers’ pedagogical initiatives
Yongyan Li a, *, John Flowerdew b
a
Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
b
University of Lancaster, Birkbeck, University of London, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Academics and research students around the world have increasingly come under pressure
to publish in high-ranking English-medium international journals. At the same time, it has
been widely recognised that English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) pedagogical
Keywords: support can be crucial to the publication success of those scholars and students who use
English for Research Publication Purposes English as an Additional Language (EAL). There has consequently been a growing interest
(ERPP)
in developing ERPP instructional initiatives. This paper surveys existing reported ERPP
ERPP pedagogy
pedagogical practices, aiming to answer the research question “What does the literature
Writing for scholarly publication
English as an Additional Language (EAL)
tell us about the contexts and pedagogical strategies of ERPP instruction led by language
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) teachers?” A selection of 31 articles was retrieved as the focal literature and seven cate-
gories of meaning were derived: rationales and local contexts, theoretical underpinnings
and pedagogical approaches, writing tasks, instructor and peer feedback, language focus,
challenging issues, and specialised vs. specialist knowledge. In view of the huge demand
for ERPP intervention, the field can still be considered as underdeveloped. By synthesising
the relevant literature to date, this review is timely and will be of value to course designers
and ERPP practitioners present and future.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, there has been a developing awareness of the disadvantages that EAL (English as an Additional Language)
scholars have in writing for scholarly publication in international journals as compared to their Anglophone counterparts
(Baldauf & Jernudd, 1983; Gibbs, 1995). A developing body of research has documented the perceptions, problems and
strategies of scholars who are confronted with this situation (e.g., Cargill & Burgess, 2017; Corcoran & Englander, 2019; Curry
& Lillis, 2017; Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b; Li, 2006; Lillis & Curry, 2010). In addition, since 2007, there has been a series of
triennial conferences, Publishing and Presenting Research Internationally: Issues for Speakers of English as an Additional Language
(PRISEAL), the first of which was held in Tenerife, Spain, devoted to this topic. At the time of writing, furthermore, a new
journal, Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes (JERPP) (https://benjamins.com/catalog/jerpp) is about to produce
its first issue. All of these developments are evidence that English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) and the diffi-
culties of EAL scholars have been receiving increasing research attention.
The problems for EAL scholars have become more pressing, indeed, since the early 2000s, for universities around the
world have started increasingly to institute policies that strongly encourage publishing in high-ranking English-medium

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Li), johnfl[email protected] (J. Flowerdew).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002
0889-4906/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
30 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

journals included in widely recognised citation indexes. As a result of this pressure, there is now increasingly a requirement
that not only faculty members, but also doctoral and sometimes even masters-level candidates are expected to publish in
international indexed journals as a condition of graduation. Yet in spite of the increasing research interest in ERPP and the
pressure to publish, it is only relatively recently that EAP practitioners have started to address this question through peda-
gogical interventions, pre- and in-sessional EAP courses not normally being focussed on this issue. John Swales (1990), in his
seminal Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, was a forerunner in this respect, describing in that volume
some of the issues that EAL doctoral students have and how these problems had been addressed by him and might be
addressed by others through pedagogical intervention. Further published reports of pedagogical ERPP interventions only
started to appear, however, in the early 2000s. Since then, such reports have been gradually increasing, to such a point that a
review of such literature to date, synthesising existing reported practices, is now timely. In the present paper, therefore, we
present such a review, focusing on the instructional initiatives undertaken by language teachers who typically work with EAL
students or academics who wish to or need to publish. Such a review is likely to be of value to course designers and teachers of
ERPP courses in the future.
Our review distinguishes itself from two previous reviews which likewise examined reports of writing for publication
courses/programmes, but with these courses/programmes not conducted by language teachers. McGrail, Rickard, and Jones
(2006) surveyed articles produced over two decades (1984–2004), reporting on three types of interventiondwriting support
groups, writing courses, and writing coachesdtargeted at PhD students, clinicians and academics in the field of medicine. In
general, such interventions were found to have positive effects on publication rates. The course/programmes were not aimed
specifically at EAL writers, though, and were led mainly by senior academics or professional editors, not language teachers.
Kempenaar and Murray (2018) reviewed theory-based writing programmes designed for academics, as reported in articles
published between 2002 and 2015, and reinterpreted the programme designs through the lens of a transactional and systems
approach to understand academics’ writing behaviours. Again, the programmes reviewed were not targeted specifically at
EAL writers or conducted by language teachers.
Compared with the two foregoing reviews, in the present paper we survey a different body of literature. We would
characterise a typical article in our focal literature as one that reports on a pedagogical intervention, in the form of a writing
course or a series of workshops or seminars, which aims to develop participants’ competence in the genre of the research
article (RA) and aspects of the publication process, in line with the scope of ERPP instruction (Cargill & Burgess, 2008). The
central research question that guided our study was: What does the literature tell us about the contexts and pedagogical
strategies of ERPP instruction led by language teachers? Specifically, we aimed to characterise the reported ERPP pedagogical
programmes and discover what they reveal about the status quo of ERPP pedagogies, with a view to informing course de-
signers and ERPP practitioners. In the following, we will first describe our methods of identifying and analysing the focal
literature, and then present our findings from analysing the selected papers.

2. Selection of the focal literature and content analysis

Our target literature consists of reports that feature ERPP instruction led by language instructors (as opposed to content
teachers or journal editors) aimed at (post)graduate students or academics of any discipline. Major databases, including Web
of Science, EBSCOhost research database, Taylor & Francis Online, and Google Scholar were searched, using the following
query terms: “writing for publication”, “developing publication skills”, “publication skills training”, “research writing”,
“English for Research Publication Purposes”, “English for Academic Purposes”, “language teacher(s)”, “writing course(s)”,
“writing workshop(s)”, “writing programme(s)”, and their combinations. At the same time, informed by our knowledge of the
fields of academic writing and EAP/ERPP, we searched relevant edited books and looked through their bibliographic lists for
additional items. Our selection process was guided by the following inclusion criteria:

 a selected article must describe some form of ERPP instruction (in the form of a course or a series of workshops or
seminars); if the focus is on an empirical study, details of the programme/teaching process are nevertheless provided
 the focus of the instruction featured must be on the genre of the RA and sometimes also on the publication process;
 the instructor(s) must have had an explicitly stated or implied goal of facilitating the participants' research writing for
publication skills;
 and the pedagogical interventions must be led by a language teacher or language teachers (typically EAP/ERPP spe-
cialists) as opposed to by content specialists

It should be pointed out that we excluded a variety of empirical studies conducted by language teachers in the context of
an academic writing/a research writing course focusing on needs analysis, evaluation of the intervention, or aspects of the
students’ learning process, but did not provide sufficient details of the programme/teaching content itself (e.g., Castelló,
Iñesta, & Corcelles, 2013; Cheng, 2015; Ferreira, 2016; Giraldo, 2019; Huang, 2014; Kuteeva & Negretti, 2016; Lappalainen,
2016; Negretti & McGrath, 2018). This exclusion criterion was applied as our focus in the review is pedagogical approaches
and methods, with a view to informing course designers and teachers about classroom strategies that have been employed to
date. (Although our decisions to include or exclude any article were based on agreement between us as researchers, we admit
that there was still a degree of subjectivity in our selections.) Importantly, for the sake of maintaining a focus in our review on
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 31

our focal literature and because there are already separate reviews on these specific topics, we also excluded the following
two strands of literature concerning research writing pedagogies:

 Reports focused on using corpus-based approaches in ERPP instruction, because Chen and Flowerdew (2018) have
already provided a systematic review of 37 empirical studies that reported the use of corpus-based approaches in
teaching EAP/academic writing, including ERPP
 Reports on employing other technologies or an online system to facilitate instruction (e.g., Lo, Liu, & Wang, 2014;
Sengupta, 2003)

Through an iterative process of applying our purposefully designed criteria for inclusion and exclusion, we gathered a
body of literature that is diverse, manageable, and comprehensive enough to address our research question. Our body of focal
literature comprises 31 papers. Some observations can be made regarding the selected articles. Above all, although all
meeting our selection criteria, these texts nevertheless contain varied amounts of detail of the target ERPP instruction.
Secondly, in one case, an evolving intervention programme was featured in more than one publication (Corcoran, 2017;
Corcoran & Englander, 2016; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4). At the same time, several descriptions were not about
one particular course, but were apparently based on multiple iterations of instruction conducted over time in various
pedagogical settings (Burgess & Cargill, 2013; Cadman, 2017; Cargill, 2004; Cargill, Gao, Wang, & O'Connor, 2018; Cargill &
O'Connor, 2006). Nevertheless, for simplicity, we have counted each of the papers as presenting one pedagogical pro-
gramme. Thirdly, it is worth noting that all but two of the papers in our collection are first-person accounts. The two ex-
ceptions are Li, Flowerdew, and Cargill (2018) and Li, Ma, Zhao, and Hu (2020), which are third-person portrayals of ERPP
courses. Fourthly, one text in our selected literature is a brief course description but not exactly a paper (Paltridge, 2018); and
in two of the publications selected, the featured ERPP course is a proposal rather than an implemented course, but the papers
are included because they provide details of course design (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Messekher & Miliani, 2019). Finally, it is
worth pointing out that six of the 31 papers are from the same edited book (Corcoran, Englander, & Muresan, 2019); and that
about two-thirds of the 31 texts are in the form of book chapters (including papers in conference proceedings) (20), with
fewer journal articles (11).
We treated the focal body of literature as documentary data and imported them into QSR International's NVivo 12 software
for coding (to facilitate the ‘data’ analysis), following the broad principles of qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012), and
all the time guided by our research question What does the literature tell us about the contexts and pedagogical strategies of ERPP
instruction led by language teachers? As an early step, higher-level organisational categories of meaning were iteratively
determined on the basis of broad-stroke reading of the focal literature, with reference to the wider literature (including the
related, but excluded, literature described earlier) and drawing upon our own experience as ERPP practitioner-researchers.
Altogether seven organisational categories were developed. The categories, which will serve as the headings in our pre-
sentation of the findings below, are the following:

 Rationales and local contexts

 Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical approaches
 Writing tasks
 Instructor and peer feedback
 Language focus
 Challenging issues
 Specialised and specialist knowledge

These main categories can be largely regarded as descriptive themes, although the last one, ‘Specialised and specialist
knowledge’, is a pair of notions borrowed from Ferguson (1997) conceptualising the kind of knowledge that EAP teachers
should possess (namely, specialised knowledge or knowledge of the discourse of students' disciplines, as opposed to
specialist, or content, knowledge). Under these higher-level categories we created data-driven codes that use words and
phrases from the texts under analysis (Bazeley, 2013, p. 166). These first-level codes were further sorted and combined into
second-level codes in the process of coding and categorising, thus leading to the patterns and strands of meaning by which we
would present our findings under the seven headings (third-level codes) in the Findings section below, following an overview
of the selected publications (see Appendix 1 for our finalised codebook which shows the seven organisational categories or
the third-level codes noted above, together with second-level codes).

3. Findings

3.1. An overview of the selected articles

Table 1 maps out the 31 papers according to the geographic locations of the pedagogical interventions featured. The
geographical contexts of these accounts are diverse, stretching across multiple continents, with an even spread across Latin
America (7), Europe (6), Asia (6), and the United States (5); lower numbers can be found for Australia (3), Russia (2), the
32 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

Table 1
Geographic distribution of the pedagogical programmes featured in the 31 papers.

Region/country Count Articles

Latin America 7 Aranha (2009), Bazerman et al. (2012), Corcoran and Englander (2016), Corcoran (2017), Englander and Corcoran (2019)
Chapter 4, Janssen and Restrepo (2019), Waigandt et al. (2019)
Europe 6 Burgess and Cargill (2013), Matarese (2013), Muresan and Bardi (2013), León Pérez and Martín-Martín (2016),
Arnbjörnsdóttir (2019), Burgess et al. (2019)
Asia 6 Cargill and O'Connor (2006), Flowerdew and Wang (2017), Huang (2017), Cargill et al. (2018), Li et al. (2018, 2020)
United States 5 Swales and Luebs (2002), Cameron et al. (2009), Leydens and Olds (2007), Feak and Swales (2010), Douglas (2015)
Australia 3 Cargill (2004) (also in Asia), Cadman (2017) (also in Asia), Paltridge (2018)
Russia 2 Goryanova et al. (2015), Smirnova (2016)
Middle East 1 Nunn and Deveci (2019)
North Africa 1 Messekher and Miliani (2019)

Middle East (1), and North Africa (1). Whilst, of the Anglophone countries with large populations of EAL PhD students, the
United States and Australia are both represented, it is worth pointing out that there are no reports from the United Kingdom,
another Anglophone country with large numbers of EAL doctoral candidates.
Of the 31 articles, the earliest was published in 2002 (i.e., Swales & Luebs, 2002). Over time, four papers were published in
the first six years (2002–2007), seven in the second six years (2008–2013), and 20 from 2014 onwards. There has thus been an
increasing output of such articles up to the present day, with a burst of activity in the last few years. A summary of the 31
articles, in terms of the institutional context, participants and discipline, cohort size, programme mode/duration/frequency,
course title or equivalent, and course instructor(s)/leader(s), can be found in the Supplementary Material.
Overall, most of the reports feature interventions aimed at participants from science and technology disciplines, although
there are programmes targeting social science students (Cadman, 2017; Swales & Luebs, 2002) and academics (Muresan &
Bardi, 2013; Smirnova, 2016), or humanities students (Burgess, Martín, & Balasanyan, 2019) and scholars (Arnbjörnsdóttir,
2019). The disparity between the science and technology [S&T] and humanities and social sciences [HSS] disciplines re-
flects the greater numbers of graduate students and junior scholars, on the one hand, and the heavier pressure of publishing
experienced, on the other, in the former area. Below, the seven organisational categories derived from our focal literature will
be illustrated.

3.2. Rationales and local contexts

A prominent message extensively conveyed in our focal literature when outlining the background of the initiation of an
ERPP intervention is the pressure for (post)graduate students/academic staff to achieve publication in high-impact English-
medium journals. As already indicated by Table 1, the publication pressure seems to be felt by academics worldwide. As these
articles reveal, such pressure is experienced because international publication is held up as a strong expectation, or as a
prerequisite for proceeding to the next step in a research degree programme (thesis submission or graduation) or in the
process of academic appointment, contract renewal, tenure, or promotion.
However, in contrast to the institutional and national policies instantiating the high-stakes publication requirement is the
absence of ERPP instruction in the traditional curriculum (Burgess et al., 2019; Cameron et al., 2009; Messekher & Miliani,
2019). Burgess et al. (2019), for example, report that Spanish doctoral students are expected to have a publication before
thesis submission and yet universities do not teach how to communicate research in English, the assumption being that
students will naturally acquire the needed skills during their doctoral study. Similarly, Messekher and Miliani (2019) report a
new mandate at universities in Algeria making publication a prerequisite for proceeding to the oral examination of the thesis,
but no formal training is in place to prepare students to meet the requirement. Unsurprisingly, it is almost always against the
backdrop of such a gap that the focal pedagogical interventions have been initiated.
Although language teachers are typically the key agents in the ERPP instruction featured in our focal literature, the
pedagogical support may have sometimes been initiated by content specialists. A number of reports mention language
teachers being invited by academic departments or individual content specialists to offer an ERPP course for graduate stu-
dents/novice researchers in their disciplines (Aranha, 2009; Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Feak & Swales, 2010; Swales & Luebs,
2002). In addition, in some cases there is administrative and funding support for an ERPP course from the local institu-
tion, with approval from senior management (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Corcoran, 2017; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4;
Janssen & Restrepo, 2019; Li et al., 2018). In cases where an external ERPP specialist has been brought in, funding from the host
institution would appear to be a precondition, although the funding cap can constrain the duration and schedule of a pro-
gramme (Burgess & Cargill, 2013; Cargill et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018).

3.3. Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical approaches

The theoretical underpinnings of the ERPP interventions are reflected in their course objectives and pedagogical content.
ESP genre pedagogy (Cheng, 2018; Swales, 1990) and sometimes Australian genre theory (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993) may be
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 33

drawn upon for the course design. Our collection of focal literature indicates a number of features of ERPP teaching that
incorporates genre pedagogy.
Firstly, the teaching is typically organised around the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure of
an empirical RA. The presentation/practice/production teaching format might be applied in the sequential order of the typical
RA (Cameron et al., 2009; Feak & Swales, 2010; Flowerdew & Wang, 2017; Li et al., 2020; Paltridge, 2018; Smirnova, 2016), or
in the presumed order of difficulty (Methods, Abstract, Results, Introduction, and Discussion) (Swales & Luebs, 2002), or in the
recommended sequence of composition (Results, Methods, Introduction, Discussion, and Abstract) (Cargill et al., 2018; Cargill
& O'Connor, 2006). The sections may also be only selectively covered, depending on the students' ability and the duration of a
course. For instance, Aranha (2009) focused on Methods and Results, Abstract, and Introduction with a cohort of dentistry
students with stronger English proficiency and only on Abstract and Introduction when teaching a weaker cohort of genetics
students.
Secondly, a genre-based ERPP course is likely to be task-based, with published empirical RAs typically constituting an
important source of teaching/learning material (Swales, 1990). The RAs may be collected by the course instructors themselves
in the course preparation stage, perhaps in consultation with discipline specialists. Swales and Luebs (2002) is a good
example of such a procedure being applied in order to conduct discourse analysis upon the target texts as course preparation.
As more often reported, course participants may be invited to contribute or bring to class good examples of RAs from their
individual fields, for use in performing genre analysis tasks in class, a procedure already described by Swales (1990). These
texts may be used in a variety of ways: for the course instructor's use to illustrate language/discourse features; to develop
materials and design exercises; and to raise students' awareness of the potential variation of the features in texts from
different disciplines (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Douglas, 2015; Feak & Swales, 2010; Goryanova, Sinclair, & Slesarenko, 2015;
Leydens & Olds, 2007; Paltridge, 2018; Waigandt, Noceti, & Lothringer, 2019). In another case (Cadman, 2017), social science
students deconstructed their example papers to identify and assess the individual elements required for achieving research
rigour in light of a Research Writing Matrix. In addition to the above procedures, a class corpus may be built from the student-
contributed example papers for exploration using corpus tools (Burgess & Cargill, 2013; Burgess et al., 2019; Cargill et al.,
2018; Cargill & O'Connor, 2006; Feak & Swales, 2010; Flowerdew & Wang, 2017; León Pérez & Martín-Martín, 2016; Li
et al., 2018; Muresan & Bardi, 2013).
Thirdly, other theoretical notions or perspectives are sometimes evoked to work in conjunction with genre pedagogy. Feak
and Swales's (2010) cycle of rhetorical consciousness raisingdAnalysis, Awareness, Acquisition, and Achievement (see also
Swales & Feak, 2012, p. ix; a formalisation of a procedure described by Swales [1990])dconsolidates genre pedagogy, as it taps
into the students' discourse and epistemological expertise in their own disciplines and emphasises the use of genre analysis of
disciplinary texts to raise students' rhetorical consciousness (also Swales & Luebs, 2002). The blended learning-based course
described by Smirnova (2016) incorporates a genre perspective as part of a broader design that focuses on developing the
participants' linguistic and metalinguistic competencies as well as use of self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies to enhance
learner autonomy. León Pérez and Martín-Martín's (2016) genre-based approach to the teaching of research writing for
medical purposes includes a model of controlled language (CL) as developed in machine translation (Muegge, 2013), a
procedure which emphasises “minimising the use of new vocabulary and simplifying grammar rules so that we can build and
(re)use boilerplate text and templates” (León Pérez & Martín-Martín, 2016, p. 99).
Following Harwood and Hadley (2004) in the context of EAP more generally, ERPP pedagogy may also adopt a “critical-
pragmatic” approach (Englander & Corcoran, 2019; Flowerdew, 2007). Such an approach encourages participants to consider
some of the political issues at stake concerning international publication. An example of this might be the relative status of
English and the participants' L1 as languages of publication, as discussed in the context of English and Spanish in the course
described by Burgess et al. (2019). Such a consideration might lead on to discussion of how English's function as a global
language facilitating international academic communication may be at the expense of the local language and culture, a
process described as epistemic erasure by Cadman (2017). Further discussion might focus on the implications for career
development of such language choices. A critical-pragmatic activity, as suggested by Corcoran and Englander (2016, p. 5),
might involve the question of standard and non-standard English and how non-standard English (or English as a Lingua
Franca) might be received by gatekeepers at international journals. In our focal literature, such a critical stance is highlighted
in a variety of contexts involving different target participants: for Mexican scientists (Corcoran, 2017; Corcoran & Englander,
2016; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4), for EAL social science students (Cadman, 2017), for doctoral students in hu-
manities at a Spanish university (Burgess et al., 2019), for experienced humanities researchers at the University of Iceland
(Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019), and for Spanish-speaking postgraduates in the faculties of Engineering and Food Sciences at a uni-
versity in Argentina (Waigandt et al., 2019). It would seem that critical-pragmatic approaches are more commonly adopted in
the context of HSS disciplines; students/scholars in S&T disciplines tend to be more unquestioning of the need to publish in
international (index-linked) journals (in English) (Burgess et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018).
Beyond genre pedagogy and critical-pragmatism, a range of additional theoretical foundations are also found to underpin
the pedagogical initiatives reported in our focal literature. Space precludes a consideration of these varied and individual
approaches. Two examples can be given here though. Bazerman, Keranen, and Encinas-Predencio's (2012) workshop for a
group of Mexican physicists and mathematicians drew upon the notion of immersion in language learning theories (e.g.,
Cummins, 1998); while Messekher and Miliani (2019) in Algeria, informed by a community of practice model (Wenger, 1998),
designed an MA course aimed to help students transition from thesis writing to writing for publication.
34 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

3.4. Writing tasks

Given that the pedagogical goal of the programmes under review is to assist participants in writing for publication,
attention needs to be paid to the characteristics of the writing tasks assigned during the various interventions described in
our focal literature. A range of scenarios can be identified.
In a first scenario, participants may be required to produce related texts, but not the RA itself. In Burgess et al.’s (2019) 12-h
research writing for publication course for humanities doctoral students, students were required to write a short statement
discussing an issue of controversy in their thesis topic area and to produce a conference abstract; while they analysed the
structure of RAs, they were not required to produce an RA. In a Moodle-supported seminar course at an Argentinian university
(Waigandt et al., 2019), students explored a range of members of the RA genre set (Swales, 2004) (abstracts, reviews, con-
ference papers, proposals, etc.) and were required to write a text in one of these genres, although, again, they did not write a
complete RA.
The second scenario might be described as preparing course participants to write an RA in the future (rather than actually
writing an RA itself in the course). In her EAP writing course, Douglas (2015) drew insights from the course text (Swales &
Feak, 2012) and assigned writing tasks such as creating definitions, forming problem/solution pairs, commenting on data,
or describing a process, all with the aim of preparing students to write an RA. Even though a course may be specifically geared
to writing for publication, it may nevertheless be unrealistic for the participants to work on a piece of writing to be submitted
for publication. With reference to her teaching at a Chinese university, Cargill et al. (2018) cited two reasons for this: large
heterogeneous classes with students from a wide range of disciplines of diverse methodological traditions, and students
being early in their PhD programme and having no research data to write with (p. 16). Cargill designed alternative tasks with
writing components. The students were first provided with a dataset in Excel spreadsheet format. Through individual work,
they then considered “What research question could you answer using these data?” and the answer would be the basis of a
Take Home Message (THM), the starting point of drafting an article (p. 19). Next, based on their research question and the
dataset, the assignment of creating a Table or Figure with a caption and a short commentary was given. Similarly, in a case
study of two novice Chinese EAP teachers' classroom instruction, Li et al. (2020) reported on one teacher using a proxy writing
task with her first-year doctoral medical students: that they should decide in groups on a topic of interest (for instance, one
group chose the topic “medical students’ motivations for pursuing a doctorate”) and design a questionnaire to conduct a
survey; then the groups should use the data to write up the main sections of a short research paper over the weeks as the
IMRaD sections were taught in class.
In a third scenario, the course participants may be expected to already have a draft of an RA upon enrolling in the writing
programme, a draft they would revise during the course. Nevertheless, the extent to which such an initial requirement may be
met by the participants is likely to vary. Goryanova et al.’s (2015) 92-h course at a Russian polytechnic university had one
obligatory criterion for the course participants: “having a first draft, either in Russian or in English, of a future scientific RA or
part of it” (p. 6298). In another case, in the early iterations of an ERPP programme for Mexican researchers, although the
participants were asked to bring a completed manuscript to class for improvement during the course, many (especially some
doctoral students with lower English proficiency) failed to do so (Corcoran, 2017; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4).
Hence the requirement was changed to aiming to achieve major progress on manuscript development during the course and
additional supervised class writing/editing time was added to give hands-on support.
In a final scenario, in a good number of courses/workshops featured in our focal literature, course participants are expected
to use their own data and make progress on an RA by sections over the duration of the intervention programme, without
necessarily already having a draft upon enrolment (Aranha, 2009; Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019 [for a course being planned]; Burgess
& Cargill, 2013; Corcoran, 2017; Cargill & O'Connor, 2006; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4; Huang, 2017; Matarese,
2013; Smirnova, 2016). This scenario was depicted by Cargill and O'Connor (2006) as follows: “Participants bring with
them a complete set of results ready to write as a paper, or an early draft manuscript, and are expected to write or revise their
own manuscript as part of the workshop process” (p. 209).
Which of the four scenarios outlined above may be adopted in an ERPP intervention programme may depend on many
factors, including the purpose of and time available for the programme, and the participants’ level of preparedness. With
regard to the latter factor, apart from whether the participants have research data or not, their English proficiency would
make a difference, as already indicated above (Aranha, 2009; Corcoran, 2017; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4). In a
number of reports in our focal literature which mentioned participants achieving publication after attending an ERPP pro-
gramme, it seems (perhaps unsurprisingly) that such participants typically had relatively high English proficiency (Burgess &
Cargill, 2013; Goryanova et al., 2015; Smirnova, 2016).

3.5. Instructor and peer feedback

Availability of teacher feedback, both during class writing time and on written assignments, is a noticeable feature of the
pedagogical programmes that included writing tasks. In Aranha's (2009) class with dentistry students, after an assessment of
the students' linguistic readiness to write, students were given writing assignments from Week 3 onwards. Initial definition of
the field of study was followed by the writing of Methods, Results, Abstract, and finally Introduction (Discussion/Conclusion is
not mentioned). Relevant instruction prepared the students to write the individual sections and the students' texts were
discussed in class and through individual consultations with the instructor. Students were also given time to revise their
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 35

sections. With a background in biomedicine, Matarese (2013) had the advantage of being able to give feedback on scientific
content as well as on language/discourse. In her 7-day “Effective Biomedical Reading and Writing” course, she asked her
Italian doctoral students to use their own research data to draft a brief research paper section by section. She then gave
feedback on “scientific content, organization and logic rather than grammar” on the drafts (p. 81). Of course, most ERPP
instructors probably do not have the advantage of having content knowledge of their students' discipline, especially if a class
contains participants from various disciplines. Ferguson's (1997) emphasis upon the desirability of EAP practitioners to be
knowledgeable about the discourse of the students' discipline rather than the disciplinary content (“specialised knowledge”
as opposed to “specialist knowledge”) is relevant here. Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged that EAP teachers' lack of
specialist/content knowledge can interfere with their attempts to provide meaningful feedback on students' writing. For
example, Cargill et al. (2018) mentioned that her language teacher colleagues at a Chinese university (where a collaborative
action research study on teaching ERPP was implemented) reported having difficulty marking science students' drafts of
discipline-specific article introduction sections, due to their own lack of content knowledge.
Related to instructor feedback is proofreading support, available in two Russian programmes (Goryanova et al., 2015;
Smirnova, 2016). In the former programme (Goryanova et al., 2015), apart from local instructors, the teaching team
included a native-English-speaker instructor who proofread the participants’ manuscript drafts between Part 1 and Part 2 of
the course and at the end of the course (in addition to peer correction, to be noted below). Similarly, in the latter programme
(Smirnova, 2016), the teaching team comprised two full-time local ESOL instructors and also two part-time native-speaker
proofreaders who did both online consultation with the individual participants during the course and proofreading of their
manuscripts toward the end of the course.
Apart from instructor feedback, peer feedback is also emphasised in our focal literature. When relating implementations of
peer feedback, a number of publications make reference to the notion of ‘community’, as embodied in the theoretical un-
derpinnings of the featured pedagogical interventions (Aranha, 2009; Leydens & Olds, 2007; Messekher & Miliani, 2019). The
inclusion of “an extensive feedback component” in Smirnova's (2016) across-campus online course for staff and students of
varied disciplines in social sciences was likewise theoretically informed, being in line with “the SRL [self-regulated learning]
component of reflection on performance [emphasis in the original]” (p. 75). The teachers' and peers' feedback facilitated both
the learning motivation and the implementation of SRL strategies for the participants (p. 75). In a different setting, in
Waigandt et al.’s (2019) online seminar for graduate students at an Argentinian university, peer assessment and peer
collaboration were key components in the final assessment. In other cases, Douglas's (2015) students conducted peer review
of their writing assignments based on the criterion of “core components” that should be included in a specific short writing
task. Goryanova et al.’s (2015) course fruitfully incorporated peer correction and “collaborative proofreading” (p. 6301) in
helping the participants prepare drafts ready for submission.

3.6. Language focus

There is wide acknowledgement in our focal literature (and, of course, more widely, as indicated in our introduction) that
EAL authors face considerable linguistic obstacles in trying to publish in English (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Bazerman et al., 2012;
Corcoran, 2017; Flowerdew & Wang, 2017; Li et al., 2020; Matarese, 2013; Waigandt et al., 2019). As Bazerman et al. (2012)
point out, with the primacy of international communication in scientific inquiry, “full participation is dependent on the ability
to read and write scientific English with a nuanced understanding of the language of the specialty” (p. 236). EAL scientists
who lack opportunities to develop this ability are thus “caught in a bind” (p. 235). This observation is echoed even in cases
where publication is not necessarily a graduation requirement for novice researchers but there is a drive toward fuller
participation (Swales & Luebs, 2002). It can further be seen that irrespective of the overall English proficiency levels of the
participants, a focus on language is a norm in our reviewed interventions. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that the
programme participants seem to be either dominated by EAL writers or at least include EAL writers. It is nevertheless worth
noting that four articles in our focal literature either noted or implied that English-L1 speakers, apart from EAL users, were
also participants in the ERPP programmes featured (Cameron et al., 2009; Cargill, 2004; Feak & Swales, 2010; Paltridge, 2018).
In view of the calls for ERPP training for English-L1 students (e.g., Habibie, 2019; Hyland, 2015, p. 186), there seems to be room
for development in this connection in the future.
Where details of the type of language teaching are specified in the objectives and the methodology, it can be described in
most cases as an ESP/EAP, genre-based approach.1 The instruction may be more or less discipline-specific, depending on the
make-up of the targeted participant group. The titles of many of the publications are indicative of the level of specificity. For
example, the title of Leydens and Olds's (2007) article is “Publishing in scientific and engineering contexts”, that of Cameron
et al. (2009) is “Scientific writing training for academic physicians”, that of Douglas (2015) “Developing an English for Aca-
demic Purposes course for L2 graduate students in the sciences”, and that of Feak and Swales (2010) is “Writing for publication:
Corpus-informed materials for postdoctoral fellows in perinatology” (emphasis added in all cases). This last title, it may also be
pointed out, indicates the most specifically targeted contribution among all of the focal texts in this review.

1
By ESP/EAP approach we mean that the language instruction is focussed on the specialised language of the RA (i.e., it is not “General English”). By genre-
based approach (Cheng, 2018; Swales, 1990), we mean that the instruction seeks to reflexively link lexico-grammatical choice and rhetorical purpose, the
latter focussing on the IMRaD part-genres and the rhetorical moves that make up those part-genres (Swales, 1990).
36 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

Informed by both ESP and Australian genre pedagogy, Margaret Cargill's extensive teaching in varied contexts over time
has consistently incorporated ways to develop EAL participants' sentence-level linguistic strategies for expressing (context
appropriate) meanings. Above all, in line with genre pedagogies, in Cargill's classes, lexico-grammatical features are taught in
relation to their functions in the RA genre. For example, in one of her papers (Cargill et al., 2018), she describes how she taught
the following linguistic features:

 rhetorical moves and linguistic realisations of RA sections

 citation forms (e.g., author-prominent vs. information-prominent)
 first-person vs. impersonal usage
 verbs tenses and tense shifts
 information structure (given and new)

Furthermore, she demonstrated to participants how to derive sentence templates from published texts, and how to create
a corpus of RAs and exploit it with the aid of a concordancing tool. In contrast, some other writers put less emphasis on lexico-
grammar. For example, Burgess et al. (2019) referred to their course as follows:
. our course involved little or no “language work” at the sentence level in the actual sessions, although we did offer
written feedback on the two short pieces of written work the students submitted. (p. 137)
When one looks at the activities described for the course presented in their Table 1, however, these include such tasks as
analysis of the structure of various research genres and the schematic structure of the RA, discussion on the use of on-line
tools to check grammar and spelling, an introduction to the Manchester Academic Phrase Bank (Morley, 2014), and an
introduction to lexical bundles and concordancing (Burgess et al., 2019, pp. 134–135). Such activities, while not sentence-level
“language work”, do involve close attention to language and how to use various tools to improve one's language. The
emphasis is perhaps more on helping participants to become more self-sufficient in developing their linguistic competence
rather than teaching them particular language features.
Other than teaching language in ways informed by genre pedagogy, some other reports in our focal literature are not clear
as to the extent to which the teaching of language was aligned with a genre-based approach, despite the coverage of an IMRaD
structure (Cameron et al., 2009; Englander & Corcoran, 2019 Chapter 4; Smirnova, 2016). In Cameron et al.’s (2009) writing
workshops for medical specialists, for example, the participants practised writing Introductions, Methods, Results, Discus-
sions, Conclusions, Abstracts and Titles, based on “templates that list content and organization principles” for each (p. 507),
but the methodology employed is not described.

3.7. Challenging issues

Our focal literature demonstrated that ERPP instructors employed various pedagogical strategies in addressing potential
challenges. Diversity among the participants, in terms of disciplines, genres with which they needed assistance, experience in
international research collaboration, etc., is one such challenge, having the potential to pose various problems. In tackling the
issue of diversity in the participants’ disciplines, our focal literature reveals that one productive starting point for language
instructors is their positive attitude toward it, in recognising that the diversity can be taken advantage of (Cadman, 2017;
Cameron et al., 2009; Douglas, 2015; Goryanova et al., 2015; Leydens & Olds, 2007; Muresan & Bardi, 2013). For instance,
for Leydens and Olds (2007), interaction and peer reviewing of drafts among the students of diverse disciplinary backgrounds
led to “an expanded understanding of the research process and discourse community differences and similarities” (p. 48)
among the students; and in a research writing course described by Muresan and Bardi (2013), “classroom encounters [were]
organized as discussion forums where all participants learn from each other” (pp. 26–27).
Teachers' lack of content knowledge in course participants' disciplines is another challenge, as mentioned above. The
challenge may be tackled by involving content specialists in the instructional process, or introducing partnerships between
language and content specialists, a procedure adopted in some cases (Cameron et al., 2009; Cargill et al., 2018; Cargill &
O'Connor, 2006; Corcoran, 2017; Leydens & Olds, 2007; Waigandt et al., 2019). In providing feedback on course partici-
pants' manuscript drafts in class, receiving complementary feedback from both language and content teachers would be
advantageous for participants. In Cargill's teaching, which sometimes involved team-teaching with a content scientist, the
feedback provided during the class time proceeded as follows:
The presenters [a language specialist and a content teacher] are available to discuss individual questions as they arise,
from either the language or content perspective as requireddand their soliciting of the other presenter's expertise in
responding to queries effectively models the interrelatedness of content and language. (Cargill et al., 2018, p. 16)
In addition to strategies associated with addressing participant diversity and creating discipline-specificity, our focal
literature indicated that the language teachers may address the problem of limited instruction time by seeking to foster
autonomy among course participants and thereby add value to their instruction. The analytic approach of genre analysis,
which the participants can apply to analysing the RAs in their own fields, together with a class corpus of RAs which they can
use to assist in their writing, is believed to promote their autonomy in the long run (Burgess & Cargill, 2013; Cargill &
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 37

O'Connor, 2006; Feak & Swales, 2010). Furthermore, there was an emphasis on helping the participants to gain control of the
process of producing an article through planning, setting achievable targets, self-monitoring, and proactively seeking and
engaging with peer feedback as a crucial means to develop their learning autonomy in the long run (Bazerman et al., 2012;
León Pérez & Martín-Martín, 2016).

3.8. Specialised and specialist knowledge

Some ERPP teachers may have a background in an S&T or HSS discipline themselves and may use this to give them face
validity in the eyes of the participants in their courses. Even when they lack such a background, ERPP teachers are generally
able to present themselves as an expert in the research discipline of applied linguistics who is skilled in discourse analysis.
Ideally, they should also have insider knowledge of the publication process. In our focal literature, there are indications that
ERPP instructors may draw upon their own reading/writing/publishing experience as researchers, and even experience as
manuscript reviewers or journal editors in their teaching (Cadman, 2017; Janssen & Restrepo, 2019; Li et al., 2018; Li et al.,
2020; Matarese, 2013; Nunn & Deveci, 2019; Paltridge, 2018). Some of these cases are to be found in differing scenarios, as
illustrated below.
Swales and Luebs (2002) were committed to raising their social psychology students’ rhetorical consciousness. Toward the
end of their course when students were asked to produce a conference poster based on their own research, the instructors
created a poster as well, based on a genre analysis of a set of social psychology RAs. They commented with a tinge of humour:
Given the limited time available, our poster seemed to cover a surprising amount of ground, and to display some useful
linguistic observations, often supported by quantitative data. This last, of course, we had emphasized in order to
convince the psychology participants and their advisors that we too were capable of solid empirical work! (p. 146)
In Burgess et al.’s (2019) humanities doctoral writing course, the instructors linked the discussion of the issue of language
choice in publication with their own research on professional researchers, sharing with students their research methods and
findings, thus seeking “to present ourselves as both language and research professionals, challenging the notion these two
activities should be regarded as discrete” (p. 136). Compared with Swales and Luebs's (2002) somewhat playful intention,
Burgess et al. (2019) seem to exemplify a more serious commitment to a self-projection “as both language and research
professionals”. This construction of dual identity is also in evidence in our own study of an experienced ERPP specialist's (i.e.,
Margaret Cargill's) classroom discourse (Li et al., 2018).
In the next scenario, an ERPP instructor brought in relevant content expertise or specialist knowledge. As related earlier, as
a language professional with a training background in biomedicine, Matarese (2013) was able to focus on “scientific content,
organization and logic rather than grammar” when giving feedback to her biomedical students’ texts (p. 81).
In another scenario, an ERPP instructor brought in expertise in research methodology relevant for the course participants'
research. This was seen in Li et al.’s (2020) report on two Chinese EAP teachers' instruction: one teacher with a PhD in
psycholinguistics drew upon her knowledge of research design and research writing when giving feedback on medical
doctoral students' texts (short research papers on topics of general interest to medical students, using data gathered by
student groups through questionnaire, as explained earlier); while the other teacher with a PhD in neurolinguistics drew
upon his own international publication experience when teaching research writing to doctoral students in electronic science
and technology.
A unique (and admittedly, atypical) case where an ERPP instructor took on the role of a research methodology teacher is
recounted by Cadman (2017). Several direct quotations from her narrative may illustrate how she defined her role in the ERPP
class:
My own role in this is [.] to question, clarify and facilitate each learner's understanding of their own theoretical
framework, or lack of it. (p. 42)
Without any attempt to influence a writer's own choice or construction of theoretical approach, I feel it is my business
in ERPP to demonstrate the role that theory plays in a globally successful social study. (p. 42)
My teaching goal is primarily to enhance participants' control over their own writing in direct relation to the ‘meth-
odology’ that they aim to use. (p. 42)
Cadman (2017) had a critical-pragmatic intention of creating “a dialogic classroom environment” (p. 46). In deconstructing
the ontological and epistemological dimensions of Anglophone social science with students, her purpose was “not to imprint
or demand adherence to its assumptions and its logic, but rather to learn more about how mutually acceptable social research
may be conceptualised and practically carried out in [their] learner-researchers’ own contexts” (p. 46). Nevertheless, the
critical-pragmatic intention aside, whether an ERPP teacher who teaches social science students should be positioning their
role as Cadman (2017) did in her class raises some challenging questions. In such cases, there is a difficult (fuzzy) line to be
drawn between content teacher and language teacher; content teachers may be resentful of language professionals usurping
their role and there is a danger of language teachers, notable exceptions such as Matarese and Cadman notwithstanding,
attempting to teach beyond their level of expertise. Furthermore, not all ERPP teachers can be expected to possess expertise in
their students' disciplines. Even where ERPP teachers are embedded in content faculties or departments and therefore may be
able to familiarise themselves better with the relevant content (as opposed to being assigned to a central university language
38 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

centre), they are unlikely to achieve the same content expertise as their content teacher counterparts. Ferguson's (1997)
distinction between specialised and specialist knowledge is again relevant here. The former role, as demonstrated by
Swales and Luebs (2002) and Burgess et al. (2019), we would argue, is valid; the latter may be desirable, but cannot be ex-
pected in all cases and may give rise to some challenging issues.

4. Discussion and conclusion

Based on our purposefully designed criteria for inclusion and exclusion, this study has identified 31 articles describing
ERPP instructional programmes led by language teachers (as shown in Table 1 earlier, with details in the Supplementary
Material). These contributions are spread across a wide range of geographical locations, with outputs increasing in fre-
quency over time, suggesting a growing provision (and demand) for ERPP instruction worldwide. Most of the texts included in
this review have appeared in edited collections (as opposed to international journals). Such publications are likely to be less
accessible to the general readership and there is perhaps less prestige attaching to chapters than to journal articles. But then
again, practitioner-oriented studies are not always as highly valued in research terms as are empirical studies and are less
welcomed by research-oriented academic journals. This is unfortunate, especially in practice-oriented fields such as applied
linguistics and language teaching.
Treating our corpus of articles as documentary data, our content analysis allowed us to derive seven organisational cat-
egories of meaning, providing the headings under which our findings have been presented (also reflecting our codebook
shown in Appendix 1). To reiterate, these categories are as follows: rationales and local contexts; theoretical underpinnings
and pedagogical approaches; writing tasks; instructor and peer feedback; language focus; challenging issues; and specialised
and specialist knowledge. Detailed coding enabled us to derive patterns and strands of meaning within each of these cate-
gories and allowed us to create an overview of the contexts and motivations for ERPP instruction, the theoretical issues in
question, the relevant approaches and methods adopted, and the salient issues and problems at stake in designing such
initiatives.
While we have been able to highlight a range of practices that are worthy of being considered for imitation and a
considerable degree of commonality among the reviewed reports, we may highlight a number of features of ERPP pedagogy
that we might have expected to be given more attention. Of course, each of the programmes described was working with time
constraints and other contextual factors (plus the papers could not have covered everything that was actually part of the
instructional programmes), so these comments should not be taken as critical of any of the individual interventions.
Nevertheless, firstly, although there is much interest regarding what Kwan (2010) refers to as “discursive” practices (we refer
to this above as language focus or language work), with the exception of critical-pragmatism, there is less to be found on what
Kwan refers to as “non-discursive” practices, e.g., publishing ethics (including plagiarism); how to select appropriate venues
for publication (including discussion of impact factors and predatory journals); how to deal with gatekeepers (reviewers and
editors); how to work with language brokers of various kinds, an important feature of real-world EAL writing for publication
(Lillis & Curry, 2010) (including the issue of ethics in working with editing services); how to work in writing teams (most
journal articles are authored by teams rather than individuals, especially in the S&T disciplines); how to make use of on-line
resources (although this was referred to in a number of reports); and how to ensure maximum impact for an article following
successful publication. Secondly, we briefly referred to the issue of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as a possible target for
discussion in a critical-pragmatic approach. We might have expected this topic to be touched upon as an issue in our reviewed
reports. What is an appropriate target for EAL writers (and hence the participants in ERPP courses)? Should it be “Standard
English”, as required by many journals, or should ELF forms be acceptable, given that many journals are now publishing
articles in what can be described as “non-standard” English or ELF (Hynninen & Kuteeva, 2017; Rozycki & Johnson, 2013)?
Finally, our focal literature has little to say about what training, if any, the ERPP instructors have received (although Li et al.
[2020] endeavoured to describe the relevant training received by the two focal EAP teachers). Our sense is that such prep-
aration is typically informal, but consideration of what is needed to be a successful ERPP teacher would be valuable.
In our introduction, we highlighted the growing awareness of the challenges facing EAL scholarly writers and the
increasing numbers of reports on ERPP pedagogic interventions over time. However, the fact that we have only been able to
locate 31 articles which met our inclusion criteria (while bearing in mind our exclusion criteria) suggests that the provision of
ERPP courses is perhaps still underdeveloped, especially as compared to, say, courses on undergraduate academic writing.
There would appear to be a number of possible reasons for such a still rather limited offering of ERPP courses and hence
reports on them:

 There may be on the part of university administrators a lack of awareness of a) the need for such provision and b) the
potential of language teachers to fulfil this need.
 There may be a sense of “I managed to learn to write for publication without any specialist help, so why can't other
people?” among content teachers and heads of department. This may be an attitude many EAP specialists may have
encountered in their process of seeking to develop ERPP courses.
 There may be unwillingness or a lack of available funding for such provision, as ERPP is not considered a part of the
normal curriculum.
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 39

 The high level of expertise required on the part of ERPP instructors, as shown in our findings reported above, may make
it difficult to design and teach such courses.
 EAP teachers may be reluctant to take on such a difficult teaching role given the specialised skills required, as described
in this review.
 Related to the above point, there is likely a lack of opportunity for training for such teaching, even if teachers want to
take it on. Indeed, in our literature search, we have not encountered any published reports of ERPP teacher education
courses (although Li & Cargill, 2019a, not in the focal literature covered in the present paper, have described a pro-
fessional development programme for emerging Chinese ERPP teachers).
 There may be a certain stigma (Flowerdew, 2008) attached to the idea of content specialists needing to improve their
English and individuals may be put off from registering for such courses.
 Content specialists or supervisors may lack understanding of their students' difficulties in research writing and need for
instructional support (Li & Cargill, 2019b). The discipline teachers thus may not be supportive of such instruction or may
be unwilling to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration with language teachers to develop such instruction.

These are all areas which university language centres, English departments, staff development centres, and individual
teachers may seek to remediate through outreach and awareness-raising within their individual universities.
In conclusion, we can quote from the flyer for the new JERPP journal https://benjamins.com/catalog/jerpp. It refers to ERPP
as a “fast-expanding field” and states that coverage will be given to “international ERPP initiatives and programs”. It is to be
hoped that this new journal, along with other existing ESP/EAP-related journals, will provide a venue for further reports on
ERPP. As hopefully demonstrated in this review, such reports provide a useful repository of expertise for ERPP practitioners,
be they curriculum planners, course designers, or individual instructors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Nigel Harwood for their constructive feedback on an earlier
version of this paper.

Appendix 1 and Supplementary Material

These can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002.

References

Aranha, S. (2009). The development of a genre-based writing course for graduate students in two fields. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.),
Genre in a changing world (pp. 465-482). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse.
Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2019). Supporting Nordic scholars who write in English for research publication purposes. In J. N. Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M.
Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting international scholars (pp. 77-90). New York &
London: Routledge.
Baldauf, R. B., & Jernudd, B. H. (1983). Language of publications as a variable in scientific communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 97-108.
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: Sage.
Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Encinas-Predencio, F. (2012). Facilitating immersion at a distance in second language scientific writing. In M. Castelló, & C.
Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 235-248). Bingley: Emerald.
Burgess, S., & Cargill, M. (2013). Using genre analysis and corpus linguistics to teach research article writing. In V. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing:
Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp. 55-71). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Burgess, S., Martín, P., & Balasanyan, D. (2019). English or Spanish for research publication purposes? Reflections on a critical pragmatic pedagogy. In J. N.
Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M. Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting international scholars
(pp. 128-140). New York & London: Routledge.
Cadman, K. (2017). Introducing research rigour in the social sciences: Transcultural strategies for teaching ERPP writing, research design, and resistance to
epistemic erasure. In M. Cargill, & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research in english as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp. 33-54).
Adelaide, South Australia: The University of Adelaide Press.
Cameron, C., Deming, S. P., Notzon, B., Cantor, S. B., Broglio, K. R., & Pagel, W. (2009). Scientific writing training for academic physicians of diverse language
backgrounds. Academic Medicine, 84(4), 505-510.
Cargill, M. (2004). Transferable skills within research degrees: A collaborative genre-based approach to developing publication skills and its implications for
research education. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 83-98.
Cargill, M., & Burgess, S. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: English for research publication purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 75-
76.
Cargill, M., & Burgess, S. (Eds.). (2017). Publishing research in english as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials. Adelaide, South Australia:
University of Adelaide Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/publishing-research-in-english-as-an-additional-language/
D5AC383AE6BE6B3517A4CFBB179A7535.
Cargill, M., Gao, X., Wang, X., & O'Connor, P. (2018). Preparing Chinese graduate students of science facing an international publication requirement for
graduation: Adapting an intensive workshop approach for early-candidature use. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 13-26.
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.
Castelló, M., Iñesta, A., & Corcelles, M. (2013). Learning to write a research article: Ph.D. Students' transitions toward disciplinary writing regulation.
Research in the Teaching of English, 47(4), 442-477.
Chen, M., & Flowerdew, J. (2018). A critical review of research and practice in data-driven learning (DDL) in the academic writing classroom. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(3), 335-369.
Cheng, A. (2015). Genre analysis as a pre-instructional, instructional, and teacher development framework. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 125-
136.
40 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41

Cheng, A. (2018). Genre and graduate-level research writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). How a genre approach to literacy can transform the way literacy is taught. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of
literacy: A genre approach to the teaching of writing (pp. 1-21). London: Falmer Press.
Corcoran, J. (2017). The potential and limitations of an intensive English for research publication purposes course for Mexican scholars. In M. J. Curry, & T.
Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 233-248) (pp. 233-248). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Corcoran, J., & Englander, K. (2016). A proposal for critical-pragmatic pedagogical approaches to English for Research Publication Purposes. Publications, 4(6),
1-10. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4010006.
Corcoran, J. N., Englander, K., & Muresan, L.-M. (Eds.). (2019). Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting inter-
national scholars. New York & London: Routledge.
Cummins, J. (1998). Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramírez report in theoretical perspective. In I. A. Heath, & C. J. Serrano (Eds.), Annual
editions: Teaching English as a second language 98/99 (pp. 231-236). Guildford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (Eds.). (2017). Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Douglas, J. (2015). Developing an English for Academic Purposes course for L2 graduate students in the sciences. Across the Disciplines, 12(3). Retrieved from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/graduate_wac/douglas2015.cfm.
Englander, K., & Corcoran, J. N. (2019). English for research publication purposes: Critical plurilingual pedagogies. London & New York: Routledge.
Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. (2010). Writing for publication: Corpus-informed materials for postdoctoral fellows in perinatology. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English
language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 279-300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, G. (1997). Teacher education and LSP: The role of specialized knowledge. In R. Howard, & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for languages for
specific purposes (pp. 80-89). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ferreira, M. M. (2016). Challenges for Brazilian post/graduate students in the academy: Insights for future pedagogical interventions. In C. Badenhorst, & C.
Guerin (Eds.), Research literacies and writing pedagogies for Masters and doctoral writers (pp. 93-110). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145.
Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2007). The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication. AILA Review, 20, 14-27.
Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman's “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 7(2), 77-86.
Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2017). Teaching English for research publication purposes with a focus on genre, register, textual mentors and language re-use:
A case study. In J. Flowerdew, & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice (pp. 144-161). London: Routledge.
Gibbs, W. (1995). Trends in scientific communication: Lost science in the third world (pp. 76-83). Scientific American. August.
Giraldo, F. (2019). An English for research publication purposes course: Gains, challenges, and perceptions. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, (18),
198-220.
Goryanova, L., Sinclair, C., & Slesarenko, I. (2015). "Writing for publication" language enhancement course as an instrument of developing scientific writing
skills of university faculty and staff. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martínez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), INTED2015 Proceedings 9th International Technology, Education and
Development Conference (pp. 6297-6302). Valenica, Spain: IATED Academy.
Habibie, P. (2019). To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In P. Habibie, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Authors, mentors, gatekeepers: Novice writers and
scholarly publication. London: Palgrave.
Harwood, N., & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific
Purposes, 23(4), 355-377.
Huang, J. C. (2014). Learning to write for publication in English through genre-based pedagogy: A case in Taiwan. System, 45, 175-186.
Huang, J. C. (2017). Teaching writing for publication in English to engineering students: Implications from a collaborative course in Taiwan. In M. J. Curry, &
T. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 217-232). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford university Press.
Hynninen, N., & Kuteeva, M. (2017). “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 30, 53-65.
Janssen, G., & Restrepo, S. (2019). A utilization-focused program evaluation of an ERPP tutoring service at one Colombian university. In J. N. Corcoran, K.
Englander, & L.-M. Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in english: Local initiatives supporting international scholars (pp. 19-35).
New York & London: Routledge.
Kempenaar, L., & Murray, R. (2018). Analysis of writing programmes for academics: Application of a transactional and systems approach. Studies in Higher
Education, 43(12), 2371-2384.
Kuteeva, M., & Negretti, R. (2016). Graduate students' genre knowledge and perceived disciplinary practices: Creating a research space across disciplines.
English for Specific Purposes, 41, 36-49.
Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59(1), 55-
68.
Lappalainen, P. H. (2016). Pedagogical design promoting writing productivity on the doctoral levelda case study from Finland. Journal of Academic Writing,
6(1), 108-121.
León Pérez, I. K., & Martín-Martín, P. (2016). On the importance of a genre-based approach in the teaching of English for Medical Purposes. CercleS, 6(1), 95-
117.
Leydens, J. A., & Olds, B. M. (2007). Publishing in scientific and engineering contexts: A course for graduate students tutorial. IEEE Transactions on Pro-
fessional Communication, 50(1), 45-56.
Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student of physics writing for international publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 456-
478.
Li, Y., & Cargill, M. (2019a). Observing and reflecting in an English for Research Publication Purposes “master class”: Learning and thinking about application.
In J. N. Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M. Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies on publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting international
scholars (pp. 143-160). New York & London: Routledge.
Li, Y., & Cargill, M. (2019b). Seeking supervisor collaboration in a school of sciences at a Chinese university. In K. Hyland, & L. Wong (Eds.), Specialised English:
New directions in ESP and EAP research and practice (pp. 240-252). New York, NY: Routledge.
Li, Y., Flowerdew, J., & Cargill, M. (2018). Teaching English for research publication purposes to science students in China: A case study of an experienced
teacher in the classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 116-129.
Li, Y., Ma, X., Zhao, J., & Hu, J. (2020). Graduate-level research writing instruction: Two Chinese EAP teachers' localized ESP genre-based pedagogy. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100813.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
Lo, H.-Y., Liu, G.-Z., & Wang, T.-I. (2014). Learning how to write effectively for academic journals: A case study investigating the design and development of a
genre-based writing tutorial system. Computers & Education, 78, 250-267.
Matarese, V. (2013). Using strategic, critical reading of research papers to teach scientific writing: The reading-research-writing continuum. In V. Matarese
(Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp. 73-89). Cambridge, UK: Chandos.
McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher
Education Research and Development, 25(1), 19-35.
 Y. Li, J. Flowerdew / English for Specific Purposes 59 (2020) 29–41 41

Messekher, H., & Miliani, M. (2019). Teaching the craft: From thesis writing to writing research for publication. In J. N. Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M.
Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting international scholars (pp. 195-214). New York &
London: Routledge.
Morley, J. (2014). Academic phrasebank. University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://phrasebank.man.ac.uk/.
Muegge, U. (Nov 2013). Implementing a controlled language is now cheaper and easier than ever!. Retrieved from http://www.tcworld.info/rss/article/
implementing-a-controlled-language-is-now-cheaper-and-easier-than-ever/.
Muresan, L.-M., & Bardi, M. (2013). A genre-based approach to teaching research writing in a Romanian EAP context. Diversité et Identité Culturelle en Europe,
10(2), 25-38.
Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 40, 12-31.
Nunn, G., & Deveci, T. (2019). In J. N. Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M. Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives
supporting international scholars (pp. 266-283). New York & London: Routledge.
Paltridge, B. (2018). Writing for publication. In L. Woodrow (Ed.), Introducing course design in English for specific purposes (pp. 228-233). New York & London:
Routledge.
Rozycki, W., & Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in best paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157-169.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.
Sengupta, S. (2003). Developing and evaluating a Web-based resource for writing research articles. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 489-
504.
Smirnova, N. V. (2016). Writing-for-publication: Online pedagogy for post/graduate research writing. In C. Badenhorst, & C. Guerin (Eds.), Research literacies
and writing pedagogies for Masters and doctoral writers (pp. 68-92). Leiden: Brill Publishing.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Luebs, M. A. (2002). Genre analysis and the advanced second language writer. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition
(pp. 135-154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Waigandt, D., Noceti, A., & Lothringer, R. M. T. (2019). Writing for publication in English: Some institutional initiatives at the Universidad Nacional de Entre
Ríos. In J. N. Corcoran, K. Englander, & L.-M. Muresan (Eds.), Pedagogies and policies for publishing research in English: Local initiatives supporting in-
ternational scholars (pp. 56-73). New York & London: Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yongyan Li is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, China. Her research focuses on second language writing in the
disciplines, scholarly research and publication, and academic writing/publishing pedagogies. She has published in Journal of English for Academic Purposes
and Journal of Second Language Writing.

John Flowerdew is a Visiting Professor at the University of Lancaster and a Visiting Research Fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London. He has
published well over a hundred books, journal articles and book chapters. His books on English for Academic Purposes/academic discourse include Academic
Listening: Research Perspectives (Cambridge), Research Perspectives in English for Academic Purposes (with M. Peacock) (Cambridge), Academic Discourse
(Longman), Signalling Nouns in Discourse: A corpus-based discourse approach (with R.W. Forest) (Cambridge), and Discipline Specific Writing: Theory into
practice (with T. Costley) (Routledge). He is also interested in Critical Discourse Studies and has recently edited The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse
Studies (with J. Richardson).