Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Emerging scholars' socialization into scholarly publication : negotiating identities and investments… Fazel, Ismaeil 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2018_may_fazel_ismaeil.pdf [ 1.93MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0364240.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0364240-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0364240-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0364240-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0364240-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0364240-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0364240-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

EMERGING SCHOLARS’  SOCIALIZATION INTO SCHOLARLY PUBLICATION: NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES AND INVESTMENTS IN A NEOLIBERAL ERA by Ismaeil Fazel B.A., Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran, 1999  M.A., Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, 2003  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Teaching English as a Second Language)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   March 2018  © Ismaeil Fazel, 2018 ii  Abstract  Given the paramount importance of publication in academia, socialization of novice scholars into scholarly publication has received increasing scholarly attention. Extant empirical literature has tended to predominantly focus on impediments facing English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students (e.g., Ho, 2017; Li, 2007; Lillis & Curry, 2010) in getting published, although recent research has also attended to issues encountered by Anglophone doctoral students in academic publication (Habibie, 2016). However, there is a paucity of longitudinal research that compares the publication processes and practices of EAL and Anglophone doctoral students. Moreover, little research thus far has compared the perspectives and practices of novices vis-à-vis established scholars in writing for publication.  In this 16-month, multiple-case study on four –  two Anglophone and two EAL – doctoral students in language education at a Canadian university, questionnaires, multiple semi-structured interviews, submission trajectories, and communications with journal editors and reviewers were used as the chief sources of data. Additionally, 27 editors and editorial boards members of well-known journals in applied linguistics and language education were interviewed to triangulate their perspectives with the experiences of the doctoral students in the study. The data were subject to iterative thematic analysis, and interpreted in light of the theoretical constructs of academic discourse socialization (Duff, 2010), and identity and investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015). Findings indicate that learning how to academically write a paper – i.e., discursive and generic dimensions of writing for publication (e.g., Habibie, 2016; Huang, 2010; Li, 2007) –  is arguably important yet not sufficient in getting published. Perhaps more importantly, the findings suggest that navigating today’s increasingly digitized terrain of academic publication demands socialization into a set of strategic competencies and tactical sensibilities, including the sensibility of knowing where (and where not) to publish and learning how to navigate and negotiate the process of academic publishing and its inherent complexities.    iii  Lay Summary   In this 16-month study, I explored how two Anglophone and two English as an Additional Language (EAL) doctoral students at a Canadian university attempted to publish academically.  I was particularly seeking to develop a better understanding of the challenges they faced and the strategies they used in the process of trying to get published. In addition, I interviewed 27 journal editors to seek their perspectives on the main challenges facing doctoral students (as beginning scholars) in trying to get published in academic journals. The findings show that, in addition to learning how to write academically, doctoral students (as novice scholars) need to learn how to navigate the process of writing for publication, including learning how to communicate and negotiate with journal reviewers and editors. iv  Preface  This dissertation, in its entirety, is the original, unpublished, and independent work of the author, Ismaeil Fazel. The research was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (UBC BREB Number: H12-01596) under the original project title: Socialization into Academic Publication: Emerging scholars seeking publication in a neoliberal world.  v  Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ...........................................................................................................................iii Preface ...................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xiii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xiv Dedication................................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background to the study .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Terminological clarifications ....................................................................................... 5 1.4 Dissertation organization and overview of the contents ................................................ 6 Chapter 2: Socialization into scholarly publication in a neoliberal era: A conceptual framework ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Introduction: My view of writing for scholarly publication purposes ........................... 8 2.2 Academic discourse socialization ................................................................................ 9 2.3 Socialization of novices into academic publication .................................................... 11 2.4 Neoliberalism and capitalization of scholarly publication .......................................... 12 2.4.1 Central tenets and precepts of neoliberalism ....................................................... 13 2.4.2 Bringing metrics into the academic world: Neoliberalism in academe ................ 14 2.5 Bourdieu’s forms of capital and scholarly publications .............................................. 15 vi  2.6 Identity and investment .............................................................................................. 18 2.6.1 Investment: Negotiation of desires and capital ................................................... 19 2.6.2 New model of investment and scholarly publication........................................... 21 Prevailing ideologies in the realm of scholarly publication ............................. 24 Writing for scholarly publication: A site of identity construction .................... 25 Developing a sens pratique in scholarly publication ....................................... 26 2.7 Conclusion and summary ........................................................................................... 29 Chapter 3: Mapping the territory of academic publication .................................................. 31 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Research on faculty and scholars’ writing for publication .......................................... 32 3.3 Research on doctoral students’ writing for publication ............................................... 36 3.4 Research reflecting journal editors’ perspectives ........................................................ 42 3.5 Research on peer review in scholarly publication ....................................................... 45 3.6 Research on non-mainstream open access journals and publishers ............................. 49 3.7 Overall synthesis and highlights of the literature ........................................................ 51 3.7.1 Chief challenges and constraints in writing for publication ................................. 52 Discursive challenges ..................................................................................... 52 Non-discursive challenges .............................................................................. 53 3.7.2 Facilitators to writing for scholarly publication .................................................. 54 3.7.3 Gaps in the extant literature on writing for scholarly publishing ......................... 55 3.8 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 4: Research methodology ......................................................................................... 58 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 58 vii  4.2 Research questions .................................................................................................... 58 4.3 Research design ......................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Context of the case study ........................................................................................... 62 4.5 Participants and their recruitment............................................................................... 62 4.5.1 Doctoral students (as emerging scholars) ........................................................... 62 4.5.2 Journal editors ................................................................................................... 64 4.6 Data collection........................................................................................................... 67 4.6.1 Questionnaires ................................................................................................... 68 4.6.2 Interview ........................................................................................................... 68 Interviews with emerging scholars (doctoral students) .................................... 69 Interviews with journal editors ....................................................................... 70 4.6.3 Other sources of data ......................................................................................... 70 Textual data ................................................................................................... 70 Researcher journal ......................................................................................... 71 Cyber data ...................................................................................................... 71 4.7 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 71 4.8 Trustworthiness of the research findings .................................................................... 73 4.8.1 Credibility.......................................................................................................... 73 4.8.2 Transferability ................................................................................................... 73 4.8.3 Dependability or reliability ................................................................................ 74 4.8.4 My own positionality ......................................................................................... 74 4.9 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 75 4.10 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................... 75 viii  Chapter 5: Emerging scholars’ writing for scholarly publication: Negotiating investment and identity.............................................................................................................................. 76 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 76 5.2 Participant profiles and their scholarly publications ................................................... 76 5.2.1 Rose................................................................................................................... 78 5.2.2 Heather .............................................................................................................. 84 5.2.3 Daisy ................................................................................................................. 87 5.2.4 Sam ................................................................................................................... 90 5.3 Catalysts in the process of publishing ........................................................................ 94 5.3.1 Conferences as socialization spaces ................................................................... 94 5.3.2 Interactions and collaborations with peers .......................................................... 95 5.3.3 Taking on reviewing and editing roles ................................................................ 97 5.3.4 Every little step counts ....................................................................................... 99 5.3.5 A little validation goes a long way ................................................................... 102 5.4 Challenges in the process of publishing ................................................................... 106 5.4.1 Critical feedback on language issues: “Non-English evident” ........................... 106 5.4.2 Confusing reviews: Positively reviewed and yet rejected? ................................ 110 5.4.3 Suspicious non-mainstream publishers ............................................................. 111 5.4.4 “I am not a robot”: Rejection without explanation ............................................ 114 5.5 Learning to persist and negotiate.............................................................................. 116 5.5.1 “I can stand up for myself”: The power to impose reception in peer review ...... 116 5.5.2 Sagas of success: Persistence rewarded ............................................................ 122 5.6 Chapter summary .................................................................................................... 126 ix  Chapter 6: Writing for Scholarly Publication: The perspective of journal editors (established scholars) ............................................................................................................ 128 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 128 6.2 Investment in scholarly publication: Intersection of passion and institutional ………...…    policies………………………………………………………………………………….129 6.3 Emerging scholars’ writing for scholarly publication: Key issues and aspects .......... 137 6.3.1 Discursive dimension of writing for publication ............................................... 137 Genre awareness .......................................................................................... 137 Academic language and literacy ................................................................... 142 6.3.2 Novelty and originality of submissions ............................................................ 147 6.3.3 Venue selection in academic publication .......................................................... 150 Critical cognizance of the politics and metrics in academic publication ........ 151 Making informed and realistic publication choices in a neoliberal era .......... 153 Ensuring submission-journal fit .................................................................... 154 Critical awareness of subpar or suspicious publication venues ...................... 156 6.3.4 Navigating peer review .................................................................................... 157 Grappling with rejections ............................................................................. 157 Navigating revise-and-resubmits .................................................................. 161 Understanding and interpreting peer review reports ...................................... 163 Coping with criticism in peer review ............................................................ 164 Negotiating with journal gatekeepers (editors and reviewers) ....................... 169 6.4 Chapter summary .................................................................................................... 172 Chapter 7: Triangulating the perspectives of emerging scholars and journal editors ....... 173 x  7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 173 7.2 Emerging versus established scholars’ investments in scholarly publication ............ 173 7.3 Writing for scholarly publication: key issues and aspects ......................................... 180 7.3.1 Discursive dimension of writing for publication ............................................... 181 Genre awareness .......................................................................................... 181 Academic language and literacy (rather than first language) ......................... 183 7.3.2 Navigating venue selection: Investment sensibility in academic publication ..... 187 Making informed and realistic publication choices in a neoliberal era .......... 188 Critical awareness of subpar or suspicious publication venues ...................... 190 7.3.3 Navigating peer review .................................................................................... 191 Rejections .................................................................................................... 192 Revise-and-resubmit scenarios ..................................................................... 194 Interpreting feedback in peer review ............................................................ 195 Coping with critical feedback in peer review ................................................ 196 Negotiation with reviewers and editors in peer review .................................. 198 7.4 Chapter summary .................................................................................................... 200 Chapter 8: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 202 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 202 8.2 Synopsis and key findings ....................................................................................... 202 8.3 Theoretical implications: Socialization into scholarly publication ............................ 203 8.3.1 Socialization agents ......................................................................................... 204 Mentors........................................................................................................ 204 Peers ............................................................................................................ 206 xi Publication gatekeepers ................................................................................ 206 8.3.2 Agency and socialization into scholarly publication ......................................... 208 8.3.3 Developing a sens pratique for scholarly publication ....................................... 209 8.4 Pedagogical implications: A model for publication preparation pedagogy ................ 212 8.4.1 Core competencies ........................................................................................... 214 Discursive competence ................................................................................. 214 Navigational competence ............................................................................. 216 8.4.2 Core sensibilities .............................................................................................. 217 Investment sensibility................................................................................... 217 Resource sensibility ..................................................................................... 218 8.5 Limitations and avenues for future research ............................................................. 218 References ............................................................................................................................. 221 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 239 Appendix A Questionnaire for the participants .................................................................... 239 Appendix B Interview guide for the participants.................................................................. 240 B.1 Sub-Appendix Interview guide for doctoral students ............................................ 240 B.2 Sub-Appendix Interview guide for the editors ...................................................... 241 Appendix C Consent forms ................................................................................................. 243  xii  List of Tables  Table 4.1 Overview of the doctoral students in the case study ................................................... 64 Table 4.2 Participants and their editorial ranks .......................................................................... 66 Table 4.3 Data collection summary ........................................................................................... 67 Table 5.1 Publication breakdown (prior to and during the study) ............................................... 77 Table 5.2 Publication breakdown (based on authorship) ............................................................ 77  xiii  List of Figures  Figure 2.1 Darvin and Norton’s (2015) investment model applied to scholarly publication........ 23 Figure 8.1 Core competencies & sensibilities to cultivate in publication preparation pedagogy 213  xiv  Acknowledgements  I would like to express my enduring and heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Ling Shi, for her unwavering support and outstanding guidance and mentorship throughout the entirety of my doctoral program. I am also deeply indebted to my supervising committee, Prof. Patsy Duff and Prof. Bonny Norton, for their insightful input and immense inspiration throughout this academic journey.    I would also like to thank Dr. Guangwei Hu, Dr. Anthony Paré, and Dr. Claudia Ruitenberg for serving as examiners and providing me with their valuable feedback. My sincere gratitude also goes to the anonymous participants for their participation in this study and to all my peers for their support and friendship, which I will always cherish.  I have also been privileged to be inspired by the many influential professors and instructors at the department of Language and Literacy Education at UBC: Dr. Lee Gunderson, Dr. Monique Bournot-Trites, Dr. Sandra Zappa-Holman, Dr. Reg D’Silva, and Dr. Ryan Deschambault.   My special thanks also go to Dr. Valia Spiliotopoulos, my supervisor at Simon Fraser University, and to Dr. Joel Heng Hartse, my colleague and friend, for their sincere support and encouragement.  xv  Dedication  I dedicate this dissertation to my parents for their unwavering, unconditional love and moral support. 1  Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background to the study Doctoral students, in the process of socialization into academia, are expected to become conversant with different written genres, one of which is writing for scholarly publication (in English). Upon graduation, one of the indicators of having been properly and adequately socialized into their discourse communities (Swales, 1990) is publishing (or having published) texts in scholarly venues valued in their academic discourse communities. Having scholarly publications is also one of the main criteria for later becoming tenured and promoted in professorial positions. In fact, writing for scholarly publication is “a high stakes game upon which hiring, promotion, and continued employment can depend” (Belcher, 2007, p. 3). Graduate students, as apprentices in academia (Belcher, 1994; Hyland, 2009), are increasingly encouraged and in fact expected to do academic activities―other than completing coursework― like presenting at conferences, and submitting papers for publication in scholarly venues, particularly if they intend to pursue the path of academia as a profession. Where once attaining a graduate—especially doctorate—degree was perhaps the sole, or the main, requirement for graduates to pursue an academic career, students now may face an uncertain future without demonstrating “additional evidence of expertise” (Cuthbert, Spark & Burke, 2009, p. 138) in their fields, through activities such as conference presentations, teaching experience and, perhaps more importantly, scholarly publications upon completion of their programs From another perspective, the climate of graduate education, especially doctoral-level education, is fast changing, mainly because of “pressures to tie the outcomes of doctoral research to the assessment of research quality and productivity” (Lee & Kamler, 2008, p. 511). Furthermore, as argued by Cuthbert and Spark (2008), the potential of graduate students in social sciences and humanities “as writers and publishers” is increasingly being recognized and emphasized, as universities recognize this “largely untapped capacity” to enhance their institutional “research profile and publication output” (p. 79). It is important to note at the outset that, in this dissertation, publications, unless otherwise indicated, refer to academic texts published in English. 2  From a different vantage point, it can be argued that academics, both novice and seasoned, invest in the scholarly practice of writing for publication to enhance their position in the scholarly community. Scholarly publications can be seen as different forms of capital in the academic (neoliberal) marketplace. As argued by Bourdieu (1977, 1991), one’s position and interrelations with others in a particular marketplace are determined by the types and amount of capital one owns as well as the distribution and the value of different kinds of capital in that market. In other words, the more valued capital one possesses, the more he or she is able to access power, make use of resources to his/her advantage and secure profits. In the same way, it can be argued that academic publications have an enhanced capital value and can bring academics further capital. Scholarly publications can primarily be considered an addition to the cultural capital of the writer and the academic community. They can also be considered symbolic capital – prestige. Moreover, by getting published, academics can expand their national and international scholarly networks (social capital), which can help them acquire further resources –capital. Adding to that, scholarly publications can play a role in promotions, employment and financial rewards – economic capital. Overall, following Norton (2000, 2013), it can be argued that academics invest in writing for publication with the understanding that their status and their capital value will be enhanced, and they will increasingly establish themselves in their disciplinary communities. Doctoral students, including those in the field of education, have many compelling reasons to want to publish. Casanave and Vandrick (2003) emphasize that it is critical for academics and professionals to publish not only to secure their job or academic position, but also “to grow professionally and intellectually, to share their ideas with peers and become better teachers through the reflective and critical processes of writing for a public readership” (p. 1). Writing for scholarly publication can help academics make sense of their teaching, their community, and themselves (Lee & Norton, 2003).  Nevertheless, notwithstanding the aforementioned benefits associated with academic publishing, it is conceivable that many academics “resist the challenge of preparing work for possible publication…thinking that only accomplished insiders can get into print” (Casanave & Vandrick, 2003, p. 1). In addition, as trying to get published in scholarly venues is often a long, difficult and tiresome process involving (at least potentially) frustrations and rejections, many 3  writers may avoid this “ego threatening” process because of “feeling intimidated” (p. 1). The situation becomes even more complicated for novice writers, as they often need to overcome more challenges, and perhaps more disappointments, than their more experienced counterparts on the way to publishing in scholarly venues. While there is no doubt that scholarly publications proffer various personal and professional benefits—forms of capital—for both academics and the academic community, some academics, despite being highly motivated, may not invest heavily in the scholarly practice of writing for scholarly publication. This may be particularly the case with novice writers in the academy, who are positioned in an ambiguous and hybrid space between (advanced) students and (typically) novice scholars, or struggling between two identities, that of a student and that of a scholar. They are generally expected to move gradually from one role or identity to the other in their graduate programs through a process of academic enculturation or socialization; this is especially the case with doctoral students.   1.2 Purpose of the study Given the paramount importance of scholarly publishing, the past few decades have witnessed a burgeoning interest in research on writing for scholarly publication. This line of inquiry was pioneered by St. John’s (1987) study on Spanish scholars attempting to publish in English. Subsequently, in the 1990s, seminal studies ensued (Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b; Gosden, 1992, 1995, 1996). After the turn of the century, research on writing for scholarly publication gained further momentum, as evidenced by further studies in this line of research – e.g., Belcher (2007); Flowerdew (2000, 2001); Li (2006a, 2006b, 2007); Lillis and Curry (2010), among others.  Notwithstanding “the fact that all newcomers feel challenged and intimidated by writing for publication”, as argued by Hyland (2009), thus far the relevant research and “attention has largely focused on the obstacles faced by non-native speaking researchers in getting into print” (p. 86). As a result, with the exception of Habibie (2016), empirical research on socialization into publication has overwhelmingly been undertaken on doctoral students using English as an Additional Language (EAL) (e.g., Cho, 2004; Cheung, 2010; Huang, 2010; Li, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). Another strand of research (e.g., Canagarajah, 2002; Curry & Lillis, 2004; Lillis & Curry, 2010) has investigated issues of geographical location and differential access to resources 4  as the key factors disadvantaging scholars living in non-Western countries. While language and access to resources play important roles, there are also important differences “between those who know the academic ropes in their chosen specialisms and those who are learning them” (Swales, 2004, p. 56). These differences that apply more broadly to both Anglophone and EAL writers have so far received little attention in research. Unlike previous studies in this vein, though, the current study included both EAL and Anglophone participants (i.e., doctoral students in a Canadian context). Also relevant here is Hyland’s (2009) comments on the need for further research on novice scholars’ writing for publication:  … this is an area where linguistic research has probably outstripped pedagogic practice. While we have a large and growing understanding of disciplinary discourses and writing practices, we are still far from understanding the specific needs of this group [novice scholars] … What is certain, however, is that this growing and important area is both professionally rewarding and urgently needed (p. 103).  This study is partly in response to the call by Hyland (2009) for further research to be directed at novice scholars to develop a better insight into their specific needs and challenges in writing for scholarly publication. Casting more light on the challenges, constraints, and catalysts to scholarly publication by novice academics can then, in turn, inform initiatives and programs geared at facilitating the socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication, which is part and parcel of being a scholar nowadays. It is also worth noting that writing for scholarly publication encompasses not only the pre-submission acts of composing and preparing a scholarly text to be published, but also a whole host of ensuing post-submission or revision processes required for a text to be published. These include grappling with editors and reviewers’ comments and responding to their feedback, which can potentially pose significant challenges for doctoral students, as novice writers.  By examining the socialization-into-publication processes and publishing trajectories of doctoral students, and by exploring their interactions and engagements with peers, mentors, and publication gatekeepers (editors and reviewers), the study can have important implications for writing-for-publication support and pedagogy. Moreover, by bringing together the different perspectives of emerging scholars (doctoral students) and publication gatekeepers (journal editors) more in-depth insights into the underpinnings of socialization into scholarly publishing 5  can be gained, which can, in turn, have potential implications for institutional policy makers, departments, supervisors, journal editors, and reviewers. Findings can also provide different stakeholders with a clearer picture of their roles and responsibilities in mediating the socialization of novices into scholarly publication, and more broadly, into academic practices.  Given the gaps in the extant relevant literature and the importance of learning how to publish, this study investigated the writing-for-publication process and practices of doctoral students (emerging scholars) in language education at a Canadian research-intensive university. Additionally, 27 editors and members of editorial boards of well-known journals in applied linguistics and language education were interviewed to triangulate their perspectives with those of the doctoral students in the study.   1.3 Terminological clarifications In this section, I will make explicit my definitions of key terms to be used throughout the dissertation.  • Publish: Throughout this dissertation, unless otherwise explicitly stated, the terms “publish” and its associated derivatives, like “publishing” and “publication” refer to scholarly and academic publishing. • Writing for publication: The terms “writing for scholarly publication”, “writing for academic publication”, and “writing for publication” will be used interchangeably in this dissertation to encompass not only preparing a scholarly text for publication, but also a whole host of ensuing—post-submission—processes and communicative events required for a text to be published including negotiating with editors and reviewers, and responding to their feedback. I should also note that I view writing, in general, and writing for scholarly publication, in particular, as a social practice (Lea & Street, 1998), not as a single and simple skill, learned once and for all—as the autonomous view of literacy (Street, 1995, 2003) would have it. If we conceptualize the phenomenon of writing for publication as a process of participation and socialization within particular discourse communities, then important issues such as investment, identity, power, access, and agency become salient in the process (Duff, 2010; Norton, 2013).  6  • Journal articles: Journal articles, unless otherwise indicated, refer to peer reviewed or refereed journal articles, throughout the dissertation. • Socialization agents: The term “socialization agents” collectively encompasses mentors, peers, editors and reviewers who in one way or another mediate and facilitate the socialization of novice academics. • Mentor: The term “mentor” usually, but not necessarily, refers to one’s dissertation supervisor, or a person with more academic experience — particularly with regards to writing for scholarly publication — who offers support and scaffolding to a less experienced author, in this case, a doctoral student. • Emerging scholars: I deploy the term “emerging scholar” and its variants “novice scholar” and “novice academic” to refer to those relatively new to the world of scholarly publication, doctoral students. Established scholars: In this dissertation, the term “established scholars,” unless otherwise stated, refers to journal editors.  1.4 Dissertation organization and overview of the contents  In the next chapter (Chapter 2), I explicate the components of the conceptual framework that grounds this dissertation study. Chapter 3 provides a review of the existing empirical studies on writing for scholarly publication, concluding with the notable voids in the relevant extant literature. After the literature synthesis, in Chapter 4, I describe my research approach, research questions guiding the study, research context and the two participant groups, namely doctoral students and journal editors in applied linguistics and language education. I also explain data collection and analysis procedures, and ethical considerations of this study. I conclude this chapter with reflections on my own positionality within this research inquiry. Findings of the study are summarized in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. In Chapter 5, drawing from the publication experiences of four doctoral students in this 16-month multiple case study, I describe the findings in the form of salient, recurring stories to discuss the factors that helped or hindered socialization of the participants into scholarly publication. In Chapter 6, I turn to the perspectives of journal editors (as established scholars), and discuss the major findings gleaned from interviews with 27 journal editors. Subsequently, in Chapter 7, I pull together the common 7  threads and salient themes in the preceding two chapters, and compare the key themes and findings gleaned from doctoral students vis-à-vis the editors. The main findings are discussed in relation to the conceptual frames undergirding this study and the relevant research outlined in Chapter 3. In Chapter 8, the concluding chapter, I provide a summary and synthesis of the study in light of the notions framing the study (namely, socialization, identity and investment). I also point out the limitations and implications of the study, and provide a model for socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication.     8  Chapter 2: Socialization into scholarly publication in a neoliberal era: A conceptual framework  In this chapter, I will outline and explain the conceptual framework underpinning this study, which is framed within (1) academic discourse socialization, (2) neoliberalism and scholarly publications as capital, and (3) identity and investment. In each section, I will first provide a definition and conceptual clarification of the theoretical concept in question and then explicate its significance and pertinence to my study. I should also note that, where relevant, I will briefly discuss how each theory has been taken up in recent relevant scholarly literature.  I will conclude the chapter by offering the rationale for the conceptual framework used in my study.  2.1  Introduction: My view of writing for scholarly publication purposes Before proceeding to explain the theoretical concepts framing the study, I should clarify my view of academic writing, in general, and of writing for publication, in particular. The past few decades have witnessed a gradual shift from viewing academic writing as an individual, isolated, cognitive activity to an increasing focus on “a more context-sensitive perspective” (Hyland, 2006, p. 16) towards academic writing. Aligning myself with this perspectival shift, I view academic writing and, by extension, writing for publication as a socially-situated practice. Such a social practice perspective implies that writing for scholarly publication occurs within a sociocultural milieu, and that writers are “integrally and inevitably bound up within a social context, as participant[s] in the activities of a group or community” (Dias, 2000, p.15). Writing for publication, viewed through the prism of writing as social practice, is socially situated and inexorably shaped by a set of rules, expectations as well as norms and conventions, some of which are explicit and some “often implicit, taken-for-granted understandings” (Thompson & Kamler, 2013, p. 27). Taking this view allows me to explore and engage the social, cultural, and contextual complexities of writing for scholarly publication. Consistent with this social practice perspective, I see learning to write for publication as a social and situated activity, which inevitably involves interacting and engaging with texts but also with 9  contexts wherein texts are constructed in negotiation with the members of the target discourse community. Like Casanave (1995), I conceptualize context as encompassing factors residing “both outside the writer (people, settings, assignments) and inside the writer (intentions, intellectual histories, interests)” (p. 88). I start from the premise that learning to write and publish is predicated upon active involvement and participation in the practices associated with more expert members of one’s disciplinary and discursive community. I argue that writing for publication is a means by which novices become legitimate members of their disciplinary community. Having explained my position towards writing for publication, I next discuss the theoretical concepts framing and informing my study on doctoral students’ learning how to write and publish scholarly texts and the socio-cultural factors affecting that learning process.  2.2 Academic discourse socialization Academic discourse socialization (Duff, 2010; Duff & Anderson, 2015; Kobayashi, Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2017) is a growing and burgeoning sub-field of language socialization (e.g., Duff & Hornberger, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012) and is centrally “concerned with the means by which newcomers and those they interact with learn to participate in various kinds of academic discourse in their communities and other social networks.” (Kobayashi et. al, 2017). Academic discourse socialization shares the same core tenets and precepts of its overarching theory (i.e., language socialization) and is concerned with understanding the processes whereby novices learn a particular community’s common  norms and conventions, including but expanding beyond linguistic norms and forms. It bears pointing out that academic discourse is a specific style of communication (oral or written) used in the academic realm that is expected, cultivated, and deemed valuable by academics (e.g., instructors, editors) and their institutions (Duff, 2010). Through the prism of academic discourse socialization, novices (newcomers), in a process of socialization, gradually and progressively are initiated into the academic discourses, which are associated with experts (old timers) and thus socio-culturally valued in a disciplinary community (Duff, 2010). To appropriate the academic discourses and practices valued in the target community, novices need to participate in interactions with “mentors (more experienced, ‘old-timer’ peers, teachers, tutors, or 10  caregivers, for example), or other authoritative sources as a proxy for ‘live,’ co-present mentors (e.g., textbooks, online resources, or other media) representing input from non-present experts” (Duff & Anderson, 2015, p. 338).  Socialization, as argued by Duff (2010), is a “bi- and multidirectional, contingent process” (p. 171). It is does not predicate a one way, linear, passive transmission-like process of induction into a set of fixed and immutable norms and conventions in a given discursive community. Rather, in a socialization framework, learners may, quite conceivably, undergo disparate socialization experiences leading to differential, and often unpredictable, levels of competencies of the target discourses and conventions. The norms and conventions of a target discourse community are also subject to change, at least in part because of the participation of newcomers in the discursive practices of the community.  A socialization perspective also recognizes that novices, as free agents, may deliberately resist, attempt to modify, or show innovation in the prevailing practices of the discourse communities they enter. Within a socialization perspective, learners are not bound to acquire the exact or the entire repertoire of norms, conventions, and discourses in the intended community, nor do they have to or are expected to simply reproduce them. In fact, “[a]gentive stances and actions” of novices, as argued by Duff and Doherty (2015), “can potentially facilitate or impede the development of greater normative communicative and cultural competence in new communities” (p. 61; italics in the original). A socialization framework takes into account the role of learners’ agency and their agentive power. Agency, from a socialization perspective, is conceptualized as the “ability to make choices, take control, self-regulate, and thereby pursue their goals as individuals leading, potentially, to personal or social transformation” (Duff, 2012, p. 414). In fact, the interplay of agency and socialization is “bidirectional, iterative and socially situated” (Duff & Doherty, 2015, p. 65). The level of agency exercised by learners can also affect their positioning and how they are positioned, as well as their identity construction and investment – which will be discussed further in Section 2.6 (Identity and Investment).    11  2.3 Socialization of novices into academic publication  Doctoral students, and even early-career academics, as novices in the academy, are socialized (or enculturated) into their target disciplinary communities by participating in their communities’ disciplinary activities, an important one being writing texts acceptable to and valued within their scholarly community (e.g., Berkenkotter, Huckin & Ackerman, 1988, 1991; Casanave, 1995; Duff, 2010; Prior, 1998). According to Hyland (2004), writing for publication, among all forms of scholarly writing practices, is “the most concrete, public and accessible realisation” of practice (p. 1), and a hallmark of disciplinary membership. When graduate students write for scholarly publication, they are in fact “learning to write for a professional peer audience, the process by which novices are socialized into the academic community; it is the recognized route to insider status” (Hyland, 2012, p. 61, emphasis added). By going through the process of learning to write for publication, novice writers gain their disciplinary voice (Matsuda & Tardy, 2007) and come to master the genres of their new disciplinary community, thereby gradually moving from novice status to that of prospective disciplinary expert.  As noted earlier, writing for publication, viewed as social practice, is socially situated and governed by an array of rules, canons and conventions, some of which may not be explicit. These ways of thinking, writing, doing, and being or “internal disciplinary rules and conventions serve to bind members together and also to mark off those who do not belong” (Thompson & Kamler, 2013, p. 30). In order for doctoral students, as novices in the academe, to successfully write and publish scholarly, they need to learn and master not just the language and the mechanics of writing, but more importantly, to learn the relevant acceptable norms and unwritten rules and conventions so as to attain membership in a given discourse (Flowerdew, 2000). Not only do novice scholars need to master the rhetorical and linguistic resources necessary for writing for publication, but they also need to learn how to respond to, negotiate and compromise with journal reviewers and editors (Casanave, 2002; Flowerdew, 2013, among others). Academic discourse socialization, as a powerful lens, helps explain why the established Japanese and Iranian faculty members in Okamura (2006) and Karimina (2013), unlike the less experienced faculty, were “well aware of other global players in the field” (Okamura, 2006, p. 73). These established scholars seemed to have been adequately enculturated into their academic discourse communities. Such findings support Hyland’s (2002) argument that experienced 12  writers in the academy use their disciplinary knowledge pragmatically to “construct a credible representation of themselves and their work, aligning themselves with the socially shaped identities of their communities” (p. 1091). In order for novices to engage in the disciplinary practices of their scholarly communities as a competent and legitimate member, participant, and contributor, they need to learn to “recognize who’s who in the field” (Casanave, 2002, p. 170), acquire the language of the trade, and eventually make decisions about who to align with in the ongoing “conversations of the discipline” (Bazerman, 1980, p. 657). Learning the ropes of how to write and publish is arguably a socialization process (e.g., Duff, 2010; Hyland, 2015). Academic discourse socialization can provide a powerful conceptual meta-lens to study the social, cultural, and contextual factors and dynamics affecting socialization of novices into scholarly publication. What makes socialization, and by extension academic discourse socialization, a powerful explanatory framework is the fact that it also attends to issues surrounding power, agency, as well as prevailing ideologies and “identities made available to learners and whether they are taken up or contested” (Duff & Talmy, 2011, p. 105). Importantly, and relevant to the purposes of my research, a socialization framework allows for examining the interplay and influence of both the macro aspects level (i.e., contextual and sociological) and the micro aspects (i.e., linguistic and discursive) of contexts wherein learning occurs. On a macro level, academic discourse socialization can aptly accommodate and account for the macro-context of academic publication, which is swayed and shaped by the prevailing neoliberal discourses and ideologies (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016). On another level, academic discourse socialization also focuses on issues of identity and ideology (e.g., Ochs & Schieffelin, 2017). Equally importantly, academic discourse socialization can accommodate the Bourdieusian notions of field, capital, and habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1998; Duff, 2007).  2.4 Neoliberalism and capitalization of scholarly publication  In this section, I will explicate my understanding of neoliberalism, as a macro-context of scholarly publication, and Bourdieusian forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984), as they relate to the world of scholarly publication. A deeper understanding of neoliberalism, its heavy influences on academia, and its capitalistic view of academic publications, helps me analyze the pressures on academic institutions and faculty, and by extension on doctoral students, to demonstrate their 13  productivity in measurable terms such as the number of publications and citation indices. A discussion of the dominant neoliberal ideology and its view of academic publications as capital will also be necessary and relevant to explication of identity and investment, as they relate to scholarly publication. 2.4.1 Central tenets and precepts of neoliberalism  Neoliberalism is a common point of reference used in critically describing the fundamental changes that have taken place in the global economy, politics and ideology since the 1970s. As the main ideology behind globalisation, neoliberalism is the centre staging of free trade in goods, services and labour (Holborow, 2006). Neoliberal policies and practices, as argued by Chun (2016), aim to “remake our everyday lives so that every aspect is minutely measured, assessed and evaluated as ‘outputs’, in accordance with manufacturing-based standards of production” (p. 558). Once a sideline theory of political economics, neoliberalism has now grown to become so intermingled with different aspects of life that it has been called the “stamp of our age” (Holborow, 2012, p. 14). The ubiquity of neoliberalism in today’s public and private life is so much felt that it has come to stand for both a “social representation and a social reality” (p. 14). As a social system and ideology, neoliberalism is believed to have “invaded” discourse, while at the same time, discourse is considered to “reproduce and cement” neoliberalism (Holborow, 2012, p. 14). There is barely an aspect of our sociopolitical, cultural, or economic life left unaffected by the permeating neoliberal discourses and ideology (Block, 2016; Gray, 2010; Holborow, 2013). Neoliberal ideology has in fact come to be, in the words of Block (2016), the “dominant doxa” (p. 245) of the time.  Neoliberalism advocates the marketisation and commodification of goods and services, education and health, individuals and the public. In this neoliberal globalized era, communication in general, and language in particular, have become pivotal to the globalized new economy. It has been argued (e.g., Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Heller, 2003, 2007, 2010a, 2010b) that under the influence of neoliberalism and its corollary changes in economy, language has changed to become a tradable commodity. Perhaps the same can be said about scholarly publications. Where once academic publications served the sole purpose of disseminating scholarly ideas and new findings, they have now come to be viewed as performance and 14  productivity (and accountability) indicators. This is, however, not to say that academics necessarily invest in publishing for the sole sake of improving their metrics and performance indicators, but rather to argue that neoliberal policies, with which many academics may not agree, have invaded all domains of our life including the academy. In this neoliberalized academic marketplace, academic publications, much like language – as argued by Heller (2003) – have taken on an exchange value, as I will explain further in the discussion on capital. Having briefly discussed the neoliberal core concepts, I next discuss the impact of neoliberalism on the academy.   2.4.2 Bringing metrics into the academic world: Neoliberalism in academe   As part of the neoliberal policies of accountability and performativity and the corollary emphasis on measured output, or quantified control, these days the academy is subject to various metrics often represented in terms of numbers. As noted by De Angelis and Harvie (2009), there are different metrics aimed at gauging the performance of the individual, department, faculty and institution, which operate at the national or international level. One such measure is the introduction of citation metric systems to quantify scholarly publications. Perhaps the best-known citation measure is the Impact Factor (IF), which was first developed as a tool for the purpose of tracing the history of ideas (Garfield, 1955). IF is the annual calculation of “the ratio of the number of citations received by source items [articles] in a particular year to the total number of source items published over a fixed period of time in a particular periodical publication” (Sen, 1999, p. 329). The first edition of the Science Citation Index (SCI), developed by Garfield, was published in 1961, listing published articles and the number of times they were cited, but it was soon “appropriated by users for purposes for which it was unintended – as a tool for evaluating the literature, individuals, institutions, and countries” (Davis, 2009, p. 5). Another metric that has come to be used in recent years is Hirsch’s (2005) “h-index1”, which is another measure to characterize the scientific output of a researcher” (p.                                                1 Hirsch (2005) defined the “h-index” as the “number of papers with citation number ≥h” (p. 16569). Put differently, if we rank the papers of a given author in decreasing order of the number of citations each paper has generated then the h-index is the highest rank, h, such that the papers on ranks 1, 2, 3, 4..., h each have h or more citations. In general h-indices derived from Thomson-Reuters’ Web of Knowledge and Elsevier’s Scopus tend to be lower than 15  288); this rather new metric has been intensely criticised by scholars (e.g., Egghe, 2009). The impact factors can potentially create anxieties among scholars, perhaps more so among novice or early-career academics. For many academics where one publishes is now a matter of much deliberation, informed by different metrics. These metrics are often used to showcase academic accountability and productivity in today’s “numerically-driven assessment culture” (Hyland, 2015, p. 22).  Overall, the aspiration (or investment) to get published in a top journal is thought to be important not only for the individual standing of an academic, but also for one’s department, faculty or even university ranking—the extent to which this is the case at different universities in the world is one of many questions I address in my study. Having discussed neoliberal influences on academia and academics, I now turn to a discussion of forms of capital, which has relevance both to neoliberalism and to the overarching aim of this chapter: investigation of the experiences and perceptions of doctoral students writing for scholarly publication.   2.5 Bourdieu’s forms of capital and scholarly publications            Pierre Bourdieu’s much-referenced theory of forms of capital (1977, 1984) offers a powerful vocabulary for discussing how different forms of capital affect novice writers’ status in the scholarly community, and how the aspirations of the individual academic and the expectations of the scholarly community intersect as they relate to scholarly publications.              Bourdieu (1986) used the constructs of forms of capital to explain the ways in which resources are exchanged and distributed in a society. Central to these constructs is the notion that individuals accumulate capital that can be exchanged for their advancement in career, status and power. He also contends that those actors (persons or institutions) who have the most power in a given field are also those who determine what constitutes capital (Bourdieu, 1990). Bourdieu (1977, 1984; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) identified four types of capital: economic, cultural, social and symbolic, each of which will be explained below. These terms are applied in this                                                those derived from Google Scholar because coverage in the former two are currently restricted to selected journals whilst coverage by Google Scholar is far more inclusive (Bar-Ilan, 2008).1 16  study as heuristics to better conceptualize the differential types of resources (capital) in relation to scholarly publications and their intractability in today’s academia. 1. Economic capital, the simplest to explain and measure, refers to the sum of financial resources, monetary income, wealth and assets that an individual possesses and has control over (e.g., cash, assets, income from employment). In case of scholarly publications, copyrights and royalties from publications can be considered as contributing to economic capital. Also, in a growing number of universities,  monetary awards and incentives are provided to academics for their scholarly publications. 2. Cultural capital as conceptualised by Bourdieu is an individual’s non-monetary resources including formal educational qualifications, knowledge, skills, and many other advantages, mostly gained based on the individual’s family or social status (Bourdieu, 1991). According to Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital exists in three forms: objectified, embodied, and institutionalized. While the objectified form refers to the cultural product itself, the embodied form of cultural capital refers to the ability of its possessor to appreciate a cultural product, such as an heirloom, a painting or a novel. Thus, although physical ownership of objectified cultural capital can be passed from one person to another, the legitimate competence or authority to experience and appreciate it takes years of training and experience to acquire. The possession of embodied cultural capital, therefore, is limited to those whose life experiences have allowed them to internalize high cultural capital, or “legitimate tastes” as called by Bourdieu (1986, pp. 246-247). The third form, institutionalized cultural capital, refers to certificates, degrees and diplomas that verify that an individual possesses the embodied form of cultural capital. The concept of cultural capital implies that certain forms of knowledge are seen as more valuable than others. Relevant to the main discussion in this chapter, cultural capital in academia encompasses not only the scholarly publications—as an objectified form of cultural capital—but also learning how to write for scholarly publication, or in the words of Duff (2010, p. 185) “socialization into academic publication”, which can be considered a form of embodied cultural capital.  3. Social capital is the sum of the actual and potential resources that can be mobilized through membership in social networks available to a person. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as the “aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a 17  durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition, or in other words, to membership in a group” (p. 248). Social capital amounts to a person’s ability to access goods and services through his or her social relationships and networks, including group memberships. Relevant to the discussion of writing for scholarly publication, academics who write for publication differ in the size and span of their social networks in the academic world, which, in turn, as argued by Lillis and Curry (2010), affects their access to resources across and beyond their local communities. Lillis and Curry (2010) rightly argue that networks have a dual role and importance for academics: they both constitute a form of social capital and facilitate access to tangible and intangible resources necessary for getting published in the scholarly community. It can be argued that the under-resourced and underprivileged scholars whom Canagarajah (1996, 2002) referred to—in his account of the peripheral scholars’ challenges in writing for international publication—did not perhaps have very strong scholarly networks beyond their local communities. If they did indeed have such networks, as was the case with the European scholars in Lillis and Curry’s (2010) study, they could have perhaps gained some access to resources through their friends and colleagues in the so-called “centre.” 4. Symbolic capital is viewed as possession of traits and objects that, through socially constructed classification schemes, confer social honor or prestige—and are therefore in a sense symbols of legitimate power. Symbolic capital is a very broad concept, representing whatever social groups take to be valuable and treat as such. It is difficult to separate symbolic capital from the other forms of capital. Cultural capital can even be seen as a broad subcategory of symbolic capital. For example, having higher educational degrees can be regarded as a form of cultural capital, and at the same time it can be considered a form of symbolic capital, as it brings with it titles or prestige (e.g., Dr., Professor). It can also be conducive to a vaster social network, and hence can be a form of social capital. Language is another powerful form of symbolic capital, as argued by Heller (2003, 2010a, 2010b) and Ottenheimer (2008), among others.  Applying the lens of capital, scholarly publications can be seen as different forms of capital for emerging scholars. One potential benefit of scholarly publications for emerging scholars is that they can enhance their chances of employability, especially for those who seek to be professionals in academia—although having scholarly publications even for non-academic 18  positions may also be a plus. Where once attaining a PhD was perhaps the sole requirement for doctoral graduates to pursue an academic career, doctoral students now may face an uncertain future upon completion of their programs without demonstrating “additional evidence of expertise” in their fields, through activities such as conference presentations, teaching experience, and—perhaps more importantly—scholarly publications (Cuthbert, Spark & Burke, 2009, p. 138). In the book, Demystifying Career Paths after Graduate School, the editors (Kubota & Sun, 2012) and the writers (e.g., Butler, 2012; Li, 2012), who are all tenure-track faculty members, refer to the importance of publications in tenure and promotion decisions—which is highly relevant to doctoral students who are thinking of employment in academia. Publications can also serve as an advantage (or capital) for master’s students who seek admission into PhD programs, especially if they want to get merit-based scholarships. Publications, particularly in the form of peer-reviewed articles, have another potential benefit for graduate students and graduates; they can be seen as an effective mechanism for demonstrating the value of one’s research to (existing or prospective) funding agencies – like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) – which are said to give preference to supporting graduate students who can demonstrate their research potential. Overall, emerging scholars are increasingly being encouraged to publish during and after their graduation. Through the lens of forms of capital, scholarly publications can be viewed as cultural capital in that they can demonstrate an emerging scholar’s “evidence of expertise” in their fields (Cuthbert, Spark & Burke, 2009, p. 138). They can also serve to expand emerging scholars’ networks, which in a way can add to their symbolic and social capital. They can also enhance their chances of employment in academic positions—hence economic capital.  Having introduced the types of capital and their applications, in the next section, I discuss identity and investment, as they relate to writing for scholarly publication.   2.6 Identity and investment In this section, I will explicate my understanding of identity and investment, as conceptualized by Darvin and Norton (2015), and explain the relevance and power of these theoretical concepts in analyzing how academics, particularly doctoral students, as emerging scholars, negotiate their 19  investments and identities in a neoliberal world to navigate their way toward getting published. It is important to note that the notion of writer identity has also been theorized and discussed by scholars in the field of second language writing (e.g., Ivanič, 1998; Matsuda, 2015, among others). However, for the purposes of this dissertation, I draw from the conception of identity as conceptualized in Norton (2013) and Darvin and Norton (2015), as the aim was to investigate not only identity development but also investments by doctoral students and editors in academic publishing efforts and endeavours.   Before discussing the new model of identity and investment, I will first discuss the original concepts, which served as the basis for the development of the new model of identity and investment. Norton (2000, 2013; originally in Norton Peirce, 1995) proposed the important constructs of identity, investment and subsequently imagined communities (Kanno & Norton, 2003), and their inter-relationship and implications for language pedagogy and learning identity, which I will briefly discuss in the following sections.    2.6.1 Investment: Negotiation of desires and capital  Informed by Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of cultural capital, Norton (2013; Norton Peirce, 1995) introduced the sociological notion of investment to explain the relationship between language learners’ desire to learn and practice languages. According to Norton (2013), “if learners invest in a second language, they do so with the understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which will in turn increase the value of their cultural capital” (p. 50). For Norton (2013, p. 50), the notion of investment “conceives of the language learner as having a complex social history and multiple desires”. Norton’s concept of investment, as Kramsch (2013) notes, “accentuates the role of human agency and identity in engaging with the task at hand, in accumulating economic and symbolic capital, in having stakes in the endeavor and in persevering in that endeavor.” (p. 195) The notion of investment has been increasingly taken up by researchers in language education and applied linguistics (e.g., Gao, 2012; Hadfield, 2012; Mohammadian Haghighi & Norton, 2017; Motha & Lin 2014, among others).  Norton (2013) argues that the psychological construct of motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Murray, Gao, & Lamb, 2011) does not adequately account for the power 20  relations inherent in social interaction (and therefore language learning). By introducing the notion of investment, Norton (2013) expands on the notions of integrative and instrumental motivations to include the social and historical relationship of learners to the target language, often fraught with ambivalence. In Norton’s view, investment responds to Bourdieu’s (1977, 1984) notion of cultural capital. Norton points out that when learners invest in a second language, it is with the understanding that they expect to acquire more symbolic and material resources, which then increase the value of their cultural capital. Thus, when learners use the target language, they are not just exchanging information for the sake of doing so, they are redefining who they are in the new contexts and how they relate to the social world which is available to them because of the language.  Norton argues that it is quite conceivable for learners who are considered motivated to be, nonetheless, silent and non-participative even in prime situations for language practice. She contends that these learners might be silenced by the social conditions of inequality that position them as not worthy of speaking, that is, without “the right to speak” or “power to impose reception” (p. 48). Norton (2013) convincingly argues that learners are far from neutral beings, and are actually making investments in their own learning because they expect a certain positive outcome, or a return on their investment, from the language learning. In Norton’s (2013) view, in addition to asking “To what extent is the learner motivated to learn the target language”, Norton suggests the teacher or researcher ask “What is the learner’s investment in the language practices of this classroom or community?” (p. 6).  Also relevant to investment and identity is a discussion of “imagined communities” – first coined by Anderson (1991) – which refers to “groups of people, not immediately tangible and accessible, with whom we connect through the power of the imagination” (Kanno & Norton, 2003, p. 241). Kanno and Norton (2003) called attention to the impact of language learners’ imagined affiliations on their learning trajectories: “These imagined communities are no less real than the ones in which learners have daily engagement and might even have a stronger impact on their current actions and investment” (Kanno & Norton, 2003, p. 242). In other words, just like any tangible community, imagined communities also have rules and requirements which could very likely influence one’s learning objectives—and thereby his/her selections of investment—in their immediate communities. For instance, Katrina in Norton’s (2001) study stopped attending 21  ESL classes despite her desire to learn English because her professional history as a teacher and her imagined membership in the community of respected teaching professionals were not honored by the ESL teacher, whom Katrina regarded as a fellow member in her imagined community. Thus, Kanno and Norton (2003) proposed that one’s learning experiences must be understood in terms of one’s multiple identities and selections of participation in both their “real” and imagined worlds. It should, however, be noted that what one can imagine for oneself or for others is not boundless but situated in particular sociocultural milieus with conventions, ideologies, and existing power relationships. In other words, “imagination at even the most personal level is still in relation to social ideologies and hegemonies” (Kanno & Norton, 2003, p. 247) – which is why it can be discussed in light of neoliberal pressures on academics. An important point to consider here is that while the term “investment” has economic and neoliberal connotations, it is nonetheless a useful heuristic that helps me conceptualize the sociocultural reasons as to why academics engage and undertake academic publication endeavours.   2.6.2 New model of investment and scholarly publication Building on and extending the aforementioned conceptions of identity and investment – developed in Norton’s earlier work (Norton 2000, 2013; Norton Peirce 1995) – Darvin and Norton (2015) introduced a new, integrated model of investment and identity to address the new and emerging needs and exigencies of learners brought about by “the new world order” (p. 36). As rightly asserted by Darvin and Norton (2015), there has been a tidal wave of changes in the modern world since the inception of the notions of identity and investment over two decades ago (Norton Peirce, 1995). The world today is marked by burgeoning globalization, unprecedented mobility, and rapid-paced global interactions in the online and offline realms. As a corollary of these changes in the world, the spaces and spheres in which language learning and socialization take place have increasingly become “deterritorialized and unbounded” and the “systemic patterns of control more invisible” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 36). The new model offers “a multilayered and multidirectional approach” which helps examine how power operates and circulates in the capillaries of the society, determining new parameters of inclusion and exclusion “through and beyond language” (De Costa & Norton, 2016, p. 588).  22  I would argue that Darvin and Norton’s (2015) model of investment can be aptly applied to address the new and emerging realities and concomitant implications for stakeholders in the realm of academic publication. In the past couple of decades, the academic publishing landscape, influenced by the developments in digital technology and affordances of the web, has undergone significant changes. The burgeoning trend of online publishing and, particularly, the emergence of the open access movement has ushered in noteworthy changes to the landscape of academic publication, and more broadly to the dissemination and communication practices of scholarly knowledge. Dramatic changes in the academic publication world, prompted by the digital age, present both new opportunities and challenges for scholarly communication, and by extension for scholarly publication. On the one hand, the digital world has ushered in more publication options, most notably the open access movement, which aims to break knowledge free from the confines of the corporate publishing world, and to further disseminate knowledge and information across and beyond academia. Whilst once, perhaps a few decades ago, traditional commercial academic publishers were the default choice for communication of scholarly knowledge, nowadays there is a manifold of (formal and informal) digital options (e.g., online journals, e-books, Kindle books, academic blogs and platforms like for dissemination and communication of scholarly ideas and findings within scholarly community and beyond. Such digitally-mediated publication platforms, as clearly argued by Darvin (2016), are in fact “social network structures that connect people [in this case academics, in particular] from all over the globe” (p. 536). The availability and increasing utilization of such digitally-mediated publication platforms has created new digital spaces of socialization, and has ushered in ample “opportunities for self-representation”, requiring a more complex and fluid identity in the digital world (p. 536). Quite clearly, academics need to be socialized into a new set of sensibilities to be able to smoothly and fluidly navigate the online and offline publication contexts.  On the other hand, despite the opportunities pointed out above, the affordances of the digital world have served as a platform for the proliferation of sub-par (at best) or predatory (at worst) publishers, which appear to be capitalizing on the (neoliberally-induced) mounting pressures on academics to publish by purporting to provide faster and easier, yet often paid, paths to publication. As noted by Fazel and Heng Hartse (2017), the sensibility of where and 23  where not to publish, including the perspicacity of recognizing predatory publishers, is an important part of socialization into academic publishing.  In Darvin and Norton’s (2015) model, investment occurs at the nexus of identity, capital and ideology. This critical lens allows for a deeper understanding of how dominant ideologies and increasingly invisible pillars of power operate and bear upon social and communicative practices in the world today. The new model duly recognizes that ideologies, which are themselves in a state of flux, sway and shape learners’ identities and position them in different ways. The model demonstrates how one’s investment is influenced by the interplay and interaction of dominant ideologies, (perceived, ascribed, and aspired) identities, and differential values accorded to one’s capital across time and space, as I will discuss in the sections that follow.  I should note, though, that the model is not primarily about scholarly publishing. Rather, I am extending the model to the realm of scholarly publication (Figure 1). Figure 2.1 Darvin and Norton’s (2015) investment model applied to scholarly publication  24 Prevailing ideologies in the realm of scholarly publication  Darvin and Norton (2015) proffer nuanced understandings of the notions of ideology and capital. Ideology, for Darvin and Norton (2015), is broadly conceived of as “a normative set of ideas” (p. 43). They caution, however, that ideology should not be taken to imply “a static, monolithic world view” but rather as “a complex, layered space where ideational, behavioral, and institutional aspects” can collude, compete, or even counter-effect one another, which is why they prefer the term “ideologies” rather than ideology (pp. 43-44). Darvin and Norton (2015) admonish against uncritical compliance with and acquiescence to the prevailing powerful ideologies that impose certain structural patterns of control and (often) inscribe undesirable  identities onto learners. As argued by Darvin and Norton (2015), prevailing ideologies, reflected in the contextual and institutional policies and patterns of control, also serve to sway “how learners position themselves and others” (p. 48). Germane to a discussion of dominant ideologies impacting academia, neoliberal ideologies –  embodied and reflected in such policies and practices as audit and accountability cultures, quantified control and performative functioning of metrics (e.g., Burrows, 2012; Holborow, 2015; Olssen & Peters, 2005) – have reshaped and reconfigured universities in the past few decades (Block, 2016; Chun, 2016; Holborow, 2015), as was discussed in the section on neoliberalism and capitalization of scholarly publication (Section 2.3). Veiled under the guise of such positively-connoted terms as productivity, marketability, freedom of choice, best practices, and outputs, neoliberal ideology and its concomitant discourse have insidiously permeated the academic realm. Relevant to scholarly publication, neoliberal policies are manifested in increasing deployment of publication-based metrics and increasing emphasis on citation count as an indicator of research performance and scholarly impact. Implementation of such measures has, in turn, given rise to the increasing pressure to publish experienced by academics in many institutions of higher education around the globe (e.g., Curry & Lillis, 2017; Lillis & Curry, 2016). It is important to note that notions such as accountability and the demand or pressure to publish predate the emergence of neoliberalism. However, neoliberalism appears to have exerted a compounding effect on the imperative to publish and more broadly on the demand for output and accountability. I now turn to a discussion of capital, which is another important component in the new investment model. Drawing from and extending the Bourdieusian notion of capital 25  (Bourdieu, 1986), Darvin and Norton (2015) offer a more nuanced conception of capital, which aptly fits into the new model of investment. They argue that capital value is subject to change across contexts, and is inevitably, though not completely, affected and constrained by dominant ideologies in a given context. A critical awareness of the (visible and invisible) overarching contextual and institutional patterns of control and their underlying ideologies can provide a deeper insight into a context’s value system, which accords differential values to learners’ capital. The value placed on learners’ capital might, quite conceivably, be at odds with the value expected or desired by learners. The “valuing of their capital” is a validation of their identity and “a legitimation of their rightful place” in their context and in their current or aspirational community (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 47).  Relevant to the realm of scholarly publication, publishing in academic, peer-reviewed journals is, in a sense, considered the gold standard in many fields especially in sciences and most social sciences; however, certain scholarly journals – particularly, though not necessarily, international journals, especially those in North America or Europe (Lillis & Curry, 2010) – seem to confer more symbolic capital to scholars than other local or regional journals. The differential capital associated with publishing in different journals is also manifested in the tier-system and impact factor rankings (e.g., Thompson Reuters). Writing for scholarly publication: A site of identity construction   For Norton (2013; originally in Norton Peirce, 1995), identity is conceptualized as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (Norton, 2013, p. 45). Norton’s notion of identity has been highly influential in applied linguistics research, as it marks an important departure from the structuralist notion of identity “as a fixed, immutable characteristic of a language learner” (Giampapa, 2016, p. 290). Norton’s (2013) poststructuralist perspective of identity provides a theoretical tool to better understand the relationship between learners’ sense of self and their multiple communities across time and space issues. As Norton (2010) notes, “Every time we speak, we are negotiating and renegotiating our sense of self in relation to the larger social world, and reorganizing that relationship across time and space.” (p. 350). From this perspective on identity, language learners have dynamic and 26  multiple identities that are enacted “discursively to access social networks and in turn material and symbolic resources” (Giampapa, 2016, p. 290). As was mentioned earlier, recognizing the differential value of capital across contexts together with the understanding of ideology, or rather “ideologies” – to use Darvin and Norton's preferred term – as being fluid and multiple accords well with the multiplicity and fluidity of the notion of identity (Norton, 2013).  Relevant to the discussion of scholarly publications, publishing in academic venues has come to be seen as a touchstone of one’s scholarly identity and belonging to an academic community. Writing and publishing scholarly texts is arguably contributive to and constitutive of identity. As academics write to publish, “their identities as people who contribute to academic conversations develop and shift along with their public discourse” (Casanave & Vandrick, 2003, p. 9). Specifically, doctoral students, as novices to the realm of scholarly publication, gradually shift their identity from that of a graduate student to that of a scholar and published author; this process is often fraught with anxieties and tensions, as they experience the changing ways they participate in the scholarly practices and conversations of their fields (Lee & Norton, 2003). Developing a sens pratique in scholarly publication The new model demonstrates how one’s investment is influenced by the interplay and interaction of dominant ideologies, perceived and ascribed identities, and differential values accorded to one’s capital across time and space. The conception of investment can serve as a critical and interpretive lens to make sense of the new and emerging realities in this complex and fast-changing neoliberal world and its different domains, including the realm of scholarly publication. The new model of investment developed by Darvin and Norton not only has explanatory and interpretive power but, more importantly, offers a transformative and emancipatory perspective. More tellingly, the nuanced understanding (of capital and ideologies) allows a conception of investment that accommodates the possibility of change and challenge by learners, as agents. According to Darvin and Norton (2015), learners can agentively shift the power dynamics in their favour by revisiting and possibly resisting dominant ideologies and the consequent unwanted identities conferred onto them (i.e., as learners). Equipped with a critical cognizance of the prevailing ideologies and systemic patterns of power operating (visibly or invisibly) in their context, learners can agentively shift their positioning and make informed 27  investments in practices and identities which they aspire or imagine. Doing so can be extremely empowering, but also liberating and transformative for learners.  An important possibility argued for by Darvin and Norton (2015) is that learners, as agents, are never permanently positioned within their respective fields, but rather they can self-reflexively transform their identity positions through a critical understanding of the ideologies bearing on their incumbent identity positions, and via proactive and agentive repositioning, negotiation, challenge, and resistance, where needed. Doing so would necessitate a critical discernment of the dominant ideologies and discourses and identities, and their implicit or explicit effects on shaping identities and determining capital value of learners in a given context. To discern and actualize the opportunities for transforming one's identity position, and to astutely navigate multiple spaces of learning and capital and investment demands development of a certain acumen, which Darvin and Norton refer to as “practical sense”, or “what Bourdieu (1986) calls a sens pratique ...[which]... is a practical mastery of the logic or immanent necessity of a game, which one gains through experiencing the game” (p. 48). Attainment of sens pratique can enable and empower learners to navigate the resources and affordances (i.e., capital) available or attainable to them, which, in turn, would could help them attain the acumen to astutely invest in or divest from certain practices to position themselves more strategically and judiciously in their given field, so as to assert and achieve their aspired or imagined identities. The model of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015) can aptly serve as a lens to examine why academics, especially emerging scholars, invest in academic publication, and how this investment relates to their incumbent or imagined identities. The model can also provide a critical lens to study how prevailing ideologies, indexical of systemic powers of control, in the world of scholarly publication, and more broadly in academia, affect the identities, capital value, positioning, and investments, of academics, especially novice scholars. Given the proliferation of web-based publication options – both legitimate and otherwise – the model can provide an analytic tool for understanding the new and emerging socialization needs of emerging scholars, particularly as they relate to scholarly publication. It is generally acknowledged that the process of writing for scholarly publication is often a difficult and time-consuming one, as attested by scholars (e.g., Casanave & Vandrick, 2003; Hyland, 2015; Morgan, 1997). The successive actions of writing a manuscript (either alone or in 28  collaboration with a peer or mentor), submitting it, receiving critical feedback, addressing the criticisms, and resubmitting the manuscript can all be considered socially constructed events that involve and influence the writer’s investment and identity. As Casanave and Vandrick (2003) argue, in writing for scholarly publication, writers construct identities, resulting in different voices. Their published text creates a representation of self, which, in turn, influences how they see themselves and how they are seen by others in their disciplinary community. Writing for scholarly publication can be particularly difficult for novice writers, who are trying to build a new scholarly identity and voice (e.g., Matsuda, 2003; Vandrick, 2003). As one’s ideas and arguments are questioned by reviewers and editors, one’s identity (sense of self) and investment will also be influenced. Undoubtedly, virtually all writers, both novice and seasoned, receive some criticism from editors and reviewers. While generally reviewers may take considerable care to frame negative reviews in a helpful, collegial way, some novice writers may, quite conceivably, be so disheartened by criticism that they give up at this point. Learning to accept criticism, understand comments, and negotiate the demands of reviewers are all key components of learning to write for publication. It is also important to note that, in providing feedback on manuscripts, although criticism is generally directed at the manuscript and not at the writer, the author’s identity is often (inevitably, I think) involved and influenced by the criticism. For EAL writers, the criticism is likely to be regarding language as well as content – though non-EAL writers may also receive stylistic suggestions/critiques. It is not uncommon for EAL writers to see a sentence like “[consult] a NS [native speaker] of English”, although sometimes editors and reviewers may mistake an Anglophone writer for being an EAL writer—perhaps more so in case of novices (Belcher, 2007, p. 15). Feedback practices, especially in the post-submission phase of scholarly publishing, can bear an important impact on contributors’ identity and investment. Excessively or unreasonably negative, unfair, or harsh feedback, especially for novice scholars, can be demoralizing. More importantly, it can, quite conceivably, dampen and diminish their investment, and as a result adversely affect their still-fledgling and thus fragile writerly or academic identity. This infelicitous impact on novice academics’ identity and investment is, nonetheless, not necessarily the consequence of reviewers’ or editors’ improper feedback practices. It is also conceivable that 29  emerging scholars – a term I use interchangeably with novice scholars –  may lack the requisite interpretive or pragmatic skills – which I argue constitutes a higher order competency in socialization – to correctly construe the peer review feedback (e.g., Paltridge, 2015, 2017; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016).   2.7 Conclusion and summary  In essence, the conceptual framework for this study integrates the notions of academic discourse socialization (Duff, 2010; Kobayashi et al., 2017), neoliberalism and forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1984), and the model of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015). This qualitative multiple case study, as will be explained in the following chapter (Methodology), examines the socialization of doctoral students into scholarly publication. I also draw from the complementary perspectives of journal editors to gain a better and triangulated understanding of what it takes to be sufficiently socialized into scholarly publication, and to tease out the factors considered to be constraining or facilitating this socialization process.   I argue that socialization into scholarly publication, on one level, necessitates “learning the ropes” of the discursive and generic features of the publication genre – an aspect which has been amply researched (e.g., Casanave, 2002; Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b; Gosden, 1996; Liu, 2004, amongst many others). On another level, socialization into the new increasingly digital landscape of scholarly publication demands development of discernment and sensibilities to smoothly and successfully navigate the process of scholarly publication.  One such sensibility to attain, as part of socialization into academic publication, is gaining a critical cognizance and a nuanced understanding of neoliberal ideologies and discourses that serve to sway the scholarly publication policies and practices. Drawing from the notions of neoliberalism and its capitalistic view of publications helps me develop a deeper understanding of the macro-context of academic publication and the (visible and invisible) forces and factors affecting the capital value of stakeholders in scholarly publication, including doctoral students and journal editors. Extending the model of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015) into scholarly publication, I would argue that a significant sensibility to develop, as part of socialization into scholarly publication, is attaining the acumen to make informed, strategic, and judicious investment choices in scholarly publication. Having explicated the conceptual 30  framework of the study, in the next chapter, I will provide a review of the literature related to scholarly publication. 31  Chapter 3: Mapping the territory of academic publication  3.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will provide a synthesis of the extant empirical scholarly literature on writing for academic publication. My overarching aim in doing this literature review, aligned with the purposes of my study, was to tease out factors that can potentially impede or facilitate writing for publication by academics, in general, and by novice – especially doctoral – students. This literature review solely encompasses research on academics, and does not include studies on professionals and non-academics. Another strand of research not included in this review pertains to studies primarily probing attitudes of EAL scholars toward publishing in English vis-à-vis their first language. Studies in this line of inquiry often tend to problematize and critique the supremacy of English as a lingua franca of scholarly communication (e.g., Muresan & Perez-Llantada, 2014; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2000). Whilst such studies are worthwhile in their own right, they do not seem to have a direct relevance to the purposes of this study, and are hence excluded from this review.  In the following sections, after mapping out the existing literature on scholarly publication, I will provide an overall synthesis of, as well as note regarding the gaps in, the existing research on writing for publication (see Section 3.7). I will conclude the chapter with a summary and link to the following chapter. More specifically, in the first two sections, I will discuss the extant research on faculty and scholars and then on doctoral students (novice scholars). The first category encompasses research on academics often employed as faculty or otherwise researchers, who are thereby generally presumed to be more experienced vis-à-vis doctoral students in writing for publication. The second category solely subsumes studies on writing for publication of doctoral students. It should be noted that only studies which explicitly referred to participants as doctoral students are included in this category. The two aforementioned groups (i.e., faculty and scholars versus doctoral students) can in general be taken to reside on different, if not opposite, points on the experience continuum. That being said, it is quite conceivable that, in terms of experience with writing for publication, early-career or junior faculty might be more similar to doctoral students than seasoned scholars. In doing this literature review, I was particularly interested in teasing out 32  factors facilitating or constraining writing for scholarly publication of doctoral students. However, some of these factors may, quite conceivably, be common to both more experienced (faculty and scholars) and less experienced (doctoral students), which is why I will provide a synthesis of both strands of research in this area.    3.2 Research on faculty and scholars’ writing for publication The existing research on faculty and scholars’ publication practices has largely been concerned with finding – mainly, though not solely, linguistic and discursive – challenges facing or disadvantages affecting EAL authors’ writing for academic publications. This line of research was pioneered by St. John (1987), who examined the composing processes of 30 Spanish researchers in writing scientific articles to publish in English. She found that her participants spent a considerable amount of time on composing articles in English, sometimes via translation from Spanish. Her findings also indicated that, for the participants in her study, writing introductions, literature reviews, and discussions were perceived to be the most challenging parts to write.  Following the same line of research, Flowerdew (1999a) conducted a large-scale survey on (585) Hong Kong faculty – mostly in sciences –  about their challenges in writing for scholarly publication. The results indicated that 51% of the respondents were concerned about “technical problems with the language” (p. 137). In addition, 68% perceived themselves to be disadvantaged – vis-a-vis their Anglophone peers – because of their status as EAL authors. They also perceived “prejudice” on the part of journal editors and referees to be a serious issue working against them (p. 140). Flowerdew (1999b) then conducted a follow-up interview study and found that major language problems perceived by the respondents included lacking “facility of expression … [and rich] vocabulary”, lacking the “capability in making claims for their research with the appropriate amount of force”, and difficulty in writing introductions and discussions (pp. 255-257).   In a subsequent study, Flowerdew (2000) investigated the writing-for-publication difficulties of an EAL junior faculty member (in sciences) from Hong Kong who had completed his doctoral study in the United States, and was trying to get published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The participant was criticized by the journal reviewers because of linguistic 33  issues that impeded communication. He accepted the journal’s offer to help with copy-editing, but the copy editor made dramatic changes to the text, cutting it from 43 to 29 pages. According to Flowerdew (2000), “entire paragraphs were removed, and virtually every sentence was rewritten” (p. 139). The participant, of course, negotiated about some parts but finally agreed to the changes, and thus his article was eventually published. However, when asked about his overall perception of reviewers’ and editors’ feedback in the process of writing for scholarly publication, the participant felt resentful about having been singled out as an EAL writer, and stated:  What makes me feel bad is I get letters from the reviewer, and in the first two  sentences it will say this is definitely not written by a native speaker—they  shouldn’t point this out as part of the main criteria for rejecting the article.  (p. 135)   In the same line of research on EAL faculty, Liu (2004) conducted a study on six Chinese assistant professors in language education at universities in the United States to investigate their perceived problems in writing for publication in English. The participants all admitted that they had to spend considerably more time on preparing texts for publication than their Anglophone peers. Moreover, three of the participants reported mechanical and micro-level problems such as issues with the proper use of articles, prepositions, adverbial particles, and tenses. Lacking a rich vocabulary and facility of expression were among other self-perceived language difficulties, which support similar aforementioned findings by Flowerdew (1999b). At the macro-level, all participants had difficulty writing the two sections of methodology and discussion, where they often got negative comments from reviewers and editors. In both Flowerdew’s (1999b) and Liu’s (2004) research, the EAL faculty perceived the discussion section to be particularly challenging to write, perhaps because it necessitates expansion of ideas and solid argumentation. The participants in Liu’s (2004) study, unlike the faculty in Flowerdew’s (1999b) study, did not feel discriminated against because of their EAL status, despite having experienced multiple rejections. They considered rejections to be a natural process and, in fact, appreciated the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, which they thought helped them revise their papers and get them finally published. Remarkably, the participants believed the rhetorical differences between Chinese and English, in fact, worked in their favor, in that their good grasp of organization and coherence in Chinese carried over into their writing for publication in English. Liu (2004) 34  concluded that when the EAL faculty wrote about topics most familiar to them, their writing tends to be more “natural”, and they see their writing “as a marker of their social identities” (p. 12).  Following the same line of research, Okamura (2006), in a study on Japanese faculty in sciences, compared different strategies used by junior, middle-career and established faculty members in writing for publication. The findings indicated that focusing on reading academic texts in the field to learn “typical writing patterns” and phrases was a strategy employed by all participants (p. 68). The marked difference that emerged between the senior faculty and their junior counterparts was that the latter group “did not consider their readers” – i.e., audience – when writing for publication, mainly because of being preoccupied with grammatical accuracy (p. 72). The junior faculty also admitted that they found it hard to think of subtle linguistic forms that would persuade readers in their field. In contrast, the senior faculty tended to be specific about their target audience while writing for publication, and described strategies like citing prominent researchers to impress their readers.  In the context of Turkey, Basaran and Sofu (2009) interviewed four Turkish faculty in sciences to inquire into their writing-for-publication practices. The findings indicated that the participants were “self-taught”, and had learnt to write research articles mainly through “hands-on experience”, especially via extensive reading and emulating research articles in their field (p. 376). When asked about their perception of editors’ and reviewers’ comments, in general, they expressed a positive impression, saying that editors and reviewers were mostly interested in the content of articles rather than language issues – provided they did not hinder communication of ideas. The participants, of course, acknowledged that they had received some critical feedback concerning language, especially regarding grammatical errors or misspellings; however, they generally regarded such problems as “quite insignificant” (p. 379).   More recently, Karimnia (2013) interviewed 10 Iranian faculty members in language education to investigate their challenges and experiences in writing for publication. Much like the findings by Okumura (2006), it was found that the more experienced (senior) faculty, vis-a-vis their less experienced peers, had a better sense of the audience and tailored their writing to their intended audience when writing research articles, since their primary purpose was not only to publish but also to be read by their target audience. Moreover, the senior faculty tended to cite 35  prominent researchers to link their work with established research. A notable challenge facing junior faculty in writing articles for publication was making robust and effective claims, which echoes similar findings by Flowerdew (1999b) and Liu (2004). The studies reviewed up to this point have mainly focused on and foregrounded linguistic and text-level challenges facing (EAL) faculty and scholars in composing texts for publication. Another group of studies on writing for publication has gone beyond issues and challenges facing the individual writer, and has foregrounded broader issues in academic text production like having access (or lack thereof) to resources and writing to publish for different communities. In this area of inquiry, a small strand of research (e.g., Casanave, 1998; Shi, 2002, 2003) has focused on the fact that many EAL faulty members are expected to publish both in English (for the global scholarly community) and in their first language (for their local communities). For example, Casanave (1998), in an aptly named article titled “Transitions: The Balancing Act of Bilingual Academics”, reported the findings of a study on four Japanese faculty members (in social sciences) who had returned to Japan after studying in the United States. After having been influenced by the English speaking academic community, they found themselves “juggling two sets of values and expectations” (p. 175), and faced difficult decisions regarding what scholarly practices (Western or Japanese) to pursue in the Japanese context. For the participants in Casanave’s (1998) study, the dilemma was that international publications in English “added little to their prestige in the Japanese context, and publications in Japanese never left Japan” (p. 189).   Subsequently, Shi (2002) reported on the writing and publishing practices of Chinese faculty (in language education) who had returned to China after having been trained at Western universities. The findings showed that, while the participants tended to publish their research in Chinese journals, they still followed English writing conventions, which she partly attributed to the pervasive “influence and power of English as an international language” (p. 632). Shi (2003) then interviewed nine Western-educated Chinese faculty members at universities in China. The participants, as in Shi’s (2002) study, preferred to use English writing conventions (with a few exceptions) in writing academic papers in both English and Chinese, and attributed their competence in writing mostly to their Western training. In fact, they perceived themselves to be 36  either equally competent in writing in both languages or more competent in writing academic papers in English. Foregrounding the role of networks in publication, Lillis and Curry (2006a, 2006b, 2010) investigated the role of local, national and international networks in the publication practices of Eastern European faculty (in social sciences). For Lillis and Curry (2006a, 2006b, 2010), publication is a joint and “networked activity”, rather than an individual one. They foreground the crucial role of access to networks of people in accessing resources requisite for research and publication. More importantly, they demonstrated the key role played by “literacy brokers”, including content and language specialists, who assist writers and mediate the complex process of preparing and publishing texts for publication (Lillis & Curry, 2010, p. 61). In what follows, I discuss the extant research on novice scholars’ writing for publication.  3.3 Research on doctoral students’ writing for publication  Over the past two decades, there has been a burgeoning interest in research on writing-for-publication practices of doctoral students (e.g., Cho, 2004, Li 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Habibie, 2016; Ho, 2017). This section provides a synthesis of empirical research on writing for scholarly publication of doctoral students. Research in this vein, much akin to the literature on faculty and scholars, has predominantly been concerned with identifying (mainly language-related) challenges and disadvantages affecting EAL doctoral students’ writing for scholarly publications. This line of research was initiated by Gosden’s (1995) study on the textual revisions made to seven articles written by seven Japanese doctoral students in sciences. For each of the seven articles, he did a textual analysis of revisions made between drafts leading up to publication. Findings, based on a systemic functional linguistic analysis, indicated that 61% of the revisions were rhetorical in nature (pertaining to discourse structure and expression of claims). Gosden made the observation that the process of redrafting mainly involved textual changes “towards satisfying the perceived target rhetorical goals of the scientific RA [research article] genre” (p. 52), which denotes the importance for novice academics to be duly inducted into the genre of research articles.  37  In a subsequent study, Gosden (1996) conducted interviews with 16 Japanese doctoral students in sciences. The participants were asked to comment on their practices and perceived problems in writing research articles intended for publication in English. The results indicated that in addition to lexico-grammatical errors, failure to provide “appropriate criticism of previous research and clear statements of their own justification for research” was a salient problem for these EAL writers (p. 123). Findings also indicated that in general doctoral students, particularly those with less experience, did not have a clear sense of audience when writing for publication.  Based on his findings – that the Japanese doctoral students lacked sufficient knowledge of the genre of research articles – he called for formal and explicit instruction of writing for publication to EAL doctoral students. Cho (2004) conducted in-depth interviews with four EAL doctoral students in social sciences in the United States to study their challenges in writing and publishing their research. While the participants acknowledged their language barriers, they found the critical and harsh tone of editors and reviewers to be too frustrating and somewhat discouraging. Remarkably, though, unlike the faculty in Flowerdew (1999b), the participants did not seem to feel that the reviewers and editors were biased against their research because of their EAL status. Cho (2004) emphasizes that the comments and feedback given by advisors were crucial in guiding their graduate students in manuscript preparation.  Along similar lines, Cheung (2010) conducted a study on six Hong Kong doctoral students in applied linguistics to investigate the strategies employed in writing for publication in English and Chinese refereed journals. Interesting to note is that all the interviewees thought they had received comprehensive comments and constructive criticism from reviewers and editors of English-language journals, while an absence of comments was a characteristic of Chinese-language journals. As regards strategies used, the doctoral students in this study tried to (a) select and write on the areas of research which they were familiar with, (b) read articles in the past issues of targeted journals, and (c) seek assistance from their dissertation supervisors in the process.  In the same general line of research, Huang (2010) reported on the challenges facing Taiwanese doctoral and post-doctoral students in sciences. The participants all worked collaboratively (in a laboratory) with their supervisors, and thus co-authored research articles 38  with their supervisors. Remarkably, while reliance on and support from their supervisors helped the participants considerably in getting published, they seemed to have lost their motivation to improve their own writing skills. They also tended to think they had not much “autonomy” and “ownership of their manuscripts”, due to the dominance exerted by their supervisors in decision-making, both in terms of substance and language (p. 39). Another finding worth noting is that almost half of the participants had, at some point, enlisted the help of copy-editing services, yet were generally not satisfied with the services rendered, because the copy editors “sometimes misinterpreted and distorted the original meanings” (p. 38).  In a similar vein, yet from a different perspective, Flowerdew and Li (2007) investigated the beliefs and practices of nine Chinese doctoral students (in sciences) regarding the use of language copied from published texts in writing their own papers for publication. This strategy, which Flowerdew and Li (2007) referred to as language “re-use” (p. 440), ranged from short phrases to stretches of sentences in a row. The general finding was that the participants considered their borrowing to be justified, legitimate and even necessary in writing articles for publication. Li and Flowerdew (2007) conducted another study on Chinese doctoral students’ writing for scientific publication. However, the focus of this study was on how novice writers’ manuscripts were shaped in the process of writing for publication. The findings indicated that the Chinese novice writers in their study predominantly relied on their supervisors, peers, and local language professionals—rather than English-L1 speaking editorial services—because of easy access and cost-savings. A narrow yet growing strand of research (Li, 2005, 2007; Habibie, 2016; Ho, 2017) has focused on the process of socialization and publication of doctoral students into academic publication. Starting this line of research, Li (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) conducted a series of informative case studies – which were all part of the same larger study (i.e. her dissertation) –on the socialization and publication process of Chinese doctoral students attempting to publish in international English-medium scientific journals, as a degree requirement. What is particularly interesting about Li’s (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) studies is her focus on the process of writing for publication. Li (2005) presented the case of a Chinese doctoral student who tried to get published in a high-ranking scientific English journal. Although rejected by his first target journal, upon his 39  supervisor’s advice, Fei revised the paper and sent it to his second target journal, where he got published after just one round of revisions requested by one of the reviewers. According to Li (2005), certain strategies seemed to have helped Fei learn the rules of the game and get published. One important strategy that helped him was learning fruitfully from the journal articles of his field, which—apart from giving him research ideas—provided him with “rhetorical and linguistic mentorship” (p. 159). While writing his drafts, Fei consciously put into use the rhetorical and linguistic forms he was learning from journal articles, finding it a useful strategy of learning to write for publication.  Subsequently, Li (2006a) presented the case of a Chinese doctoral student who was trying to publish the Chinese and English versions of a single paper – its Chinese version aimed at publication in a domestic Chinese journal, and its English version intended to be published in an international conference proceedings booklet. Remarkably, the participant was found to have insufficient familiarity with the schematic and rhetorical structure of the research article genre.  The strategies used by the novice writer in writing her drafts were (a) using a “current hot issue” (p. 166) in her area, (b) using “a ‘classical’ framework”, because it was ‘‘relatively easy to understand’’ (p. 168), and (c) modeling structures and formulaic expressions from a major reference in her area of research, which echo the findings of Li (2005).  Along similar lines, Li (2006b) conducted a “sociopolitically-oriented” qualitative case study (p. 456) on the writing for publication experience of another Chinese doctoral student in sciences. Li described how the novice writer’s process of writing for publication was influenced by the power-infused relationships between the participant, his institutional context, his supervisors and the gatekeepers of his target journals. As with the previous case studies (Li (2005, 2006a), the novice writer eventually managed to get published, after six rounds of revise-and-resubmits. The findings indicated that, besides facing linguistic challenges, the participant found it challenging to communicate and negotiate with the journal reviewers and editor. The main factors that helped him navigate the process to publication were (a) seeking advice and assistance from his supervisor as well as using the feedback provided by the editor and reviewers, (b) the editing service provided by the researcher, and perhaps more importantly (c) his persistence throughout the process of publication. In fact, upon being rejected, he appealed to 40  the divisional associate editor of the journal, which resulted in the reconsideration of the review and eventual acceptance of his submission.  Li (2007) presented the case of another Chinese doctoral student who was in the process of writing for publication (in sciences). Salient amongst the challenges facing the participant was lacking sufficient familiarity with the genre of research articles. According to Li (2007), the strategies used by this novice writer in the process of writing his manuscripts were (a) drawing on his previous experience of writing research papers, where he learnt about the importance of organization and structuring, emphasising the “bright points” and taking “the right [research] angle” (p. 66), (b) his use of L1—Chinese—to help with organizing his thoughts, (c) trying to “impress” the referees by boosting his work through highlighting its strengths and citing a previous publication of his “home group” (p. 70), and (d) using words and phrases from the texts he read (apart from the specialist terms) in his writing for publication.  Foregrounding the role of supervisors, Lei and Hu (2015) interviewed 11 Chinese doctoral students in sciences to investigate their perceptions of the roles their supervisors played in their publishing attempts. Based on the findings, Lei and Hu (2015) concluded that supervisors can potentially play one or more of the following roles in their doctoral students’ publishing process: (1) “‘prey’ searchers”, that is, they can help their students choose research topics that have potential to be published, (2) “managers”, that is, they often manage their doctoral supervisees’ research and publishing by assigning them to their (team-based) research projects, which is often the case in sciences, (3) “manuscript correctors” – i.e., proof readers or copy editors – and (4) “masters” – that is, as full-fledged members of their scholarly communities of practice, they can help usher their supervisees into the norms, conventions, and expectations tied with activities of the target scholarly community (p. 36).   More recently, Li (2016) reported on the support and guidance offered by a supervisor to his Chinese doctoral students, who were under pressure to publish in high ranking international scientific journals, as part of their degree requirements. Overall, the findings in Li (2016, and in other previous articles), highlight the importance of support provided to novice writers by supervisors as well as “literacy brokers” (Lillis & Curry, 2010) – especially language editors –  in overcoming the challenges in the process of writing for publication, particularly when it comes to drafting and revising articles. 41   Shifting the focus to socialization of Anglophone doctoral students into publication, Habibie (2016) reported on a qualitative case study on the process of socialization and publication by a Canadian doctoral student, Samantha – who was trying to publish in a refereed journal. Findings indicated that, somewhat similar to EAL writers, Samantha faced problems in writing for publication, particularly pertaining to knowledge of the academic genre” and “disciplinary knowledge” (p. 55). She was found to have insufficient familiarity with academic genres, particularly with the genre of journal article and its common norms and conventions. Moreover, she was inadequately aware of the subtle yet significant differences across academic genres, and also found it difficult to adopt a critical stance toward the published works in the literature.  Chief among the factors facilitating her induction into writing for publication were her collaboration and co-publication with her supervisor and her own experience as a manuscript reviewer and copy editor. Nevertheless, in terms of institutional and departmental support, overall, she felt under-supported because of the taken-for-granted assumption that, as an Anglophone doctoral student, she would not need support and scaffolding in writing for publication. Based on the findings, Habibie called for further support and scaffolding for both Anglophone and EAL doctoral students, arguing that “academic literacies, community-specific norms, and discipline-specific conventions and conversations pose serious challenges for publication practices of these novice scholars” (p. 65).  More recently, Ho (2017) reported on the writing-for-publication processes of 19 (EAL) Taiwanese doctoral students in sciences. Findings indicated that the advisory guidance and support, where available and adequate, was perceived to be of considerable help in dealing with the challenges in the process of writing for publication. More importantly, findings showed that most participants (16 out of 19) made agentive efforts to learn writing to publish and to navigate the process of scholarly publication, without much reliance on their supervisors. Their agentive actions and strategies, which worked in their favor, included consulting their supervisors or other professors in their department – especially when selecting venues for publication and revising manuscripts –  attending writing-for-publication workshops as well as seeking copy-editing help from literacy brokers (Lillis & Curry, 2010), especially those with a background in their scientific field. I will now turn to a discussion of research on editors’ perspectives on writing for 42  publication. Doing so is important for the purposes of my study, as it can cast more light on different facilitative or debilitative factors affecting writing for publication.   3.4 Research reflecting journal editors’ perspectives   The role of journal editors as publication gatekeepers and the factors affecting their decisions regarding articles for publication have attracted attention from scholars, particularly those interested in writing for international publication, though literature in this vein is still fairly limited. Gosden’s (1992) survey of 116 journal editors was the first of the few studies exploring journal editors’ views. The participating editors served scientific journals based in North America and the U.K. The main thrust of his study was to find the factors that influence journal editors’ decisions with respect to submissions made by EAL scholars. Perhaps unsurprisingly, journal editors participating in Gosden’s (1992) study indicated that “incoming papers are treated in exactly the same way, irrespective of provenance, with no specific screening guidelines for NNS [non-native speaker] manuscripts” (p. 130). Salient among the noted language issues were sentence-level errors and inaccuracies, unclear argument, “awkward constructions” and “idiosyncratic lexical choices” (p. 132). However, the editors worried most about “clear and logical presentation of results” from EAL authors. Tellingly, the editors concurred that “acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is primarily based on scientific merit” (p. 129); nonetheless, it was also noted that the true value of a good piece of research may be, at times, disguised by its poor reporting at the initial review. The editors further noted that in case of submissions with outstanding findings and content, problems with language were often considered less important; that is, the outstanding quality of scientific findings could override the problematic language. Perhaps more importantly, based on views expressed by editors in the study, Gosden concludes that the most salient problems facing EAL writers are disconnection from the current and related literature – or “isolation” as he calls it – and lacking familiarity with “the broad (and unwritten) ‘rules of the game’ [norms and conventions prevailing academic publication]” (p. 115). Gosden’s (1992) observation resonates with Hyland’s (2009) argument that a major problem in getting published by novice writers, especially those outside the Western academia, is “isolation from current literature and the demand that they situate their work in a rhetorical tradition” (p. 86). It is important to note, though, that he goes on to acknowledge that 43  “[m]any of these disadvantages apply equally to NES [Anglophone] outsiders.” As stated above, being “outside the metropolitan centres of research” – which, quite conceivably, may be the case with scholars “off-networked” scholars (Belcher, 2007; Canagarajah, 1996, 2002; Curry & Lillis  ¸2010) – and failure to contextualize one’s work within the related and current literature can act as a major impediment to novice authors, both Anglophone and EAL. Along similar lines of inquiry, Flowerdew (2001), who himself has served as a journal editor, interviewed eleven journal editors to identify the main impediments to EAL researchers’ getting published, from the viewpoint of editors. It should be noted that Gosden (1992) surveyed editors from journals in sciences, whereas Flowerdew’s (2001) interviewees were from leading international journals in applied linguistics and English language teaching. The editors in Flowerdew (2001) concurred that surface-level errors – e.g., subject verb agreement and other similar lexico-grammatical errors – did not pose a significant problem. Rather, problems which affect comprehensibility of a text such as “convoluted syntax or unclear modality” were noted to be remarkable. More tellingly, “parochialism”, or being too local – which is not dissimilar from “isolation” (Gosden, 1992, p. 86) – was perceived to be a serious and consequential issue. Equally importantly, failure to establish a “research niche” and lack of “authorial voice” were deemed by editors as important issues in submissions from EAL authors. Flowerdew acknowledged, though, that many problems identified by editors in his study may also apply “to NSs [Anglophone authors], especially those who were beginning their publishing career” (p. 145). Other than the studies mentioned above, a few publications have reported the recollections and reflections of editors (McKay, 2003; Paré, 2010). McKay (2003), reflecting on her role as the editor of the prestigious journal of TESOL Quarterly (1994-1999), notes three key roles played by editors. First, as a policy maker, an editor has some leeway to formulate policies particularly regarding the publication process. Second, as a decision maker, an editor is in charge of making fateful decisions such as selecting reviewers, issuing the final verdict regarding publication or rejection of submissions. Third, an editor, as argued by McKay, has also a political role, in the sense that he or she serves as a liaison between a given journals’ editorial board and different management bodies overseeing the journal (most notably, executive board and publisher representatives). Perhaps more importantly, an editor is responsible for “providing 44  contributors and readers with clear rationales regarding their decisions.” (p. 117), which may not always be an easy and pleasant message to deliver. Of relevance here, is McKay’s argument that editors are not always or purely unbiased. She in fact acknowledges that author-editor discordances in terms of “areas of interest, approach to knowledge, and view of the publication process” are likely to have some influence, however minimal, on the editorial decisions (p. 120).  In a similar vein, Paré (2010), in a piece titled “Slow the presses: Concerns about premature publication”, proffers advice and admonishments to doctoral students wishing to publish, drawing from his extensive experience as a journal editor and doctoral supervisor. Principally, he expressed concern about what he has observed as an increase in “publication-related anxiety” among the doctoral students he worked with, which “can hamper rather than help students” (p. 30). Importantly, while Paré acknowledges that publications are important and consequential for doctoral students, he also admonishes against what he conceives as “pre-mature publication” (p. 30) during the doctorate. Highlighting the potential risks and drawbacks in so doing, he warns that hasty and premature submissions can often be unnecessarily conducive to “a discouraging rejection or review process” which may lead “some users of English as a second language [to believe] that they have been discriminated against” (p. 61). In addition to warning doctoral students against rushing to publish, he also highlights the insufficient familiarity of doctoral students with the article genre and its intended function. Referring to his role as a journal editor, Paré argues that submissions from novice and graduate students are rather easy to identify as they often tend to “display knowledge – the chief rhetorical goal of school discourse – but fail to address an actual dialogue among working scholars” (p. 30). To address problems arising from inadequate familiarity (of doctoral students) with the publication genre – and its governing conventions – Paré argues for the need to embed pedagogy of scholarly publishing as part of doctoral training. Illustrating the program offered in his university as an example, he calls for further support and scaffolding to be provided to doctoral students to better prepare them for scholarly publishing. Other than the above-mentioned published anecdotal accounts, there are also interviews with journal editors available on some publishers’ websites, which are often used to provide prospective authors with a better understanding of scholarly publication. Thompson and Kamler (2013) refer to interviews with journal editors available on the Taylor and Francis website, and 45  highlight some issues with submissions which often eventuate in rejections. One important issue they touch upon is that editors, at times, “deal with a significant number of articles that have clearly been sent to the wrong journal” (p. 131), which indicates the importance of selecting the right journal. Thompson and Kamler emphasize the need to achieve a good fit between one’s submission and the target journal, and refer to the complaint by some editors to the effect that “It is as if writers have chosen the journal by title rather than from an understanding of the actual mission or methodology or field” (p. 131).  Clearly, the above-mentioned studies have illuminated part, yet conceivably not all, of the impediments potentially facing scholars (both novices and more experienced) in writing for publication. To have a more in-depth and broader understanding of the whole array of potential challenges facing writers in scholarly publication, an overview of studies on the genre of peer review is warranted, is presented in the following section.  3.5 Research on peer review in scholarly publication Analysis of reviews reports can contribute to a better and deeper understanding of the communications and interactions between writers and journal gatekeepers – i.e., editors and reviewers (Hyland, 2015).  Remarkable to note, though, is that most studies on peer review, much like the rest of research on scholarly publication, tend to focus on problematic aspects of peer review for EAL writers. Before proceeding to discuss the literature in this area, I need to clarify the typology of peer review. Broadly, peer review – as practiced by most scholarly journals or book publishers – can be divided into two broad categories of (a) open peer review and (b) blind (or anonymous) peer review. In the former model of peer review, the reviewers and authors are informed of each other’s identity. In the latter, and more common, type of peer review, the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to the author (particularly prior to publication). Blind peer review is, in turn, distinguished into (a) single blind review, where the reviewers (of a manuscript or grant proposal) are informed of the identity of the writer, but not vice versa, and (b) double-blind review, in which case neither the reviewers nor the authors are aware of the other’s identity. Most scholarly journals seem to be practicing a double-blind review, chiefly because of its “perceived objectivity” (Hyland, 2015, p. 62). Accordingly, existing research in this area has also predominantly focused on double blind review in the 46  publication process of journal articles. The importance of peer review makes it a worthwhile area of investigation, yet what makes peer review reports rather difficult to investigate is the fact that they are thought to be “written for editors and authors alone, and not intended for wider scrutiny” (Hewing, 2005). In other words, concerns and questions surrounding confidentiality of peer review reports limit their availability for empirical investigation. The lack of studies is justified by Gosden (2003) as follows: “As gatekeeping discourse, peer reviews remain largely under-researched principally due to their hidden status and issues of confidentiality” (p. 87). Concomitant with the growing interest in the analysis of academic genres (e.g., Swales, 1990, 1996), scholarly attention has turned to the “occluded genre” (Swales, 1990) of peer review, which is generally hidden from public view yet important in academic publication.  Research on peer review has chiefly focused on analyzing the linguistic, rhetorical, and pragmatic patterns in peer review reports. A major strand of research in peer review has analyzed reviewers’ remarks in terms of their thrust and focus (e.g., Gosden, 2003; Kourilová, 1996; Mungra & Webber, 2010, among others). A common question unifying most of these studies is whether reviewers’ critical comments are mostly directed at content or language of a given manuscript submitted for publication. By and large, peer reviewers’ remarks have been reported to be mostly directed at content and arguments, rather than language, of manuscripts. The studies also suggest that language issues in a manuscript are not often the sole reason for rejection. For instance, Kourilová (1996), in a textual study on reviewers’ comments in 80 review reports of a medical journal, reported that critical remarks by reviewers primarily and predominantly pertained to problems in the content, rather than the language, of submissions. This finding is congruent with that of Gosden (2003), who analyzed 40 review reports of a scientific journal, and found that it was the technical details – rather than language – which received most negative comments.  Similar findings were also reported by Mungra and Webber (2010) who studied review reports in a medical journal. Another narrow strand of research on peer review (e.g., Coniam, 2012; Hewings, 2004) has primarily aimed to determine the aspects of text which receive most negative or positive review comments. Hewings (2004) used a corpus of 228 review reports written for English for Specific Purposes (ESPJ) to analyze the evaluative language in reviewers’ remarks. Findings indicated that most reviewers were concerned about and hence commented on the originality and 47  novelty in submissions. Another interesting finding of the study was that most negative comments tended to be directed at the way the research was presented and expressed in the paper (expression) and the claims that had been made in the paper (claims), showing the particular and critical attention paid by reviewers to these two aspects of articles. In a somewhat similar study, Coniam (2012) analyzed his own 122 reviews written (over a period of eight years) for the journal of System. Overall, negative comments predominantly pertained to the acceptability of claims made by researchers (about 80 percent), followed by negative remarks on methods (65 percent), sufficiency of data (60 percent), and clarity of research questions (58 percent).  Another strand of research on peer review (e.g., Kourilová, 1998; Paltridge, 2015) has focused on analyzing the evaluative language in journal reviewers’ reports. Kourilová (1998) analyzed the rhetorical and pragmatic patterns in a corpus comprising 80 review reports of a scientific journal.  A major finding in her study was that criticism in peer reviews tends to be more blunt and less hedged and mitigated, compared to other genres in academic discourse – perhaps partly due to the anonymity afforded to peer reviewers, and the differential power status between peer reviewers and authors. More recently, Paltridge (2015) conducted a study on 95 review reports written for English for Specific Purposes Journal (ESPJ), which he co-edited. It should be noted that, unlike Belcher (2007), the first language of the authors who had received the review reports was not specified. The main thrust of his study was to explore the ways in which journal reviewers ask for revisions and how direct or indirect they are in doing so. Findings indicated journal reviewers are not always direct in the ways that they ask for revisions to be made, and that what might seem like a suggestion may not be a suggestion at all (p. 14). Based on the findings, Paltridge argues that the indirectness in reviewer comments – which seems to be an inherent feature of the peer review genre – can potentially and predictably pose problems, particularly for novice authors, who are unfamiliar with the subtleties and intricacies of the peer review genre. Equally importantly, he argues that interpreting review comments can be difficult for “beginning researchers, both native and non-native speaker authors”, and that correct construal of the review comments demands a “very particular knowledge of both the use of language and the very specific context of peer review” (p. 3). 48  The above studies have mostly focused on and foregrounded the linguistic, rhetorical, and pragmatic patterns common to peer review reports, which has contributed to our understanding of the peer review genre. Continuing in the same general line of inquiry on peer review, yet from a different perspective, Belcher (2007) inquired into whether the EAL status of an author can have a fateful consequence on the trajectory and publication of a submission. In this seminal study, Belcher studied submission histories and reviews reports of nine articles submitted to the journal of English for Specific Purposes, which she co-edited. The sample included submission trajectories of submissions by six EAL and three Anglophone authors (between 1998 and 2001). Belcher reported that, rather surprisingly, submissions by Anglophone and EAL writers showed similar shortcomings in terms of content and expression. Interesting to note is that, while language issues had received critical comments in peer reviews, no paper in the studied sample had been rejected solely for linguistic reasons. Equally remarkably, a determining factor in achieving publication, for both EAL and Anglophone authors, was found to be the “authorial persistence” and “willingness to continue revising and resubmitting when faced with extensive critical commentary from reviewers” (p. 1). Based on the findings, Belcher emphasizes that authors, regardless of their first language, need to recognize that requests for revision are often negotiable, and if properly dealt with, can potentially be conducive to acceptance for publication – which, I think, has telling implications for novice writers. Relevant to the literature on peer review is Canagarajah’s (1996, 2001, 2002) reflections on his own observations and publishing experiences. Recounting the – mostly non-discursive – challenges facing Sri Lankan scholars in getting published, he argues that invitations to revise-and-resubmit are likely to be misconstrued as rejections, particularly by novice scholars or those residing in non-Western regions, which indicates the importance for emerging scholars to be able to correctly interpret review reports (e.g., Paltridge, 2015; Thompson & Kamler, 2013).  Quite clearly, for novice scholars, peer review can be seen as an obstacle to publishing, particularly in top-tier journals which deploy a rigorous and stringent peer review process to cream off a small selection of submitted papers for publication. As Hyland (2015) observes, “[p]restigious journals stake their reputations on the quality of the papers they publish and therefore on the standards of their peer review; this leads to rejection rates in the top humanities journals of over 90 per cent” (p. 162). However, participating in the process of peer 49  review, as authors or reviewers, can also "be instructive and a valuable form of mentoring”, particularly “for junior scholars” (p. 164). The latter point, as argued by Hyland (2015), highlights the socializing effect of engagement in peer review for novice scholars. I now turn to discuss the new realities in and the emerging research on academic publishing.    3.6 Research on non-mainstream open access journals and publishers The advent of the Internet and the advancement and development of digital technologies have ushered in new opportunities (and perhaps some pitfalls) for academic publication. Scholarly publishing is arguably in the midst of a major transition from a reliance upon print publishing (e.g., paper journals and books) towards more online publishing (e.g., online open access journals, e-journals, e-books). Quite clearly, these alternative and emerging web-based affordances present possibilities and opportunities for academics to disseminate their knowledge and scholarship in a much easier way, while also expanding their network of connections that, in turn, can help them better promote and advance knowledge. Blommaert (2014), referring to the emergence of alternative publication opportunities afforded by the web, calls on academics to resist the arbitrary order imposed on academic publications, with a view toward “the reconstruction of an autonomous academic who publishes both ‘formally’ – the traditional modes – and increasingly ‘informally’” (p. 13). Nevertheless, notwithstanding the potential benefits of the emerging web-based publication options, there may also be pitfalls associated with this burgeoning trend, which can have potential implications for socialization of novice scholars into scholarly publication. Whilst the burgeoning availability of web-based publication venues (especially journals) has created more opportunities for knowledge dissemination, not all the newly emerged, monetized journals are fully or rigorously peer-reviewed (Hyland, 2015; Ware & Mabe, 2012). Given the ubiquity of pressure to publish in today’s academia and the unprecedented expansion of open access publishing, there has been a proliferation of “unsavoury ‘predatory’” publishers which charge high fees to authors and waive quality control” (Hyland, 2015, p. 151). These “predatory publishers” often set up websites that deceptively resemble bona fide online publishers, and send out unsolicited invitations to publish, though little is known about the exact mechanisms by 50  which they obtain academics’ email addresses. In addition, they typically purport to “be based in the West” and to “conduct rapid peer-review turnaround” (p. 158). These publishers usually send out unsolicited offers for publication, charge fees for relatively quick publishing of articles, and conduct minimal or no rigorous peer review. Beall (2010) coined the term “predatory” because, he argues, the mission of these publishers “is not to promote, preserve, and make available scholarship; instead, their mission is to exploit the author-pays, Open-Access model for their own profit” (p. 15). I should note here that Jeffery Beall is a librarian out of the University of Colorado who used to publish an annually updated web-based inventory of what he considered to be potentially predatory or suspicious journals and publishers; however, he discontinued doing so in January 2017, for reasons which I was unable to ascertain. It is worth mentioning, however, that Beall’s list of criteria drew from two publicly available documents (the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, published by the Committee on Publication Ethics). In recent years, there have been calls for increased awareness and informed avoidance of unscrupulous and suspicious journals (e.g., Arthur, 2015; Beall, 2010; Berger & Cirasella, 2015; Millard, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Some have taken a step further, and have even ventured sting operations to expose the deceitful nature of unethical publishers (e.g., Djuric, 2015). However, most of published studies in this vein are commentaries based on anecdotal observations and experiences. Few systematic studies (e.g., Fazel & Heng Hartse, 2017; Shen & Björk, 2015; Xia et al., 2015) have been conducted in this emerging line of research. Omobowale, Akanle, Adeniran, and Adegboyega (2014) interviewed 30 Nigerian academics about their publication practices, and reported that in the Nigerian academe promotion is predicated on publishing in international journals, which has driven some Nigerian scholars to seek publication in “sub-standard paid-for” journals (p. 678). In the same line of research, Xia et al. (2015) did a study on 68 journals (selected from Beall’s list) in pharmaceutical science, and reported that scholars publishing in predatory journals often tend to be novice researchers from developing countries.  In the same vein, Shen and Björk (2015) conducted a quantitative study on 613 predatory journals, and reported that nearly three quarters of authors who had published in these journals were from Asia and Africa, perhaps a corollary of increasing publication pressures and 51  imperatives in those regions. Similar findings were reported by Ezinwa Nwagwu and Ojemeni (2015) who reported on a sample of suspicious biomedical journals on Beall’s list. While these quantitative studies had mostly attended to the geographical distribution of these journals and their contributors, Fazel and Heng Hartse (2017) conducted a qualitative study on 20 suspicious journals on Beall’s list. Findings indicated that the analyzed journals did not constitute an undifferentiated and monolithic group. That is to say, upon closer scrutiny of journal websites and their publications, it transpired that some journals listed on Beall’s list as potentially predatory—albeit not on par with their Western peers in terms of quality—were nonetheless above board and (apparently) serving a local or regional readership. Needless to say, oftentimes novice scholars who are eagerly seeking publication opportunities might be more prone to falling prey to such publishers. When it comes to deciding where to publish, authors, especially novice ones, need to exercise extreme caution to ensure the legitimacy, quality, and appropriacy of the venue where they invest their (often) hard-earned academic capital. The merit and value of web-based publications, albeit useful in disseminating knowledge, has not been as yet recognized and rewarded by academic institutions. Although, one could argue that publishing in alternative web-based venues can, at the very least, better introduce one’s academic work to academics across and beyond one’s community of practice, and thereby obtain the academic social capital. One could argue that the new and emerging forms of knowledge dissemination pointed out above constitute a reality in today’s academia. Whether or not the value and capital attached to such publications will change remains to be seen through further research in this area. However, one thing that seems to be an emerging reality in the modern era of technology is the increasing need for academics to perform new “online identities” for social and academic interaction (Darvin, 2016).  3.7 Overall synthesis and highlights of the literature  In surveying the empirical literature on writing for scholarly publication, what becomes apparent is the skewed attention to the challenges and constraints – particularly, discursive issues – encountered by EAL scholars writing for publication. Thus far, most studies on writing for scholarly publication have focused on the discursive challenges and strategies of EAL English speaking faculty (e.g., Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001; Gosden, 1996) or EAL English 52  speaking doctoral students (e.g., Cho, 2004; Cheung, 2010; Li, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) in getting their research published. Overall, the literature reviewed above is remarkably skewed towards research on EAL writers, particularly faculty and scholars. This seems to confirm Hyland’s (2009) argument that thus far the relevant research and “attention has largely focused on the obstacles faced by non-native speaking researchers in getting into print”, notwithstanding the fact that, according to Hyland, “all newcomers feel challenged and intimidated by writing for publication” (p. 86) – which points to an evident void in research in this vein. In what follows, consistent with the overarching aim of this literature review, I will first summarize and synthesize the major findings gleaned from the literature, particularly focusing on the chief challenges and main facilitators in academic publication. Then, I will make the case for and situate my study in the relevant scholarly literature.   3.7.1 Chief challenges and constraints in writing for publication  Common challenges to academic publishing can, in broad brushstrokes, be divided into the two categories of discursive (linguistic) and non-discursive (non-linguistic) challenges and constraints (Ferguson, 2007), each of which will be explained in the following sections. Discursive challenges In general, research has demonstrated discursive challenges can stem from (micro and macro-level) linguistic issues or inadequate familiarity with the expectations, norms, and conventions of the publication genre. The literature on writing for publication has identified several issues pertaining to this category, which can be further divided into micro-level and macro-level discursive issues. The first category of discursive problems posing a challenge to writing for publication, particularly for EAL writers, encompasses surface-level and sentence-level problems such as lexico-grammatical and structural issues – as reported both by EAL writers (e.g., Cho, 2004; Flowerdew, 1999b; Liu, 2004), and noted by editors (e.g., Gosden, 1992). It seems, with increasing access to copy-editing services and writing centres, language-related issues can be minimized, if not fully addressed.  53   The second category of discursive issues – which I call macro-level discursive issues –  chiefly pertains to (a) discourse-level problems or (b) unfamiliarity with the genre. Salient amongst the discourse-level issues are lacking “facility of expression,” “[academic] vocabulary”, “capability in making [knowledge] claims” (Flowerdew, 1999b, pp. 255-257), not providing “appropriate criticism of previous research and clear statements of their own justification for research” (Gosden, 1996, p. 123). Moreover, crafting compelling and logical arguments, coherent and cogent organization of propositions, writing introduction and discussion sections, authorial voice, proper use of citations and references to support claims and arguments were found to constitute chief problems in writing for publication by EAL academics (e.g., Cho, 2004; Flowerdew, 2001; Huang, 2010; Karimnia, 2013). Most of issues in this category seem to be of a rhetorical nature, which can be perhaps best addressed via instruction and socialization.   In addition to discourse-level issues, unfamiliarity with the publication genre –including related genres like peer review – constitutes an important challenge facing novice writers (e.g., Gosden, 1996; Habibie, 2016; Paltridge, 2015; Paré, 2010). It is important to note that this problem does not appear to be solely confined to EAL academics. Inadequate acquaintance with the publication genre has also been pointed out by editors as a problem in writing for publication (Habibie, 2016; Hyland, 2015, Paré, 2010). In fact, being well-versed in the publication genre has been pointed out as part and parcel of writing for publication (e.g., Paré, 2010; Thompson & Kamler, 2013). Non-discursive challenges Other than the above mentioned discursive challenges, research has indicated some non-discursive challenges, the chief ones being lack of resources (e.g., Canagarajah, 1996, 2002; Lillis & Curry, 2010) and affective and identity-related issues (e.g., Flowerdew, 2000; Liu, 2004). A group of scholars (Canagarajah, 1996, 2002; Curry & Lillis, 2004, Lillis & Curry, 2006a, 2006b, 2010) have brought to the fore issues of geographical location and differential access to resources as key factors affecting production of scholarly texts.  Being “off network” (Belcher, 2007; Swales, 1990) – that is, in non-Western, often under-resourced, regions – has been argued to lead to other (publication-related) problems such as parochialism and disconnection from the core conversations of (Western) academic 54  communities. Studies (e.g., Belcher 2007; Flowerdew 2001; Okamura 1996) have shown that many submissions to many mainstream (West-based) journals may be rejected because of lacking appeal to the international readership of most well-known journals in different fields. This problem may particularly pertain to scholars in humanities and social sciences, as researchers in such fields “often need to study issues of relevance to their local contexts” (Kwan, 2013, p. 211).  From a different perspective, feeling disadvantaged or resentful was reflected in some of the reviewed studies. In most cases (e.g., Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b), because of language issues, the writers expressed a feeling of being disadvantaged vis-à-vis their Anglophone peers. The junior faculty in Flowerdew’s (2000) study felt resentful for being marked off as an EAL writer by some journal editors and reviewers. Liu (2004) characterized this feeling as “[n]on-native speaker inferiority complex” (p. 9). Some studies have also pointed out issues such as lack of time to write for publication, or the time-consuming nature of writing for publication, which I have not included in the summary. I would argue that such problems are not necessarily confined to EAL writers, but have more to do with the nature of writing for publication, which would need, among other things, extensive time and experience.   3.7.2 Facilitators to writing for scholarly publication This review of literature has indicated a number of factors that can potentially facilitate writing for publication by EAL writers. Salient strategies found to facilitate writing for publication include textual modelling and borrowing (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Li, 2006a,  2006b), using the help of literacy brokers, seeking socialization opportunities (e.g., participating in writing groups), and, perhaps most importantly, persisting throughout the publication process, which I will explain below. A frequently reported strategy in writing for publication was using published texts as models and borrowing words from these texts. Graduate students (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Li, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) as well as faculty (e.g., Karimnia, 2013; Okamura, 2006) admitted to lifting words, structures and “very smart expressions and idioms” (Gosden, 1996, p. 118) and using them in writing for publication. This practice has been termed textual borrowing (Currie, 1998; Pennycook, 1996; Shi, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2012), language re-use (Flowerdew & Li, 2007), 55  patch-writing (Howard, 1999) and interterextuality (Chandrasoma, Thompson & Pennycook, 2004).  Another common and helpful strategy is enlisting the help of Anglophone writing professionals (editors, proof-readers or Anglophone colleagues), seeking feedback from peers, and co-authoring with an Anglophone or an expert L2 writer can facilitate EAL writer’s writing for scholarly publication. In the reviewed studies, employing editing services (Huang, 2010), feedback from one’s supervisor (e.g., Huang, 2010; Li, 2005) assisted writers in writing for publication. As Kubota (2003, p. 65) has pointed out, “it is advisable for a writer to follow closely the conventions at least in the initial stages of writing for publication in order to gain the cultural capital that will facilitate her or his initiation into the academic community”. As shown in Li’s case studies (2005, 2006b, 2007), the novice writers who sought the help of literacy brokers eventually managed to get published.  In addition to the above-mentioned strategies, authors, especially EAL writers, have been encouraged to expand their academic networks, and to seek collaboration and co-authorship opportunities (e.g., Cho, 2004; Liu, 2004), although some (e.g., Casanave 1998; Li & Flowerdew, 2007) have cautioned against imbalanced power dynamics potentially arising from collaboration and co-authorship with Anglophone writers (Uzuner, 2008). Last but not least, one should bear in mind that the process of writing for – and navigating – publication is more often than not a lengthy and time-consuming process often fraught with potential challenges, especially for novice writers. To successfully navigate this process, one needs patience, persistence, and perseverance (e.g., Belcher, 2007; Curry & Lillis, 2004; Flowerdew, 2000; Li, 2005). As argued by Belcher (2007), most submissions eventuating in publication come from writers who are willing to revise their submissions and resubmit them, sometimes repeatedly, regardless of their language background.   3.7.3 Gaps in the extant literature on writing for scholarly publishing My review of the literature on writing for scholarly publication revealed a number of research gaps in the related literature. There is a paucity of research that brings together and compares both Anglophone and EAL graduate – particularly, doctoral – students who write for scholarly publication. There is a need for further (especially longitudinal) case study research on 56  the process of getting published—including different stages of writing and revising— that lead to successful publications or otherwise, particularly in the case of novice writers. Thus far, only a few studies (Habibie, 2016; Ho, 2017; Li, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) have addressed graduate students’ process of writing for scholarly publication. In addition, an under-researched aspect in writing for publication is studying how novice scholars navigate the peer review process, which is “the most important practice in writing for publication” (Lee & Norton, 2003, p. 37). Observing these processes can serve to illuminate the ways novice contributors shape their academic discourse as they strive to attain their academic identities, as part of being enculturated (Casanave, 2002) or socialized (Duff, 2010) into writing for scholarly publication. Moreover, there is a need for studies in this vein to explore issues of identity in writing for publication. In the studies reviewed above, except for Liu (2004), I did not find any research specifically exploring issues surrounding identity.  There is also a dearth of research that compares and triangulates different perspectives of the stakeholders (especially editors and publishers) in scholarly publication. There is also an evident need for studies investigating the novice-expert differences in writing for scholarly publication. Yet another gap in the literature is that, with the exception of a few (e.g., Curry & Lillis, 2004; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Shi, 2002, 2003), all other studies have focused only on publications in scholarly journals, which is understandable given the special value attached to (refereed) journal publications. However, there are other accessible venues for scholarly publications (e.g., book reviews, book chapters, books, reports, publications in professional, non-reviewed journals, and conference proceeding), where novice researchers and graduate students may tend to publish more. Also lacking in the relevant literature is research on emerging publication venues, both legitimate ones (e.g., blogs) and those presumed predatory or suspicious at best. In an attempt to respond to (some of) the gaps indicated above, this multiple case study triangulated the experiences of (both EAL and Anglophone) doctoral students with the perspectives of   journal editors to investigate how differently the key stakeholders in academia approach writing for scholarly publication. This study was an attempt to respond to the aforementioned gaps, as will be further explained in Chapter 4 (Methodology).   57  3.8 Chapter summary In this chapter, I reviewed the extant empirical literature on writing for publication. In so doing, I drew from different research threads including research on both novices and more experienced academics, journal editors, and copy editors, as well as studies on peer review, support and pedagogy, and emerging alternative venues for scholarly publication. Subsequently, after providing an overall summary of the findings gleaned from the literature, I pointed out the lacuna in the relevant research to situate my study in the existing empirical literature on writing for scholarly publication. In the following chapter, I will explicate the methodological design underpinning the study.   58  Chapter 4: Research methodology  4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will present the research methodology employed in this study, including the research questions, research design and context, as well as the two participant groups in the study. I will also discuss data collection and analysis procedures, trustworthiness of the study findings, reflections on my own positionality within this research inquiry, and ethical considerations in undertaking this research. I will conclude the chapter with a summary and link to the ensuing chapters.  4.2 Research questions This dissertation project evolved from a simple yet important question: What are the investments, impediments and facilitators in emerging scholars’ getting published? In other words, the overarching research question guiding this study was: What are the social, cultural, and linguistic factors that facilitate or constrain socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication? More specifically, I sought to investigate the social, cultural, and linguistic factors contributing to or constraining the socialization of doctoral students into academic publication. To address the aforementioned overarching question, and consistent with the conceptual lenses framing the study, the following four sub-questions pertaining to doctoral students were formulated:  1. How do neoliberal forces impact the macro-context of scholarly publication and socialization of emerging scholars into academic publication? 2. What investments do emerging scholars have in seeking academic publication? 3. What are emerging scholars’ experiences in writing for scholarly publication? How do these experiences affect their scholarly identity development? 4. How do emerging scholars learn to write for and navigate scholarly publication? Alternatively stated, how are emerging scholars socialized into scholarly publication?  59  Besides exploring emerging scholars’ perceptions of and experiences in writing for publication, I also brought in the perspective of journal editors to develop a broader and deeper understanding of writing for scholarly publication in today’s neoliberal era. Including the perspectives of journal editors was considered important, because it would allow me to juxtapose and compare the lived experiences of doctoral students, as emerging scholars, with the perspectives of journal editors, as established scholars. The sub-questions pertaining to the editors were as follows:  5. What investments do journal editors have in their writing for academic publication? How different or similar are their investments compared to those of emerging scholars? 6. From the perspective of journal editors, what are the impediments and facilitators to academic publication by emerging scholars?   The two above-mentioned questions are common to both participant groups – i.e., emerging scholars and journal editors. On one level, I sought to explore and juxtapose the differential investments of the two participant groups. I was particularly interested in seeking an in-depth insight into ways in which the interests and investments of the said stakeholders in scholarly publication may interact, overlap, or conflict. A better understanding of the different interests and investments of the aforementioned key stakeholders in scholarly publication can have potential implications for the socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication.  On a different level, the study sought to explore the potential impediments and facilitators facing emerging scholars in getting published, from the dual perspectives of doctoral students and journal editors. Triangulating the different perspectives of the aforementioned key stakeholders in academic publishing can bear potential implications for socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication. As will be explained in the ensuing sections, a multiple case study was chosen to better understand doctoral students’ perceptions of and experiences with writing for scholarly publication. Besides, as a complementary part of the study, the pertinent perceptions of journal editors were sought through individual interviews. In what follows, under respective headings, I will explicate and make the case for the study design used in this research 60  inquiry.   4.3 Research design In terms of design, this research comprised two different yet related components: (1) a multiple case study with the doctoral students, and (2) an interview study with journal editors.  The overarching aim of the research was to obtain a thick and thorough description, as well as a triangulated perspective, of the facilitative and debilitative factors affecting socialization of doctoral students into scholarly publication. To this end, a 16-month multiple case study was designed to closely explore the experiences and perceptions of doctoral students in writing for publication (Section 4.5.1). In addition, about nine months into the case study, drawing from the questions and concerns raised by the doctoral students in the study, an interview study involving journal editors and editorial board members was conducted (Section 4.5.2).  Consistent with the principal purposes of the study, a case study design was adopted to investigate factors helping or hindering emerging scholars’ academic publication, from the perspective of the involved participants. Chief amongst the benefits of a case study design is its capacity to provide “a thick description of a complex social issue embedded within a cultural context”, which can potentially lead to “rich and in-depth insights that no other method can yield” (Yin, 2009, p. 155). Similarly, Duff (2008) argues that “when done well”—an important condition— case studies display “a high degree of completeness, depth of analysis, and readability”, and they are effective in generating “new hypotheses, models, and understandings” about the target phenomena (p. 43). In this research design, each doctoral student constituted a case that was studied longitudinally (16 months) and in detail. A key principle in designing case studies is that a case has to be a single entity with clearly defined boundaries (Dörnyei, 2007). For the purposes of this research, I define doctoral students in the study as cases or bounded systems, since they are bounded to the same practice of writing for scholarly publication.  By following each participant in the process of writing for publication, I aimed to obtain “well-rounded, rich descriptions and explanations” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 1) of the process of writing for and navigating scholarly publication. In line with the questions of the study, the participants’ experiences in and perceptions of writing for publication—including related processes and practices—were treated as units (and sub-units) of analysis. This design 61  allowed me to “see precisely which events led to which consequences, and drive fruitful explanations” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 1), and to attain an in-depth analysis of the factors facilitating or constraining socialization into scholarly publication.  As regards the choice between a single or multiple case study, following Duff (2008) and Yin (2009), I adopted a multiple case design, because it allows the researcher to gain multiple sources of perspectives and capture similarities and differences across cases, which helped me to have a better understanding of the processes and practices of writing for scholarly publication of doctoral students. Moreover, from a more pragmatic point of view, as argued by Duff (2006), having multiple (4-6) participants means that even in case of attrition among the participants, the researcher would likely have some (3-4) remaining cases. To sum this section up, a qualitative multiple case study allows for an in-depth, holistic, emic, multi-perspective analysis of writing for scholarly publication. In addition to the multiple case study, as was noted earlier, this research also entailed an interview study with journal editors with a view toward triangulating their perspectives with the practices and experiences of doctoral students in writing for publication. As argued by Duff (2008), “data, methods, perspectives, theories...can be triangulated in order to produce either converging or diverging observations and interpretations” (p. 30). Triangulation “can be used to ascertain multiple forms of interpretation (or multiple realities) at work in order to clarify meaning by identifying different ways the case is being seen” (Stake, 2005, p. 454). It is worth noting that, in this study, triangulation was achieved on two different yet related levels. On one level, multiple data sources — interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis — were triangulated. An important consideration in designing case studies is “the availability of multiple sources of information or perspectives on observations, and the in-depth nature of analysis” (Duff, 2008, p. 22). On another level, there was a triangulation of perspectives pertaining to different participant groups (doctoral students versus journal editors). By way of illustration, the common barriers and facilitators to doctoral students’ getting published – which were commented on by both participating groups – were analyzed, compared and contrasted – See Chapter 8. This two-pronged triangulation helped render both a holistic and a detailed understanding of factors affecting socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication. I 62  will now turn to a description of the research context where the case study on doctoral students was undertaken.   4.4 Context of the case study This case study occurred at a major Canadian research-focused university, pseudonymised as Pantheon University. According to its official website, Pantheon University is consistently ranked amongst the 100 best universities in the world. The university’s main campus, where the research was undertaken, is home to nearly 10,000 graduate students across various fields and faculties. Also worth noting is that the annual research funding allocated to Pantheon University in 2015/16 amounted to approximately $600,000,000. It should also be pointed out that whilst Pantheon University supports and valorizes research and publications by doctoral students, there is no stipulation to publish as a graduation requirement. Quite conceivably, though, doctoral students who manage to publish – prior to their admission or during their candidature – are more likely to receive grants and awards. Having discussed the research context, I now turn to a discussion of the participant groups and their recruitment.  4.5 Participants and their recruitment For the purposes of this study, using a purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2002), I recruited two groups of participants: (1) doctoral students, as emerging scholars, and (2) journal editors, as established scholars. In purposeful or purposive sampling, participants are often selected based on their attributes and pertinence to research questions in a study (Riazi, 2016). In what follows, under respective headings, I will provide details regarding the recruitment and profiles of the participant groups.  4.5.1 Doctoral students (as emerging scholars)  Aligned with the aims and purposes of the study, the inclusion criteria required the participants to (a) be enrolled as full-time doctoral students at the department in question at Pantheon University, (b) have had past (successful or otherwise) attempts in writing for scholarly publication in English, and (c) be planning to write for publication within the time 63  frame of the study – 16 months from the outset of the study. For the purposes of this study, I considered all types and genres of academic publication, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed, sole-authored and co-authored academic publications in English. I also considered the participants’ past – successful or otherwise – experiences, if any, in writing for scholarly publication. The participants could be domestic (Canadian) or international, from Anglophone or EAL background, either gender and from any age group. The reason this study aimed to focus only on doctoral students in a similar field of study in education is because there can be considerable potential variation between disciplines as regards what is conventional especially with respect to publication practices (Hyland, 2007).   Prior to data collection, I had developed sufficient familiarity with the research site, and could thus roughly identify the potential research participants – i.e., doctoral students who had experiences with writing for publication. Consequently, I first contacted the few potential participants who would meet the inclusion criteria (i.e., convenience sampling). In addition, I posted multiple recruitment advertisements on the bulletin boards of the particular department in question. Each participant was offered a $40 university bookstore gift certificate. I had initially anticipated to recruit 6-10 doctoral students; nevertheless, I did not turn away any volunteer participants partly because of my concern for possible attrition (Duff, 2008), particularly given the longitudinal nature of this case study – 16 months. As a result, I initially recruited 14 doctoral students who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study. Nonetheless, in consultation with my supervisor, I excluded the participants who opted not to share their correspondence and communication with journal reviewers and editors and those who did not publish during the study. I ended up selecting only four participants, given the depth and breadth as well as the richness of data they provided in the course of the study. Also worth noting is that the four selected cases provided a spectrum of experiences relevant to the research questions in the study. I should also point out that, in this study, I did not inquire into the participants’ socio-economic backgrounds or social class, as they could be potentially intrusive on their privacy. Such factors, however, might have some influence on one’s academic engagement and endeavours including one’s publication practices. Table 4.1 below displays the general profile of the four doctoral students in this multiple case study. It should 64  also be mentioned, though, that the more specific – and publication-related – information related to each of the following participants will be fully discussed in Chapter 5.  Table 4.1 Overview of the doctoral students in the case study Participant Gender First language Student status Publications  (onset of the study) Rose Female English Domestic (Canadian) 4 Heather Female English Domestic (Canadian) 2 Daisy Female Non-English International 5 Sam Male Non-English International 6   So as to preserve confidentiality, the participants’ real names have been replaced by pseudonyms and some inconsequential details – such as the year in the program (for all the participants), as well as age, nationality and first language (for Daisy and Sam) – have been deliberately deleted.   4.5.2 Journal editors  As noted earlier, it was important to include the perspective of editors, as they often wear multiple hats, in the sense that, besides bearing editorial responsibilities, they also review – often for multiple journals –  and serve as mentors to their students. They may also sit on search committees for new hires, and have a say in (or at least knowledge of) policies regarding tenure and promotion at their departments, universities, and perhaps beyond. Additionally, they generally contribute – as authors, presenters, and volunteers – to their professional associations and scholarly communities, and are thus insiders to their discourse communities. Moreover, on the experience continuum, they can be considered established scholars vis-à-vis emerging scholars. Given the multiplicity of their roles and identities, editors are in a position to provide a somewhat unique vantage point into the inner workings of the world of scholarly publication.  65  For the purposes of this study, the only inclusion criterion for participation was being a (past or present) editor or otherwise an editorial board member of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in the field in question. The reason I included both editors and editorial board members is because – notwithstanding their different levels of responsibility –  both groups seem to have sufficient familiarity with writing for publication and the publication practices of journals they serve. In addition, at the outset, I was not certain as to whether I could recruit enough editors.   To collect data, I attended two highly regarded and well-attended scholarly conferences in the given field, and approached each potential participant. Much to my pleasant surprise, though I had initially anticipated 10 participants, I managed to interview 22 editors and 5 editorial board members of well-known journals in the given field. Each participant was offered a $252 gift card, though some interviewees refused to accept them. As shown in Table 4.2 (below), there were 11, 6, and 5 participants in the three respective categories of incumbent editors, past editors, and current section editors.  It is important to note, however,  that all these five scholars had served as guest editors to reputable scholarly journals in their field in recent past, and two of them (Raymond and Leonard) were current book series editors. For convenience and ease of reference, henceforth I use the generic terms “editors” or “journal editors” to refer to both editors and editorial board members.                                                           2 The amounts are in Canadian dollars.  66    Note: *Past guest editor to scholarly journals                   ** Current book series editor and past guest editor to scholarly journals  To the best of my knowledge, all participants were tenured at their respective universities (predominantly in North America, though a few were in Oceania and Europe), and each had published numerous peer-reviewed articles (to varying degrees, though), and were thereby   Table 4.2 Participants and their editorial ranks   Pseudonym Editor or Co-editor  (current) Section Editor Editorial Board Member  Incumbent Former 1.  Abbey Ö    2.  Irene Ö    3.  Irving Ö    4.  Naomi Ö    5.  Nicole Ö    6.  Nigel Ö    7.  Norman Ö    8.  Olivia Ö    9.  Richard Ö    10.  Taylor Ö    11.  Zack Ö    12.  Ellen  Ö   13.  Isaac  Ö   14.  Nadia  Ö   15.  Ron  Ö   16.  Shane  Ö   17.  Yuri  Ö   18.  Carter   Ö  19.  Ivana   Ö  20.  Nancy   Ö  21.  Natalie   Ö  22.  Tom   Ö  23.  Leonard**    Ö 24.  Mark*    Ö 25.  Nick*    Ö 26.  Olga*    Ö 27.  Raymond**    Ö  Total 11 6 5 5  Grand total 27 67  deemed qualified enough to speak to issues and challenges facing emerging scholars writing for publication. Quite expectedly, the participants spoke mostly about the genre of research articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals; however, at certain points in the interviews, they also made references to other genres of writing for publication (e.g., books, book chapters) as well.   4.6 Data collection In this section, I provide a description of the multiple means of data collection employed to gain in-depth as well as multiple perspectives into the participants’ experiences with and perceptions of writing for and navigating scholarly publication. In the following, under respective headings, I will succinctly discuss each means of data collection – that is, questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis. Table 4.3 (below) presents an overview of data collection methods for both the doctoral students and editors in the study.  Table 4.3 Data collection summary Participants Data sources  Doctoral students • Questionnaires • Multiple semi-structured interviews  • Informal conversations  • Emails  • Communications and correspondence with editors/reviewers, including peer review reports, and responses to review comments   Journal editors • Semi-structured interviews   As shown in Table 4.3, in case of the doctoral students, there were multiple data sources – i.e., questionnaires, multiple interviews, document analysis – whereas in case of journal editors, only one data source was utilized, that is, one-time individual interviews. Data collection, in this study, spanned over 16 months from June 2014 to October 2015. My prolonged engagement allowed me to build rapport and a trusting relationship with the participants, which, in turn, helped me obtain richer and more in-depth data, resulting in a “thick 68  description” (Geertz, 1973, p. 24) of their experiences with and perceptions of writing for publication. In what follows, each data source will be briefly explained. Prior to data collection, informed consent (Appendix C) was sought, as mandated by the ethics committee at the research site – which will be fully explained in Section 4.9 (Ethical considerations).   4.6.1 Questionnaires For the purposes of this study, questionnaires were used to glean pertinent factual information regarding the case study participants’ demographic characteristics and past publications, in preparation for the first interview with each doctoral student. Upon consenting to partake in the study, each doctoral student was asked to complete a questionnaire (Appendix A), which sought information about the participant’s demographic background and experiences with academic publications. In each participant’s case, the initial data analysis consisted of a close reading of the questionnaire in preparation for the first interview.   4.6.2 Interview  In this study, semi-structured interviews were used, as I did not want to “limit the depth and breadth of the respondent’s story” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 136). In this type of interview, the “format is open-ended and the interviewee is encouraged to elaborate on the issues raised” (ibid.).  Another reason for using semi-structured interviews was that they allow the participants to articulate their perspective, and also give the researcher the flexibility to depart from pre-existing questions to address new directions suggested by the participants. To this end, based on the questions of the study—drawn from a review of literature—an interview guideline or protocol for each participant group was designed (Appendix B).   In qualitative research, interviews have been increasingly used, especially in studies that aim to investigate “participants’ identities, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations toward a range of phenomena” (Talmy, 2011, p. 25). Interviews, as the primary means of generating data, can be conceptualized as research instruments and as social practice (Talmy, 2010, 2011).   69  Interviews with emerging scholars (doctoral students) As mentioned earlier, each doctoral student had multiple, formal and informal, semi-structured interviews. The first round of interviews was conducted with each doctoral student in June 2014. To do the first interview with each participant, I did a close reading of the participants’ responses to the questionnaires –  prior to the interview – and used the interview guide (Sub-Appendix B1) as a starting place. My main, though not the sole, goal in the first interview was to probe deeper into the prior experiences of each participant with writing for publication. Each interview was subject to an initial analysis, and used as a basis for structuring subsequent interviews.  Moreover, in the course of the study, I had multiple interim, individual interviews with the participants, where necessary, particularly when a participant informed me of any form of communication with journals – e.g., manuscript submission, rejection, revise-and-resubmits. It was necessary to conduct multiple interviews at different points in time throughout the study, because the thrust of this multiple case study was to explore the process of writing for publication. During the interim, often informal, interviews, I sought to inquire into the particular experiences of the participants, using the interview guide as a point of departure (Sub-Appendix B1), but also asking other related, follow-up questions. I was particularly interested in investigating the participants’ understanding of and reactions to the review remarks and editorial feedback. For example, where a participant had received a revise-and-resubmit from a journal, I would ask the participant to elaborate on how he or she perceived the feedback, using specific examples from the peer review report, where possible. I would also pose questions regarding the ways in which the feedback had helped or hindered the given participants’ investment and socialization experiences.  The final round of interviews was conducted in October 2015, using the interview protocol. In the final interviews, I asked the participants to refer to and elaborate on both their general and specific experiences in writing for publication. I sought to explore whether, and if so how, the investment and identity of each participant had changed in the course of the study. Furthermore, I sought to develop a better understanding of the factors helping or hindering the socialization of the participants into writing for publication. In addition, the final interview allowed me the opportunity to do member checking, in the sense that I could double check the 70  data collected up to that point in each participant’s case, though there was a more thorough member checking at the end of data analysis as well, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.8.1 (Credibility). As for the average duration of interviews, the first and final interviews each approximately lasted for an hour. However, the interim interviews were often shorter and lasted anywhere between 20 and 40 minutes. The interviews were all audio recorded, with the participants’ permission, and transcribed verbatim. Interviews with journal editors  As earlier noted, in the case of journal editors, only one data source was utilized, that is, one-time individual interviews. The interviews with the editors were conducted approximately nine months into the study. I had informed the doctoral students, at the outset, that I would interview journal editors, and that I could take their key questions and concerns about writing for publication to the interviews. The questions for the interviews were mainly based on the preliminary analysis of the data provided by the multiple cases, including their questions and concerns regarding writing for publication (Sub-Appendix B2). As with the doctoral student interviews, the interviews with editors were transcribed verbatim, using Dragon Naturally Speaking (version 11).   4.6.3 Other sources of data Textual data The participants in the multiple case study were asked to share with me their (online) communication and correspondence with editors and reviewers – including the peer review report and their responses to revisions – to the extent they felt comfortable doing so. If a participant did not like to share a given text, I would ask him or her to provide quotes and examples from the text in question. Moreover, I had multiple email communications with each participant. Such emails, akin to the interim interviews, often occurred when a participant had received a response – i.e., rejection, revise-and-resubmit, or acceptance – from a journal. At other times, on occasion, I used email communications to follow up on, or seek clarification concerning, their interview comments. 71 Researcher journal Yet another source of data for document analysis came from my personal research journal, wherein I kept track of my major decisions, changing impressions, perceptions, problems, positionality, bias and other related ideas or questions that arose in the course of data collection. As the data collection proceeds, it may be hard to remember and keep track of changing perceptions, decisions and ideas (Duff, 2008, p. 142). My research journal served as a kind of self-monitoring tool, as my understanding of the phenomenon under the study evolved and changed. Keeping a note of my evolving understandings and reflections during the course of study helped me be wary of my own positioning and potential biases – See Section 4.8.4 (My own positionality), for more discussion. Cyber data In addition to the above-mentioned data, I also used information available in the public domain, such as the information on Pantheon University’s official website, the mission statements and editorial policies of journals whose editors I interviewed, as well as the latest promotion and tenure guidelines published by a well-known association in the relevant field. This type of ancillary data served to further contextualize the findings of the study. For example, the information gleaned from Pantheon University website helped me develop a better understanding of the research site where data was collected.   4.7 Data analysis As explained in the preceding section, data for this research was collected via multiple sources – chiefly through questionnaires, interviews, document analysis. The garnered data were analyzed with the goal of providing multiple perspectives into socialization of emerging scholars into scholarly publication. Given the longitudinal nature of data collection in this study, data analysis was conducted continuously and concurrently with data collection. To assist with the analysis, the qualitative software package, NVivo 11 was utilized.  72  The data analysis in a case study can be potentially more challenging than other approaches. Merriam (1998) notes that in case studies, a usual problem arises because “in addition to a tremendous amount of data, this range of data sources may present disparate, incompatible, even apparently contradictory information” that the researcher needs to reconcile and integrate (p. 193). Data analysis for the study was undertaken in accordance with the canons of qualitative data analysis; that is, organizing data around patterns and categories and identifying recurring themes, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013). For the purposes of the study, the data were subject to iterative thematic analysis. In what follows, I will explicate the thematic analysis used in the study. Thematic analysis, one of the most common qualitative data analysis methods, essentially “involves the generation of codes and then themes from qualitative data” (Clarke & Braun, 2014, p. 1948). Iterative data analysis was initiated at the outset of data collection and continued in the course of data collection (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Duff, 2008). In doing the thematic analysis, I followed the conventional steps — as advised by Clarke and Braun (2014) — including familiarizing myself with the data, identifying features of the data potentially pertinent to the research questions, coding emergent patterns, collating relevant codes under found themes, and deciding on the prominent and pertinent themes to address the research questions posed by the study. As mentioned earlier, NVivo 11 was used all along the data analysis process to code and categorize the recurring and notable themes. After combining and reviewing all relevant data for each doctoral student, I first did an in-depth analysis of each case, and then a cross-case analysis to compare and contrast findings across cases. Having multiple cases in this case study allowed for “more robust” findings (Yin, 2013, p. 164). Quite similarly, data gleaned from interviews with the journal editors were also analyzed across participants in search of salient themes relatable to the research questions.  Also important to mention here is that, in terms of approach to data analysis, this was an interpretive study. That is, the study was characterized by a concern for the individual, and sought to understand the subjective world of human experience (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The interpretation of meanings was made both by the social actors (i.e., participants) and by me, as the researcher (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Having explained the data analysis 73  in the study, I now turn to a brief discussion of the ethical considerations in this research.  4.8 Trustworthiness of the research findings  Following (Duff, 2008; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), I took some measures so as to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings of my study. Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 290) argue that qualitative research should be evaluated against the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability – or researcher reflexivity – to ensure the trustworthiness of a qualitative study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 300). In the following, these concepts will be examined in relation to the study. I should note, however, that confirmability or reflexivity will be discussed in Section 4.9 (My own positionality).   4.8.1 Credibility  When it comes to assessing credibility, member checking has been identified by Lincoln and Guba (1985, 1989) as the single most important method of increasing the credibility of qualitative research. In this study, member checking was conducted both informally, during the data collection, and formally, after data collection was completed. Once the study was completed, each case study participant was sent an email containing transcripts of interviews and a synopsis of collected data. All four participants (i.e., doctoral students) confirmed and verified the veracity and accuracy of the data. Besides member checking, following Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Merriam & Tisdell (2016), I took a series of steps, including triangulation of data sources and perspectives, prolonged engagement (16 months) with the case study participants, keeping a researcher journal (to minimize my own potential biases).  4.8.2 Transferability  To enhance the transferability of the findings of this research, as suggested by Duff (2006, 2008), I have tried to provide a detailed description of the research context and each case. It is hoped that by providing “sufficient descriptive data” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 298), the readers “can vicariously experience these happenings and draw conclusions (which may differ from those of the researchers)” (Stake, 2003, p. 141).  74   4.8.3 Dependability or reliability Dependability of a qualitative study, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), can be particularly enhanced if triangulation, peer review, and an audit trail are deployed. To enhance the dependability of the study findings, I left an audit trail for my study. To this end, all materials including copies of the research instruments (for example, interviews and schedules), copies of BREB approval letters, participant consent forms, and a historical record of various research processes (for example, early drafts of the data analysis) were retained, just in case. I also kept all data such as the original digital recordings, transcripts, my notes and researcher journal. 4.8.4 My own positionality Research, and in particular qualitative research, cannot be divorced from the positionality, identity, and interests of the researcher and also the participants. As both as a doctoral student myself with a passion for publishing and a researcher engaging in research on doctoral students — my peers, in a sense — I was reflective and mindful of the well-documented benefits and limitations, and the ethical dimensions of my positionality and potential bias in my researching my own passion and penchant. In order to minimize personal bias, as mentioned earlier, I recorded my main decisions and interpretations in a journal. Keeping a researcher journal helped me (a) make explicit my role in the research process, problems encountered, and the thinking and feeling behind key research decisions, and (b) keep track of my changing perspectives throughout the process of research, thereby serving an essential part of the audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I also noted my personal experiences in writing for scholarly publications and described my tendencies, hopes, concerns and preferences and biases. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to concede that my particular positioning as an aspiring Iranian-born, EAL doctoral student with varied experiences and a multitude of (successful and otherwise) attempts to publish might have influenced my questions and participant responses, though, admittedly, data is discursively co-constructed between interested parties.  75  4.9 Ethical considerations The ethical approval to undertake the study was issued by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) of the University of British Columbia in February, 2014 (See Appendix D). In close compliance with the BREB protocols, prior to data collection, I sought informed consent from the participants, and assured them that the data they provided would be treated confidentially and anonymously to protect their identity. Participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. What is also important to note here is that some details and potential identifiers have been partially redacted, or removed in their entirety, so as to ensure and preserve identities. For instance, doctoral students’ year in the program and journal editors’ affiliations have been removed.    4.10 Chapter summary In this methodology chapter, I have presented the methods of inquiry and the research context. I have also discussed the qualitative case study approach as the method of inquiry for this study, highlighting the suitability of this approach to address the research questions. In addition, I have provided a detailed description of the data collection processes from recruitment of the participants to the types of data sources deployed in the study (see Table 4.3, Data collection summary). As has been noted above, for the purposes of this study, data were obtained from different sources and multiple perspectives, and were analyzed iteratively and thematically both within and across participants. Subsequently, I presented the data analysis techniques followed by a discussion of the measures taken to ensure trustworthiness of the research findings. I then pointed out my positioning, as the researcher, and concluded with a succinct discussion of the ethical considerations in this study. In the ensuing three chapters, findings pertinent to each participant group will be discussed. Findings related to the emerging scholars and journal editors will be addressed in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.    76  Chapter 5: Emerging scholars’ writing for scholarly publication: Negotiating investment and identity  5.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will first introduce the four selected cases – doctoral students in language education at Pantheon University– and provide a brief overview of their scholarly publications and relevant experiences and perspectives. I will then proceed to present the participants’ salient stories and significant experiences, positive or otherwise, with the process of writing for scholarly publication. Both the participants’ own (emic) and my (etic) interpretations will be used to analyze the findings. Subsequently, I will set out to discuss factors that were found to facilitate or otherwise constrain the participants’ efforts and endeavours to get published in scholarly venues, making references to the overarching conceptual frameworks — namely, socialization, identity, investment, and neoliberalism— as well as extant scholarly research in the relevant line of inquiry. The chapter will be concluded by a summary and a link to the next chapter. 5.2 Participant profiles and their scholarly publications In this section, I will introduce the participants in this study, presenting an overview of their prior educational backgrounds, investments in and perspectives of academic publishing, as well as their publication-related experiences, particularly those relevant to their socialization into scholarly publication (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Table 5.1 provides overall information on the participants’ publication record, both at the onset and during the study. Table 5.2 provides  more detailed  information regarding the participants’ publication record, based on authorship. As mentioned earlier in Chapter 4 (Research Methodology), the analyzed data encompasses participants’ writing-for-publication experiences both prior to and during the study period, as the overarching aim of the study was to explore their experiences in their entirety, with a view toward elucidating the underlying sociocultural factors and dynamics affecting their socialization trajectories. In introducing the participants, in addition to their publication-related information, I 77  also refer to their educational backgrounds, investments in academic publishing, and their perspectives toward scholarly publications, at the start and conclusion of the study.   Table 5.1 Publication breakdown (prior to and during the study)  Participant  Journal Article Book Chapter Book Review Conference Proceeding Academic Newsletter Total Rose Onset of the study 1 1 2   4 During the study 1 1* 2   4 Total 2 2 4   8 Heather Onset of the study 2     2 During the study 2 1*  1 1 5 Total 4 1  1 1 7 Daisy Onset of the study 3   1 1 5 During the study 1** 1    2 Total 4 1  1 1 7 Sam Onset of the study 3 1  2  6 During the study 2   1  3 Total 5 1  3  9 Note:  *Accepted but not published yet. ** Abstract accepted for special issue, yet the full article is under review. Table 5.2 Publication breakdown (based on authorship) Participant  Journal Article Book Chapter Book Review Conference Proceeding Academic Newsletter Total Rose Sole-authored 1  4   5 Co-authored with supervisor or other prof. 1 (2nd A.*) 2 (2nd A.)     3  Co-authored with peer       Total 2 2 4   8 Heather Sole-authored 1    1 2 Co-authored with supervisor or other prof. 1(3rdd A.) 1(2nd A.)   1 (2ndA.)   3  Co-authored with peer 2(1st A.)     2 Total 3 1  1 1 7 Daisy Sole-authored 1   1 1 3 Co-authored with supervisor or other prof. 3(2nd A.) (2nd A.) (3rd A.) 1(2nd A.)    4  Co-authored with peer       Total       Sam Sole-authored 3 1  2  6 Co-authored with supervisor or other prof. 2(2nd A.) (3rd A.) (2nd A.)  (2nd A.) 1  3  Co-authored with peer 1**      Total 5 1  3  9 Note:  * A. stands for author **Co-authored with both a professor and a peer, and as such, counted as one publication. 78   On a different note, I should point out at the outset that I have only included participants’ publications that were in English. Daisy and Sam also had publications in their first language, and Heather had a published conference proceeding in a language other than English, which did not fall within the purview of the present study and were thus not included in the data analysis.  5.2.1 Rose Rose was a Canadian doctoral student who speaks English as her first language. She had earned her previous—bachelor’s and master’s— degrees from well-known North American universities. At the time of the first interview, Rose had already four publications (Table 5.1), including a book chapter and a journal article, both co-authored with her master’s supervisor, as well as two published book reviews (Table 5.2). She had also been awarded a competitive federal grant, in part at least, due to her impressive publication record.    It is remarkable to note that, in the first interview, when I asked Rose to reflect on and recount her experiences in writing for publication, she said “I have interesting stories to tell” smilingly. Speaking of her interests and dispositions, Rose pointed out that she possesses a passion and penchant for writing: “I love writing. That is where I feel most comfortable. The other day I was thinking when am I happiest? I am happiest when I am writing my way through an idea …I love writing my way through ideas” (First Interview, June 20, 2014). Her penchant for writing may (at least in part) account for the fact that she had managed to publish early on in her graduate studies. Compared to her counterparts in the study, Rose had been off to an earlier start in writing for scholarly publication, and had co-authored with her master’s supervisor. Moreover, besides having published a book review during her master’s program, she had started reviewing for scholarly journals – on her mentor’s recommendation – which she thought has been of benefit to her, because she “read[s] articles very differently now…and certainly… on a sub-conscious level [also] it really has helped …[her]…to write and revise” her own papers better and more effectively. Reflecting on her socialization experience and how she learnt to write more efficaciously, Rose remarked:  I think part of learning how to write is learning how you write and I have learned that my writing style…I learned through my master’s supervisor, through [his] feedback on my 79  thesis that I tend to write to the point instead of presenting the point first and then presenting arguments to support it.  (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  According to Rose, it was through her supervisor’s feedback that her attention was drawn to her own style of writing, which indicates the important role of feedback from mentors, and by extension from professors (vis-à-vis that of peers). Reflecting on her early investment in writing for scholarly publication and the trajectory of her academic socialization and scholarly identity formation, she remarked:  Why did I even think to start publishing? I think that goes back to one important point…[when]… I received really key advice at end of my undergrad. So we had a kind of grad mentor and she started socializing us already. She said you should participate in this undergraduate conference because it will be a line on your CV, and this was the first time that I realized that I had even a CV to build, so it was a really big turning point because it positioned us… as emerging scholars at the end of my undergrad already, like a key moment in my academic socialization and like …starting to see myself as a scholar. So I went into my master’s thinking of this CV thing and that it was something that needed to be fed, that needed lines on it and so at that level I dedicated myself, [and] my efforts to presentations because they could give me lines in my CV… she made us aware that there is a CV and we should start filling it out because it will pay off later. (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  It is indeed interesting to note that it was through her mentor that Rose was (for the very first time) made aware of the importance of building up her “CV”. Also noteworthy is the fact that her mentor’s “really key advice” led her to envision herself “as a scholar” for the first time, and that made her invest in her academic identity by participating in and presenting at conferences. Incidentally, also in her master’s program, Rose had been supervised by a mentor whose guidance and mentorship had substantially contributed to her socialization into academic publication, as shown in the comments below: I had a really wonderful experience of mentorship for three years over my master’s. My supervisor… had published a lot… My first publications, two of my publications, were with him and so… [I had] ... so yeah my experience [of socialization] was very natural…I honestly don’t know how it happened…a very natural and a very real mentoring process, so if I know anything about writing for publication it is from that mentorship. My first experiences [in writing for publication] were very mentored and scaffolded.  (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  80  The fact that Rose attributed her success in writing for publication to the mentorship she had received underscores the key role of mentorship in emerging scholars’ socialization and academic identity construction. Remarking on the underlying reasons for her sustained investment in scholarly publishing and whether she perceived the purported pressure to publish, Rose remarked: I try to publish because I enjoy writing but I also want to be part of the academic conversations, so …[while] pressure to publish…or perhaps expectation to publish, I should say, is definitely there, and evidence of that was when she [the grad advisor] made us aware that there is a CV and we should start filling it out just because it will pay off later. So while I feel those pressures, that is not the first thing in my head [when I write to publish] and I do it more [because] I really I love to write and I love the idea of being part of the conversation there. (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  While being cognizant of the neoliberal “pressure to publish”, Rose was primarily invested in scholarly publishing by virtue of her passion for writing and her desire to contribute to scholarly conversations in her discipline, as indicated in the above except from our first interview. Commenting further on the prevailing pressure to publish, Rose stated:  I think people sometimes get too hung up on this neoliberal idea of … indexes, hierarchies…if you get too hung up on that, there are so many drawbacks. I just think that in grad school, …isolation is part of that getting very tunnel-versioned into these very abstract and largely arbitrary parameters and expectations that supposedly exist…that supposedly hiring committees are looking for the following things… I am no less committed to academia, but I am not going to be a passive agent of it, I am not going to. (First Interview, June 20, 2014)   As denoted in the quote above, Rose is aware of, yet not submissive to, the neoliberal ideology and its manifestations in academe. It is also worth noting that Rose, compared to other participants in the study, had more critical remarks on and references to the neoliberal ideology. Also, on a different occasion, reacting to the angst and anxiety expressed by some peers about requirements for future employment especially as regards publications and journals’ indexing and impact factor, Rose remarked “Is it my impact or my impact factor [that matters]?” (Interim Interview, September, 10, 2014). As Rose clearly asserts in the quotes above, while she is aware of neoliberal ideologies dominating academia, she asserts that she “is not going to be a passive agent of [academia]”, and submissively succumbing to those “systemic patterns of control” that 81  determine and dictate the way agents “are positioned” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 46), and actually called on graduate students to resist the dominant neoliberal ideology, as shown below: I think that too much attention to the politics and to stuff that’s really outside of our control distracts from the time that we can spend falling in love with our research and developing our own research story.  So I say, as graduate students, let’s hold on to that original passion that gained us admission to the neoliberal university, and let it guide our developing scholarly habitus. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  Denoted in the excerpt above is Rose’s critical cognizance of the neoliberal pressures to publish in the “neoliberal university”. What particularly stands out in the quote above, though, is Rose’s call on “graduate students” to “hold on to that original passion”, which again indicates her passion-driven investment in scholarly practices and her resistance to neoliberal ideology of being pressured to publish. Strikingly, Rose recognizes (and exerts) her agency to assert her own identity, and challenge normative and common way of thinking by many (or at least) some graduate students, which resonates with Darvin and Norton’s (2015) contention that:  The desire to be part of an imagined community or to take on an imagined identity enables the learner to gain from or to resist these positions. Recognizing that they have the agency to assert their own identities, learners are able to negotiate symbolic capital, reframe relations of power, and challenge normative ways of thinking, in order to claim the right to speak. (p. 47)  It is remarkable to note that, at the conclusion of the study, Rose used “joining the table” as a metaphor to refer to her view of scholarly publishing, and again reiterated her passion for entering the scholarly conversations of her discipline, as shown below:  For me the opportunity to publish is to really just being able to join the table, being able to sit at the table and converse with others with whom I want to have a conversation about things in the world that are of interest and that trouble me…Yeah, it’s like the dinner table… [publishing is like] being able to join the conversation at the adults’ table…and that for so many years you sit at the kids’ table on the side and you can overhear.  You’re like an overhearer, a ratified overhearer of the adult conversation. And once you begin to publish, you’re invited up to the adult table and you can begin to participate in meaningful conversations. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  Rose’s reference to writing for scholarly publication as an attempt to join the conversations in the field is reminiscent of Bazerman’s (1980, 1985) notion of ongoing core “conversations” in disciplines, which he thinks scholars need to be aware of, if they wish to 82  maintain membership in the discourse community of their disciplines. Equally notably, Rose emphasized that it was her mentor who had mediated and paved the way for her to “join the table”: So I was brought to the table.  … [my master’s supervisor] took me by the hand and brought me to the table to sit with him and other more, you know, established scholars … [but] I think for many of my peers, they're alone and they feel small … So when he [my master’s supervisor] came to take me by the hand to bring me to the table, I felt like I belonged. But I think for some [novice scholars] … they have no one to come bring them over [to the table, in the metaphoric sense] … and they don’t know how to find their way to the table. They get lost along the way … I have had the good fortune of having a warm hand to hold. He was just so kind to bring me to the table.  And I feel that I haven’t left [the table since then]. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  Encapsulated in the quote above is the crucial and facilitative role of mentors in socializing novice scholars into academic publication. As noted earlier, Rose’s supervisor had offered to co-author with her, and by doing so he had not only given Rose the chance to have a first-hand, yet scaffolded, experience with writing for publication, but, equally tellingly, he had nurtured her scholarly identity and sense of belonging to the scholarly community, as evidenced in Rose’s comment that “I felt like I belong”. It is worth mentioning that Rose aspired to become a tenure-track professor. Also interesting is that Rose had not attended any formal writing-for-publication workshops nor had she read any related advice books on how to write for scholarly publication. Elaborating on her opinion of workshops and advice books, Rose said: If they held a workshop, I don’t think I would go to it because mentorship from my experience has been so much stronger and more intensive and lasting… much more of an education than a workshop with bullet points… I had a very natural socialization into the genre I guess and actually, to be honest, I am not very interested in reading academic writing books…I just find it very kind of… generic… (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  Within the research period, Rose managed to add more academic publications to her already-impressive academic profile, and published a single-authored journal article and two book reviews. Moreover, she had been invited (by her mentor) to co-author a review article as well as a book chapter, which had been accepted for publication at the completion of the study. In addition, during the study period, she was invited onto the editorial board of a reputable journal in her field, after having published two well-written book reviews in and having 83  reviewed for the journal in question. Also, apparently because of her solid skills and prowess in academic writing, she was hired to serve as a copy editor – literacy broker – to an EAL professor at Pantheon University. She was a member of a student-initiated writing and peer support group, where she and her peers from the department met to share and exchange academic experiences, as well as seek and offer support and (at times) provide oral or written feedback on their texts. Reflecting on the ways in which she had improved her writing for publication, Rose remarked: for our whole academic lives so far, we have been writing for professors. We have been writing to display our knowledge but we have not been writing to be read … It [a text intended for publication] should be something people want to read, and so it is a very subtle but important shift in how you approach writing [for publication]. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  It is remarkable that, as a result of her experiences with writing for publication, Rose has come to learn, among other things, a crucial difference between writing for publication and writing other genres familiar to graduate students. Whereas in graduate student genres, the aim often is to “display familiarity, expertise, and intelligence” to one’s professors (Swales & Feak, 2012, p. 6, emphasis in the original), in writing for publication, one needs to come up with a contribution worth sharing with the scholarly community (Thomspon & Kamler, 2013; Paré, 2011). At the conclusion of the study, reflecting on the ways in which her sense of self (especially as a writer/academic) had changed (compared to the outset of the study), Rose remarked: “I feel more confident I suppose…I’m here…like landed… I’ve landed. I have both of my feet under me now and I’m ready to take on new publishing challenges”. When I asked her to elaborate on how this perceived boost in her confidence had been constructed — and whether it was because of her publications that she felt more confident than before — she explained: The ‘acceptances’ – that’s like 1% of where my confidence comes from. Now that you’ve put it that way, my confidence comes from the everyday engagements with editors with my review process. Even rejections…writing book reviews, the whole thing, you know. So yeah, when they say “yes” and “this is going to be [published],” it’s like a “like” on Facebook.  It’s like, “oh good, you’ve seen it. You’ve heard me.” That’s what it says to me when they say yes, your article has been accepted for publication: it’s nice. But that is like 1% of where my confidence comes from. My confidence comes from these meaningful communications with multiple people throughout the publication process. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  84  It is indeed remarkable to note that it was not merely Rose’s successful attempts at scholarly publishing but rather her dedicated engagement and sustained investment in the process of academic publishing in different capacities — or rather her multiple identities (Norton, 2013), as a published author, co-author (with her mentor), journal reviewer, and more recently as an editorial board member — that had collectively contributed to constructing her confidence and a solid sense of being grounded and established as an academic writer and researcher. Also worth noting is Rose’s reference to “meaningful communications with multiple people throughout the publication process”, which speaks to the importance of proper communication and interaction with the parties involved in the publication process. On that note, Rose further remarked:  I honestly believe … some of the publications I’ve had it’s been partly because we [me and editors and reviewers]’ve had beautiful interactions behind the scenes, you know. … I think that matters … if you talk back to editors, if you’re not nice about it, ... they won’t respond well. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  The point encapsulated in the quote above is indicative of Rose’s awareness of the need for appropriate and polite engagement with journal gatekeepers (i.e., editors and reviewers). It is interesting to note that, upon the conclusion of the study, when I asked Rose to verify the accuracy of the garnered data (as part of member checking for this study), she stated: “it’s so interesting to see/read where I was at … 2 years ago! Lots has changed [in terms of her understanding of and socialization into writing for publication] ...” (Email communication, April 24. 2017), which bears testament to the developmental and gradual nature of socialization into scholarly publication. 5.2.2 Heather Heather was a Canadian-born doctoral student who had completed both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in reputable North American universities, and speaks English as her first language. Prior to the commencement of her doctoral program, she had managed to publish two scholarly texts (Table 5.1), including a first-authored journal article co-authored with a professor in her (master’s) department, as well as a co-authored journal article, published prior to embarking on her PhD program (Table 5.2). Possessing a strong command of academic English, she has served as a literacy broker to two EAL professors in her master’s program, which resulted in two publications – a co-authored journal article and a conference proceeding. Prior to 85  the commencement of her PhD program, she had also served on the editorial board of a university-affiliated journal at her alma mater. Like Rose, she too had managed to win a prestigious, and much-coveted federal grant, presumably partly owing to her strong publication record. Commenting on her investment in writing for scholarly publishing, Heather stated: Why do I try to get published? ... Well there is a lot of pressure to publish and … it is my understanding that without publications it is nigh impossible to get a job in academia. Now if I were interested in getting a job in … [her field] … teaching school or some sort of other position outside of academia, I wouldn’t worry about it to be honest because I don’t really think so much of scholarly publication is wonderful. No one except for like four people ever would probably ever read it [a publication]. So it is more about prestige than anything else and about, like I said, academic research in that very specific focused area. So I certainly don’t publish to affect change in any sort of domain. … so publishing … so that I can get a job later, continue to get money from the government [research grants] yeah. (First Interview, June 18, 2014)  As indicated in the quote above, Heather was well aware of the pressure to publish and expectations of doctoral graduates to have publications before applying for an academic position, which she aspires to have. From Heather’s perspective, her investing in scholarly publications would pave the way for her becoming an academic (i.e., her imagined identity). Heather used the metaphor “lottery” to refer to the subjective and often unpredictable nature of scholarly publishing: I like to think of it as a lottery… Like the slot machines, you put your coin in and maybe it’ll get rejected and maybe you’ll win the jackpot, maybe you won’t. You put the coin in and you hope for the best. And because you get the 3 matching things right, like you get 3 positive reviews, you win the jackpot [and get accepted by a journal]. But you just never know, it’s pretty random, because the reviewers you get are random and you just don’t know. Sort of imbuing it with this element of subjectivity and chance makes me feel better if I get rejected… if I think about it like a lottery and its being random like that, then if I get rejected…. then that makes me feel better. (Final Interview, October 21, 2015)  Interesting to note in the quote above is Heather’s point that the fate of a submitted article is, to a considerable extent, determined by the journal reviewers who adjudicate the quality and publishability of a given submission, which suggests the subjectivity and selectivity inherent in the peer review system. Perhaps more notably, Heather’s conception of peer review as a process involving randomness has been helpful to her. This way, if and once rejections occur, she can handle them less – if not completely – personally. Heather, like Rose, does not see much benefit 86  in attending writing-for-publication workshops or reading related advice genre. Commenting on writing for publication workshops and advice (self-help) books, Heather had the following to say: They are always generic…I feel like publication politics are so different in different disciplines that it [attending workshops] does not help, so not much relevant…I also think unless they actually read my manuscript I won’t be able to get much helpful feedback. I seem to learn more about it [scholarly publishing] via word of mouth and talking to peers than from workshops or help books (First Interview, June 18, 2014)  Heather prefers to learn about scholarly publishing through “word of mouth and talking to [her] peers”, that is through peer-socialization, rather than from workshops or books which often dispense “generic” advice. It is worthwhile noting that, within the study period, Heather managed to add five more academic publications to her profile (Table 5.1), including two journal articles – one sole-authored and another first-authored with a peer of hers – a conference proceeding (with a professor in her department), as well as an article in an academic newsletter. Furthermore, she had been invited (by her mentor) to co-author a book chapter, which had been accepted for publication at the completion of the study. Also, in collaboration with a professor in her department, she was in the process of preparing a manuscript for submission. Also, during the study period, she did reviews for a journal and a conference in her field. At the conclusion of the study, Heather commented on the ways in which she had improved her writing for publication: I feel like I now [compared to the outset of the study] have a way [much] better solid foundation. I feel more comfortable when I cite things. I know that … it’s important that people would go ‘oh yes, we cited that and we know what that is ... whereas before I just had this massive collection of random things that weren’t really connected but now I know how to connect them better. And I think my comps [doctoral comprehensive exams] did that…that was so helpful … I think just in terms of my ego, I’m a little bit more thick skinned. I am not as worried about rejection as I was, which I think is important. (Final Interview, October, 21, 2015)  Remarkably, Heather thinks that, as a result of having done her comprehensive doctoral exams – which (at Pantheon University) involves extensive yet purposeful reading of scholarly texts – she has now developed a better sense of how to connect ideas and how to cite more strategically. Also worth noting is that Heather has become more “thick-skinned” and now takes rejections more in stride. It is also worth mention that, upon completion of the study, when I 87  asked Heather to verify the accuracy of the collected data (as part of member checking for this study), she stated:  I found out this past weekend that a well-known scholar in my field is using my article as a course reading. I also got asked to review a paper citing this article. It felt amazing! I couldn’t believe that people were actually reading my work (and not just four people, like I said in my first quote) but a whole class of students (Email communication, February 16, 2017).  Embedded in the quote above is the point that scholarly publications, particularly when cited and attended to, can serve to validate one’s scholarly identity. It also bears noting that she has made the realization that publications can have a much wider readership and impact than what one may anticipate at the outset. 5.2.3 Daisy Daisy was an international student for whom English was as an additional language (EAL). She has completed both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees at reputable universities in her home country. Prior to her admission into the PhD program, she had managed to publish a single-authored conference proceeding (at a conference in her country) as well as three journal articles, including two single-authored publications at an (in-house) journal – affiliated with the university where she earned her master’s degree – and another second-authored article in a refereed journal in her home country (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). In addition, she had also published a brief article (out of her master’s thesis) in an academic newsletter which was also associated with her alma mater. She had also served as a translator rendering a book (from English) into her first language, which she deemed another “important way of disseminating research”, especially “for international and multilingual writers” (Final Interview, October 2, 2015).  Given her strong publication record, compared to other PhD applicants, she was awarded a merit-based fellowship upon her admission to the Pantheon University.  Surprisingly, though, when I asked her about her publications in the initial interview, she sheepishly replied “I do not know if they can be called publications”, which can be perhaps taken to suggest an indication of a fledging academic identity in process of formation. Reflecting back on her experience of publishing in the given in-house journal, she told me the journal was peer reviewed, and that in the process she had received some suggested 88  revisions from the reviewers, but that they were “mostly (concerned with) you should fix this…on the table, comma…this isn’t APA, not much of…about the content, so minor revisions and yeah some grammatical errors. I did not feel I was okay, but I replied like ‘thank you I will fix this and that, because they were not very harsh…no harsh feedback” (First Interview, July, 25, 2014). During her master’s, she had also worked as a Research Assistant (RA), which had led to a second-authored article published in her home country. Referring to the experience of co-authorship and whether it entailed any learning opportunity for her or not, she remarked  The professor took all the ...[responsibility] ... He was the first author he submitted to the journal … and [he] received the feedback on our manuscript from the editors and then … he said if you have any comments please tell me. So because it was with a professor... I was very reliant on him... it was a good experience, and I was like wow ...this professor is … so much experienced. He turned this manuscript into something really nice and publishable (First Interview, July, 25, 2014).   As indicated in the quote above, the co-authorship experience Daisy had was in some ways valuable and it brought her a joint publication; nonetheless, it seems that she had little opportunity to gain first-hand and hands-on experience in the process, as the mentor (professor) apparently did not involve her much in the process.   Daisy was an active member of a student-initiated student writing group, and prior to submitting manuscripts for publication, she would often seek feedback (in terms of content mostly) from her peers – at the student-led writing support group – and would often ask an Anglophone peer of hers – in the United States, as a literacy broker (Lillis & Curry, 2010) – to have her manuscripts proofread. When I asked Daisy why she aspired to write more for publication, she replied: The first thing is to fill my CV … because we have to do job hunting, and we are told many, many times that the more publications there are, the better and also like disseminating ideas…I do not know of course if my ideas are really interesting ideas now, ... I am a really young scholar I do not know if I have that much to share…but I want to share them but then like in presentations it’s like a one-shot thing and maybe people will not remember it, but if it’s in an article, one document, then anyone can look at it any time. It would have a much bigger impact than presentation, right? One of the things I am interested in if I do not become a tenure[d] prof. is to look for other jobs in academia, like…administrative…or in alternative academic positions…but …, I still need to publish to demonstrate my data, to share my research with other people. I still need to publish to show my capacity in some way (First Interview, July, 25, 2014).   89  In essence, Daisy invests in publication endeavours so as to strengthen her scholarly profile and CV, which in turn can potentially pave the way for a position in academia—a testament to the close connection and contingency between investment and imagined identity (Darvin & Norton, 2015). She also believes investing in scholarly publications can serve to expand her range of imagined identities and possibilities for future employment, which is illustrative of how investment in academic publishing is tied to one’s incumbent identity as well as one’s future-oriented imagined range of identities (Norton, 2013). Daisy is also interested and invested in disseminating her ideas and scholarly findings, though she is again not certain whether as “a really young scholar”, she has “that much to share”, which is emblematic of her fledgling academic identity that is yet to emerge. Also interesting to note is her reference to the fact that publications “would have a much bigger impact than presentations”, and embody a sense of permanence and documentation, vis-a-vis other modes of knowledge dissemination like oral presentations, which she refers to as being “a one-shot thing” that “maybe people will not remember”.  Daisy hopes she can one day manage to publish in “really good journals, top tier journals that you see frequently in course readings, references like… (the flagship journal of her field), or… (another well-known journal)” in the future; however, for now she said she would be content with publishing in journals “that are not top tier but maybe like second tier and if I get to publish in those kinds of journals I will be satisfied even with those”. She thought the geographical location of publishers also is a key factor in determining the value placed on a publication, and commented:  I always feel like famous publishers like … [a reputable publisher whose representative I later on interviewed]… have more prestige…those that are published through those big companies are maybe more important…compared to journals that are from other countries or other university-based journals. I do not know to what extent I want to publish in them (the latter) …maybe I am biased. (First Interview, July, 25, 2014)   For Daisy, much like Rose, being able to successfully write for scholarly publication is metaphorically akin to being able to join the “conversations at the (academic) party”, where only those who have published get to engage and relish conversations. According to Daisy, “those who already know how to publish are [seen as] successful…and those who have not [published] or do not publish want to join in [but] they don’t have the skills to join the conversations or may 90  feel shy [to do so] …I feel like I am in that party, and people are too busy to help me. I feel like I need to figure things out by myself…[It] makes me feel uncertain” (Final Interview, October 2, 2015). The metaphor used by Daisy happened to be the same as Rose’s metaphor, but it also reveals the perceived tie between one’s publications and identity as “successful” in being able to “join the conversations” in one’s scholarly community.  During the study, an interesting occurrence that happened to Daisy, after presenting at a well-known conference, was that she had been approached by a renowned journal editor and asked to submit a manuscript to a prestigious scholarly journal in her field (see Section 5.3.1. for more details). Moreover, after having contacted the editor of the special issue of a scholarly journal, Daisy was asked to submit an abstract for consideration by the journal in question.  By the conclusion of this study, Daisy had managed to write a book chapter with her supervisor. Furthermore, she was in the process of finalizing two multi-authored journal articles with her peers in the aforementioned peer writing group. 5.2.4 Sam Sam, like Daisy, was an international doctoral student who speaks English as an additional language (EAL). Similar to Daisy, he has completed his prior – bachelor’s and master’s – degrees in his home country, but hopes to find an academic position in North America upon graduation from his doctoral program. He views one’s publications as academic currency:  The reason for publishing is that basically the publishing is pretty much like…the academic currency. It is what we are supposed to do…We have, as scholars, this kind of commitment to the dissemination of knowledge. And of course, we are ranked as scholars and researchers in terms of our ability and I will say we are quantitatively assessed in terms of how many publications we have. We, emerging as scholars… have this pressure to kind of display our capabilities to disseminate knowledge and that is quantitatively assessed, I mean how many. It’s not just how good they are, it’s how many you have, which is interesting I would say. There is some amount of productivity that is demonstrated by publications. So if I have 10 publications I am sort of more successful and more productive than whatever that somebody who has zero publications, or two publications. (First Interview, June 13, 2014)  Besides having “a commitment to dissemination of knowledge” as an academic – also stated by Rose and Daisy – Sam invests in academic publishing to enhance his sense of self (i.e., identity) and to demonstrate and showcase his productivity (as perceived both by himself and 91  others). He is explicit in saying that having scholarly publications is somewhat demonstrative of one’s perceived “productivity” and success, which is testament to how investment in attaining academic publications affects identity construction and one’s sense of self. Commenting on whether or not he felt a pressure to publish, Sam stated: Yes, I'm feeling a lot of pressure basically I just feel like I need to be able to do this. This is … not personal but I don't know if everyone is feeling the same thing. When I arrived to the department, to the program I used to think well, … you only need to be smart enough and not to die in the process…I thought okay that's the only thing that you really need and then suddenly I started to realize … actually that's not accurate. I need to become a good writer, I need to be a good writer in English, a good writer for these particular genres, academic genres. That is not that easy, it's just not easy because it's not only the genre, it's [also that] each journal has its own methods of assessment. Some things will be good for one journal and not good for the other journal and so what I do now is that I push myself to prepare something [a manuscript] based on something that I already have or whatever. (First Interview, June 13, 2014)  As encapsulated in the above anecdote, prior to his doctoral program admission – and in the context of his home country – Sam did not feel much of a pressure to publish academically; but nonetheless, he started feeling the pressure to do so ever since he entered the doctoral program at Pantheon University, which suggests the prevalence of the pervasive pressure to publish in North American academia, where Pantheon University is situated. Also explicated in the quote above is the fact that early on in his PhD program (at the Pantheon University), Sam came to realize the prime importance of becoming “a good writer in English” and developing a keen cognizance of “particular genres” and “academic genres” in his doctoral program (Hyland, 2006), while being also savvy regarding different journals and their differential expectations. As regards writing for publication training and preparation, Sam has not read any advice books, but has attended most (somehow relevant) academic writing workshops held in the department (where he is located), and finds such workshops helpful in terms of honing and improving “academic writing, not necessarily writing for publication because every time I have taken these workshops I’m thinking more in terms of my final papers” (First, Interview, June, 13, 2014). Sam often sought his supervisor’s advice and feedback on his drafts (before submission). Reflecting on the helpful advice he had received from his supervisor, Sam remembered her supervisor advising him to:  92  look within the… journal, and find a publication, a paper to respond to, instead of [just] trying to write something … and that completely changed my writing practices. Now, every time I have to write for a journal I look to respond to something that they have published [already], and she [his supervisor] told me that will increase your opportunities to be published in that particular journal … it will give an impression to the editors that you are really, really into that [journal]. (Final Interview, October 2, 2015)  Sam’s supervisor, an established and prolific scholar herself, raised his awareness of the import of looking closely at the papers previously published by the intended journal and “identifying the conversations of academic journals” (Curry & Lillis, 2013, p. 50). Also important is the tip she gave Sam concerning the importance of trying to “find…a paper to respond to” in the given journal, as a way to enter and forge a dialogic conversation with author(s) of another already-published paper in the journal. Turning again to the helpful advice Sam had received from his supervisor, his supervisor also at times posed thought-provoking questions such as “who are you writing for?” and “who are the readers of the journal?”.  More tellingly, she also provided helpful tips regarding citations – who to include or exclude, depending on the journal and the thrust of the paper – which Sam thought is part of “insider knowledge”. Citations arguably constitute “a key way of demonstrating familiarity with relevant research and locating…[one’s]…work within existing scholarly conversations” (Curry & Lillis, 2013, p. 70), and are thus an important aspect of writing for scholarly publication. Part of graduate students’ socialization into academic discourse is acquiring the savvy and prowess to aptly and judiciously deploy citations (Fazel & Shi, 2015). It should also be pointed out that at the outset of his doctoral program, Sam enlisted the professional services of an Anglophone “editor” to craft and polish his manuscripts, as shown in the excerpt below: I have an editor. …Usually what I do is that I write the content and then like send it [to the editor]. …I have to pay and they [editors] make my research look good. It’s not that bad…but it’s not that good. I mean…they are really good [at] doing their job…but … I don’t want to have an editor my whole life. I want to become good enough to be able to publish by myself and I don’t think I’m there yet.   It is interesting to note that Sam (in the first interview, as shown in the quote above), told me he was trying to wean himself off the editor, and to attempt writing and publishing manuscripts on his own, which he eventually managed to do, by the conclusion of this study. 93  Within the study period, as shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, Sam managed to publish 3 more academic texts, including two sole-authored journal articles and a first-authored conference proceeding with his supervisor. Also, he had two journal articles under review (with a peer and professor in his department), at the conclusion of the study. Quite strikingly, he referred to scholarly publications as “academic currency”, which suggests his view of them as forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1977) that can be converted from one form to another. Referring to the lack of transparency in the peer review, Sam used the metaphor “black box” because “you never know what is happening inside [in the process] … not much transparent”.  To recapitulate this section, besides having published prior to the study, the participants all managed to produce publications within the study period as well. In terms of sole-authored publications, Sam and Heather were able to publish two academic texts – though Sam published two journal articles, and Heather a journal article and an article in a newsletter. Similarly, Rose published a single-authored journal article, and Daisy had a sole-authored piece under review, which quite conceivably would be published. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that all participants were accorded the opportunity to publish with their supervisors, which is indicative of the support and scaffolding offered by some of the mentors in the department in question at Pantheon University.  On a side note, Daisy and Sam spoke English as an additional language, but both had taken and passed standardized English proficiency tests prior to commencing their doctoral programs at Pantheon University. In terms of their aspired (imagined) identity, all four cases, including Daisy and Sam, expressed the explicit ambition to attain academic positions in North America, and albeit having (somewhat) differential investments in writing for scholarly, they were in agreement that scholarly publications serve to potentially pave the way for their dream—of achieving an academic position in North America—to come true. Also, all participants, upon member checking at the conclusion of the study (after 16 months),  were unified in stating that they had come a long way since the outset of the study, and that their writing for publication practices but also their sense of self had notably changed compared to the beginning of the study, suggesting the identity shift over time (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2013). It is also worth mentioning that all participants had active accounts on academic social networking sites ( and Research Gate), where they posted and updated their 94  publications, which illustrates the emergence of new exigencies – in this case, digital identities (Darvin, 2016) –  in today’s modern landscape of scholarly publication. Equally remarkably, while the participants were in general cognizant of the hierarchical values attached to different publications, they expressed uncertainty as to whether the alternative and emergent genres of publishing (such as academic blogs) count as academic publication, to their prospective employers and the scholarly community at large.   Having provided a big-picture overview of the publications by the selected cases, I now turn to a discussion of the formative and substantive experiences and salient themes teased out and interpreted with reference to the frameworks – namely, socialization, investment and identity, and (at a macro-level) neoliberalism—deployed in the study. In what follows, subsumed under the three main categories of (a) Catalysts in the process of publishing, (b) Challenges encountered in the process of publishing, and (c) Learning to persist and negotiate, the salient stories encapsulating the major themes will be presented and discussed.  5.3 Catalysts in the process of publishing  5.3.1 Conferences as socialization spaces Conferences constitute an integral part of academic life and serve as an important forum for scholars, seasoned and novice, to exchange and disseminate their findings and ideas. By attending conferences scholars can not only identify current “conversations” of their discipline, but also expand their scholarly networks, which might pave the way for scholarly publications (Curry & Lillis, 2013; Hyland, 2015). An interesting encounter occurred when Daisy presented at a North American conference well-known in her discipline. As was mentioned earlier, after her presentation, much to her pleasant surprise, she was approached by a prominent scholar who also happens to be the co-editor of a respected journal in her field. The scholar in question expressed interest in Daisy’s presentation and asked her to submit a piece to be considered for publication in the journal. Daisy had submitted a manuscript based on her presentation at the completion of the study. What happened to Daisy is indicative of the opportunities (potentially) afforded by attending and presenting at conferences. All participants in the study were aware of the importance of attending 95  and presenting in conferences—partly because it was considered a given and a common practice amongst professors and doctoral students in the department in question. In addition to the above-mentioned benefits of attending or—even better presenting at conferences, the process of preparing a proposal to be submitted to conferences can also be beneficial and helpful (especially) to emerging scholars, as pointed out by Rose: conference proposal writing is such an important aspect of writing … It forces you to look closely and articulate your story, to tell your research story again and again and again and in a different way. And with retelling and retelling, you're refining the telling of it…. [It involves] being able to kind of interweave disparate threads, threads that I knew I would need to weave this… cloth … And interacting with people in real time has helped me to do that.  So anyways, writing this proposal has been great. And also, it’s like a mirror too, this writing and thinking process. It’s validating just even before you submit it. The point is that it’s a writing task (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  As Rose eloquently put it in the quote above, writing conference proposals entails “retelling”, “refining” and trying to articulate one’s “research story” in a condensed way, which is also an important aspect of writing journal articles. I should note that all four participants regularly attended and presented at national and international conferences in their discipline. Also worth noting is that, as mentioned earlier, Rose was encouraged early on (by her mentor while she was still in her undergrad program) to attend and present at conferences, which in fact constitute a site for academic socialization. 5.3.2 Interactions and collaborations with peers Interactions and collaborations with one’s peers can be potentially facilitative to  socialization into scholarly publication, as suggested by the data analysis in this study. Such interactions with peers can be potentially conducive to learning more about writing for publication. By way of illustration, Sam, referring to the benefits ensuing interactions with peers, made the following remarks:  Talking to friends … [is] super helpful because your usual understanding of how it [publication process] works may not be right … So [for example] when someone like … [a peer’s name] … that I admire, told me, ‘Well, I got a rejection. Now, I feel that I’m really a scholar, not because I published but because I got a rejection’, that changes everything, definitely. Yeah, this is part of being a scholar … You sometimes think … like being a scholar is [just] publishing, not going through the process, and that thing that 96  he [the peer he was referring to] told me really helped when I got rejections …  being a scholar is about a process, not about a product. (Final Interview, October 2, 2015)  As a corollary of interactions with a peer in his department, Sam shifted his perspective toward writing for publication and particularly toward rejections. This shift in his perspective had bearings on his scholarly identity formation and, more importantly, helped him afterwards to better deal with rejections and get eventually published – a testament to the influential role of peer socialization (Duff & Anderson, 2015).   Somewhat similarly, Heather was explicit in saying that she prefers to learn more about writing for publication “via word of mouth and talking to peers than from workshops or help books” (First Interview, June 18, 2014). Heather, in collaboration with a peer, conducted a study and later published it (during the study period).  Another important respect in which one can learn more (about writing for publication) from peers is through participation in peer support groups. It is of note that, three of the four participants in this study – Rose, Daisy, and Sam – were members of peer support (writing) groups, which were initiated by doctoral students in the department. Attending and participating in the aforementioned peer support groups rendered clear benefits to the participants. For instance, Daisy through conversations with her peers at the student-led peer support group had already been informed of potentially predatory journals, which helped her avoid falling prey to a suspicious and seemingly subpar journal – see Section 5.4.3 (Suspicious non-mainstream publishers) for more details. Daisy, in collaboration with her peers, had presented in two scholarly conferences, and (at the completion of this study) was in the process of preparing manuscripts for submission to journals in her field. Daisy thought collaborations with her peers had proven to be beneficial. However, Daisy pointed out the potential challenges of co-authorship with peers vis-à-vis her supervisor, and said: If I am working with peers it [co-authorship] is hard … like who has the authority to decide what is correct and what is not correct or okay and not okay with a paper for publishing … if I am working with … [her supervisor] … for example, she would say what really works, … what kind of things … are missing from the argument (Final Interview, October 2, 2015).  As argued by Daisy, a potential caveat and concern which can arise in co-authoring with one’s peers is that, no one seems to have authoritative knowledge to be able to resolve 97  differences in opinion, given the novice status of oneself and one’s peers. As one can expect, reflecting on her publication experiences, Daisy thought co-authoring and publishing with a professor would be easier than with her peers, as evidenced in the following excerpt: I think if you are co-authoring with a professor, especially your supervisor, it’s much easier than writing by yourself or writing with your peer because they [supervisors and professors] know what [journal] to pick, how to frame … arguments, what kind of literature you need, how strong you can argue (Final Interview, October 2, 2015).  In the quote above, Daisy points out important qualities often possessed by mentors, which her peers typically, and quite conceivably, lack. According to Daisy, mentors have the sensibility of selecting the right place to publish [where to publish], know the relevant literature, and can craft effective arguments, which seem to constitute essential sensibilities needed to write for publication. It seems fair to argue that, although collaborations with peers can be potentially constructive and instructive, co-authorship with one’s mentors would be quite conceivably easier, given the experience and sensibilities they typically possess. Besides Daisy – who was in the process of preparing two manuscripts with her peers – Heather and Sam experienced co-authoring with peers. It also bears pointing out that, as mentioned earlier, all participants were given co-authorship opportunities by their supervisors, which is illustrative of mentor-mediated socialization into scholarly publication, which was common practice in the department in question.  5.3.3 Taking on reviewing and editing roles Peer reviewing and, where possible, serving editorial roles for scholarly journals in one’s field can serve to provide one with a window into the inner workings of writing for publication – not to mention the benefits of doing so to the scholarly community. As earlier noted, Heather served as a reviewer both for journals and a reputable conference in her field, and had benefitted from reviewing, as pointed out below: I think reviewing helped me realize that … I can’t put everything in there [the article] because you get so attached to a thesis or a project that's meaningful to you and you want to put everything that you read in that article and all of the data you gathered and just you want to show how much you did … now I have kind of understood it’s more about making a single argument or putting forward one really important idea that fits with the journal. So if you imagine someone else is reading your article with those rubrics in front 98  of them it's like writing to get a grade, it's not that different… (Final Interview, October 21, 2015)  The fact that Heather has come to realize she “can’t put everything in” the article, and her keen observation about emerging scholars’ tendency to “put everything that…[they]…read in that article” is consistent with Paré’s (2010) contention that:  As a journal editor I now receive an increasing number of submissions from graduate students intent on publishing their 200-page dissertation as 15-page articles …The topics are far too broad for short papers ... In other words, the submissions are reasonable facsimiles of student or school genres, but ineffective journal articles. They display knowledge…but fail to address an actual dialogue among working scholars. (p. 30)  Salient in Paré’s (2010) argument is doctoral students’ lack of familiarity with the genre of journal articles, presumably because they spend a considerable amount of time on dissertation writing, which is a different genre with its own norms and conventions. This has an implication for universities and departments wishing to prepare their graduates for scholarly publication. They can perhaps provide doctoral students with courses aimed at enhancing their familiarity with the genre of journal articles and other genres of writing for publication like books, and book chapters. In Heather’s above-mentioned comments is that she attributed her familiarity with the genre of articles through having reviewed journal articles, which indicates the significant role of reviewership as a means of being socialized into writing for scholarly publication.  Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Heather had also – prior to her admission into the PhD program – served on the editorial board of a university-affiliated journal, which she thought had provided her with somewhat of an insider perspective and insight into the world of scholarly publishing, as stated below: I found that it [being on the editorial board] gave me insight into how the review process worked and how long people take to get anything done so the delays, how long they can be….and how hard it is to find the people that actually have the time to do reviewing that is very challenging and some people take it very seriously their job as a reviewer and some people do not so other people think oh yeah no it is great, excellent, so interesting, super and then other people are like you missed five comments in this sentence and three didn’t have the line numbers and that is super intense so reviewing styles tended to range drastically across people. (First Interview, June 18, 2014)  Like Heather, Rose also deemed reviewing to be worthwhile and helpful. It is worth mentioning that it was during her master’s program that Rose, on her supervisor’s 99  recommendation, had been afforded the first chance to review for a scholarly journal in her field. According to Rose, “when… [her supervisor] …wasn’t able to … he passed it along to…[her]…)”. Interestingly, on one occasion, she had “received a personalized thank-you from the editors”, because she had managed to write a “very detailed” review (Email communication, July 7, 2014). The fact that Rose’s supervisor brokered and mediated her reviewership indicates the key role of mentors (as already-established members of their scholarly community) in socializing students into the publication genre and the reviewing community. It is also telling to note that, by recommending Rose as a competent peer reviewer, the supervisor in fact validated Rose’s nascent scholarly identity. As argued by Darvin and Norton (2015), the “valuing” of learners’ capital – in this case Rose’s capability and competence to do peer reviews (i.e., her cultural capital) – is “an affirmation of their identity” (p. 47). Rose was again – during the study period – asked to do a peer review for the same journal. She accepted the offer, and after a while, because of the meticulous and detailed reviews she had done, was invited onto the editorial board of the journal, which she thought had been helpful in making her further familiar with the nuts and bolts of writing for publication. The fact that, through reviewing and serving on editorial boards, Rose and Heather could come to develop an insider perspective into the world of publication is noteworthy, and is indicative of the importance of taking on editorial and reviewership roles, where possible. It is worth remembering that Sam had used the term “black box” to refer to his lack of knowledge of the behind the scenes of peer review process. One, and perhaps the best, way for novice scholars to gain further familiarity with the inner workings and process of peer review is taking on reviewer roles for scholarly journals in one’s field. On the face of it, engaging in such (often unpaid) roles is often seen as a form of service to one’s professional community, and inevitably demands investment of time and energy, with no apparent or immediate return on one’s investment; nevertheless, as attested to by the aforementioned anecdotes, they can help emerging scholars learn the ropes of writing for publication, and is thus important (Curry & Lillis, 2013).   5.3.4 Every little step counts  It is clearly important for emerging scholars to be aware of and familiar with the differential values accorded to different genres and tiers of academic publication. Equally 100  important is attaining the sensibility of knowing where to start scholarly publishing, such that one can make the most of his or her investment. Given that, for most doctoral students, the dissertation is often their first (or major) research project to publish out of, starting with genres like book reviews or review essays or publishing articles in lower-tier journals seems to be a decent and realistic starting point. When it comes to academic publication, it is important for emerging scholars to bear in mind that “no [publication] job is too small”, as argued by Rose in the following excerpt:  Yeah, no job is too small ... for sure … in academia. The work that no one else wants to do, like the book reviews … A great way to connect with scholars is by writing book reviews. So I feel just … [publishing] book reviews, which is a fairly low-stakes writing task, I guess…  really helped boost my confidence and helped me feel more like a writer, like kind of assuming that writerly identity in academia…because… its value, to an emerging scholar, at this phase of emerging, like ‘the PhD emerging’, is recognition .... [among] scholars that are not in your department. And then I started to review for them [scholars associated with the journal where she had published a book review] ... and then I was invited to their editorial board. First I really thought I was invited by mistake!... And so what I learned from this is that if you do good work, it will be recognized in some way, and this is maybe in a sense, the ultimate validation of no job is too small. (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  Rose’s investment in “the work that no one else wants to do” and publishing book reviews, which are “a fairly low-stakes writing” genre, brought her multiple benefits. First, publishing book reviews acted to augment her confidence and helped nurture and solidify her emergent “writerly identity in academia”. Second, and perhaps more importantly, publishing book reviews brought her more and wider “recognition” (i.e., social capital) beyond the confines of her department, and amongst the “scholars that are not in your department”. Her increased social capital then in turn fetched her more symbolic capital (i.e., her being invited onto the editorial board of the journal in question).  While being aware of hierarchical and differential values in academic publication, Rose had made an informed decision to publish book reviews. Commenting on and further clarifying her reasons for doing so, she said: A friend of mine and I have this conversation, a lot about prestigious journals and she prefers not to publish book reviews… [She] thinks they do not count for much…, frankly, I’m not too worried about what ‘counts.’ Like I said, my objective at this point in my career is not tenure. My objective now is to join the conversation and achieve some sort of visibility. And I also have found that book reviews are a very intimate way to connect 101  with scholars that you admire or just scholars in the field because if your book is reviewed or the chapter that you wrote is in a book that was reviewed, you’re going to read the review because you’re curious about how people are reading you. (First Interview, June, 20, 2014)  In the quote above, Rose again points out the importance for emerging scholars to achieve “visibility”, which – akin to “recognition” – is being recognized by one’s scholarly community. Quite unexpectedly, after one of her book reviews was published, she received a personal thank-you message from the author of the book who wrote: “Thank you for such a wonderful and beautiful written review of my … [name of work/text]”, which she found extremely validating (Final Interview, October 8, 2015). Also interesting is that after she had made her book review available on an academic social networking digital platform (, she was pleasantly surprised to realize that her publication was the most read publication in her department, indicating the potentially powerful role that the new and emerging academic networking digital platforms, such as or Research Gate, can play in disseminating scholarly research and bringing more visibility to researchers’ work. In addition to Rose, Daisy also stated “people [her peers] say it’s easy to publish [book reviews], and they are publications anyway…especially in good journals…so I am trying to figure out (the genre of) book reviews.” (First Interview, June 11, 2014) At the completion of the study, Daisy had a book review under review by a prestigious journal in her field. Like Rose, Daisy was also aware of the hierarchical values placed on different types and genres of academic publications. Furthermore, she acknowledged that the prestige placed upon a publication is in part determined by the reputability and status of its publishers, as shown below: I always feel like famous publishers like [a reputable publisher] … have more prestige … those that are published through those big companies are maybe more important … compared to journals that are from other countries or other university-based journals. (First Interview, July, 25, 2014)   Daisy aspires to be able to someday publish in “really good journals, top tier journals that you see frequently in course readings, references like… (the flagship journal of her field)” in the future; however, for now she said she would be content with publishing in journals “that are not top tier but maybe like second tier ... if I get to publish in those kinds of journals I will be satisfied even with those” (First Interview, July, 25, 2014).  102   5.3.5 A little validation goes a long way There is no denying the fact that dispensing positive feedback and praise, when due, can instill confidence and serve to validate an author’s sense of self and identity, which in turn can be potentially conducive to increased and more intense engagement and sustained investment in high-stakes scholarly pursuits such as scholarly publishing, which is likely to be a labour- and time-intensive process, often fraught with hiccups along the way, as attested to by a growing body of research (e.g., Belcher, 2007; Hyland, 2015, among many others). An instance illustrating the potent effect of encouragement on confidence and investment relates to Sam’s experience of dealing with the revisions on his first sole-authored submission. He had in fact received an invitation to revise-and-resubmit with major revisions, some of which demanded considerable changes. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the work, Sam decided to pursue his attempt at publication to completion. What instilled and inspired Sam to sustain his investment, despite the difficulties in the process, was the fact that he felt validated and respected in his interactions with the journal editor and reviewers, as encapsulated in the excerpt below: And in the revisions…one was particularly positive… the guy [one of the reviewers] said ‘This is well written. It’s great’, but you just have to ‘do this and that’… [the] feedback was not minimal but very sensible, very to the point, specific, like ‘these are things that we suggest you should at least expand on’…and all were super respectful, because of that, I did everything I could to fix this [manuscript]. If they find what I’m writing interesting and they tell me it’s interesting… then, well, there's no reason for me not to work [on it] to try and publish [it]…I will do I think everything, you know, but if … [the journal which gave him a rejection without feedback] …then… [an expression indicating displeasure] … I think the way the journals have interacted with me… they pretty much establish the way I will interact with them. It’s the beginning [initial response from a journal] …I think it is everything, everything. (Final Interview, October 2, 2015)   As indicated in the quote above, the way the editor and reviewers interacted with Sam turned out to be a determining factor in Sam’s investment and subsequent engagement in the publication process. What is particularly telling in the anecdote above is the fact that Sam felt instilled with confidence and validation simply because he had received encouragement (from one of the reviewers), and had found his interactions with the editor and reviewers to be “super respectful”. 103   Also worth pointing out is the fact that the provided feedback was specific and incisive, which can notably make it easier for the author to understand and act on the given feedback, as corroborated by research (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2001, 2006). Sam also made a brief reference to his other (previous) experience where the journal in question had rejected his submission with no accompanying feedback, which had left him dispirited and frustrated, as he had not received any guidance on how to improve his piece – which indicates the paramount role of providing feedback, however little, to authors. Also remarkable to note is the significant role of “the way the journals have interacted with” him, which, as argued by Sam, affects the way he “will interact with them” – a testament to the importance of respect, feeling respected, and reciprocity in communications with authors, and by extension, in any human relationship. What is remarkable here is the effect of tone and tenor in establishing dialogic communications with contributors to journals, and the interplay between the language (used in reviews and editorial feedback) and the author’s identity and investment. Not surprisingly, mainly due to the validation he had received, Sam sustained his investment and persistence through yet another (second) round of revisions till the paper was ultimately published, at completion of this study. Herein, there is a takeaway for reviewers and editors, namely, that they are not merely quality controllers and regulators of the submitted text – and the knowledge it embodies – but rather they can and should also serve as mentors to emerging scholars (Hyland, 2015). Along similar lines, Rose received encouraging and validating, though critical, feedback from journal reviewers and editors she had communicated with in her publication endeavours, which again, much like Sam’s experience, inspired her to augment and sustain her investment in pursuing the undertaking, and had reaffirmed her academic identity. One such instance, among many others, occurred when she received a call to revise-and-resubmit with substantive revisions on her sole-authored submission. The email from the editor (the review reports) had contained the encouraging sentence: “Reviewers felt that your topic is extremely important and that the manuscript was well-written.” (Review report, March 17, 2014). As one can expect, Rose felt validated by the editor’s positive feedback, and wrote to me saying: “I was very encouraged by their feeling that my topic was ‘extremely important’—in fact, if it hadn’t been for this, I don’t know if I would have taken on the revisions. It made me believe in the paper.” (Email 104  communication, July 30, 2014) Another instance showcasing the validating effect of praise on Rose’s identity construction occurred when Rose received feedback from the journal on her revised and resubmitted piece, as shown in the excerpt below written by one of the reviewers: Thank you for taking the time and energy to make adjustments to your manuscript.  You provide a very thought-provoking manuscript that I can foresee being the impetus for lots of fruitful discussion, which is always a hope as a writer. (Review report, April 30, 2014)  Quite expectedly, Rose felt particularly validated by the fact that the reviewer had not only thanked her – for having meticulously and painstakingly attended to the requested revisions – but, more importantly, had also proffered praise and recognized that her “thought-provoking manuscript” constituted a worthwhile contribution that would potentially foster “lots of fruitful discussion”, and would be well-received by the target scholarly community, as indicated below: This was huge for me to read. I don’t even know who this reviewer is (prof, MA or PhD student, etc.) but it’s exciting to hear that someone thinks my paper will prompt ‘fruitful discussion.’ I agree that that is what one hopes for as a (academic) writer, especially. It’s terrifying, but it could also be gratifying. I’m looking forward to seeing if anything ever becomes of this paper. (Email communication, July 30, 2014)  Rose was imbued with a sense of thrill to know that her contribution had been considered to possess the potential and promise to generate “fruitful discussion” in the scholarly community. The said praise also made her wonder about the status of the reviewer who had anticipated a promising outlook for her contribution. Rose was both excited and terrified at the prospect of her piece prompting “fruitful” conversations in the field, which resonates with Norton’s (2013) notion that identity can be sometimes “conflicting” and “a site of struggle” (p. 6). Equally validating for Rose was reviewers’ acknowledgment that she had managed to aptly and adequately address the revisions recommended by the reviewers, for instance the following comments:  I appreciate the author’s consideration of the feedback from the initial review and overall, find that their revision has made a substantially positive impact on this manuscript…The paragraph you’ve added to the conclusion is fantastic! You very clearly remind the reader of your intentions in writing and also provide your rationale for not providing a ‘guidebook’ of sorts to practitioners. (Review report, April 30, 2014)  Reacting to the reviewer’s remarks expressing recognition of her scrupulous and painstaking effort to address the revisions, she had the following to say: 105  In other words, my revision efforts were noticed, deemed sufficient, and ultimately paid off. …Feels good to read this. This whole review makes me take this reviewer more seriously because they noticed my efforts to improve the paper. If they still stuck to their guns, I would wonder 1) Am I really missing the point? and/or 2) Is this reviewer just having a bad day?]! (Email communication, July 30, 2014)  Encapsulated in the above comments, besides their validating effect, is the fact that, authors (quite logically and legitimately) expect referees to be flexible enough to accept the arguments or counterarguments provided by the authors, and to concede their initial positions, where apropos, and not to “…[stick] to their guns”, which may quite conceivably give rise to undue confusion or misunderstanding on the part of submitting writers. As with any other dialogic scholarly exchange, one expects the parties in interaction to be open to negotiation and willing to revisit or modify their positions and contentions, in the face of arguments or evidence to the contrary. Reflecting on the experience, Rose also acknowledged the helpful role of an experienced professor in unpacking and interpreting the feedback provided by the journal reviewers, and said: I was told to feel good about that because I sent it back to the professor that originally recommended that I try to publish it, and she said this is really promising, so it is good to have senior scholars … to help you translate the comments, because I think if I were just to receive that I would have had less certainty or less sense of self security about the future trajectory of that manuscript, which can be really important, if it looks really bad, then you don’t even want to consider resubmitting it.  (Final Interview, October 8, 2015)  The aforementioned anecdotes represented cases where praise and encouragement – and the sense of validation thereof – were textually-mediated and offered by journal editors and/or reviewers; however, positive feedback can be delivered verbally – with a similarly validating effect, though perhaps less so in the latter case – and they can also be dispensed by one’s professor, supervisor, or even peers. By way of illustration, after Daisy presented at a session (in a reputed conference in her field), she was approached by a prominent scholar in the field who expressed praise for and interest in her presented topic – which earned her a prestigious publication opportunity, as explained later in the section entitled “Conferences as sites of socialization”. Needless to say, Daisy felt excited and exhilarated but also remarkably validated and respected, because of having received encouragement and, more importantly, an unexpected 106  publication offer from a renowned scholar specializing in her area of scholarly interest – which she characterized as “like a dream coming true” (Interim Interview, April, 12, 2015).  An instance of such encouragement – and the ensuing sense of being valued and validated – occurred in Daisy’s case when she submitted a term paper, as part of requirements for completion of a given course. Much to her pleasant amazement, the professor teaching the course in question had found her paper to be solid and well-written, and as such, had encouraged Daisy to get it published in a scholarly venue. Predictably, Daisy had perceived the positive feedback as validation of her work, and acted upon the professor’s advice to try to get the paper published – which was under review, at the conclusion of the current study.  Strikingly, a similar scenario was experienced by Rose, who had received glowing feedback –coupled with encouragement to publish – on her final assignment for a course she had taken in the first year of her doctoral program. In the latter case the professor, in addition to having provided praise, had also recommended a potential venue for Daisy’s paper and afterwards had also guided Daisy to interpret and deal with some of the requested revisions – which later led to her first sole-authored publication, and is indicative of the import of mentorship in socializing emerging scholars into scholarly publication, and, more broadly, into academic life.  5.4 Challenges in the process of publishing 5.4.1 Critical feedback on language issues: “Non-English evident” Part of the above phrase – “Non-English evident” – though presumably uncommon and shockingly unfriendly, is precisely what Sam had received as part of the review report from a scholarly journal. This submitted manuscript was actually of special significance to Sam, since it was in fact the first time ever he had independently managed to compose a manuscript for a journal without enlisting the help of a copy editor — also referred to as (language) literacy broker (Lillis & Curry, 2010). The fact that he had autonomously crafted this sole-authored manuscript made it particularly important to him, and in terms of content, Sam perceived himself to be well-versed in the given area of research, as stated in the following interview excerpt:  This was the first paper which I just submitted, something by myself without an editor...The first thing...because every time I have submitted, it has been through an 107  editor and it has been in teams… and I was completely aware of the process, and I knew a little bit more about this particular scholarly discourse. I mean I’m aware of the discourse in… [ the specific area]. (Interim Interview, September 12, 2014)    After a few months, Sam received a lengthy review as well as an editorial summary of the review comments from the given journal, which Sam fully shared with me. Part of the editorial summary included the striking comment “non-English evident”. Another somewhat similar remark by the editor was regarding Sam’s use of the hedging word “might”. The curt comment read verbatim as “p. 2 ‘it might be’ [is] wishy-washy”. The remarks, no matter how well-intentioned, had clearly taken their toll on Sam’s fledgling academic identity. In fact, when I asked him about how he felt about the review comments, he said:  Now I know I’m not there yet. I’m not assuming that I’m a perfect writer or anything, I actually know that I’m pretty imperfect. I’m not completely confident about my own writing. I’m sure I’m not, but I’m fine with that because I understand myself as being in the process of learning. (Interim interview, December 10, 2014)  Upon perusing the review comments and having interviewed Sam, I was left wondering if the aforementioned review remarks could be in any conceivable way thought of as helpful and constructive. While there is no denying the fact that due attention to problematic language issues and lexico-grammatical infelicities is justifiably warranted, the question remains as to whether reviewers (and in this case the editor) should also be attentive to the wording, tone, and tenor in the review remarks they write, and the unintended consequential negative feelings they might incur on academic authors on the receiving end of such review remarks. It is quite conceivable that such comments may have a damaging and debilitative effect (particularly) on the academic identity and investment of novice academics who have ventured to make an attempt, however small, to enter the scholarly conversations in their disciplines.  Also worth noting here is the editor’s comment on the use of the word “might”, which is a sufficiently common qualifier often deployed to convey a sense of uncertainty on the part of the author, particularly when the aim is to avoid expressing certitude about potentially controversial topics. It seems to me that, from an academic point of view, the use of qualifiers and hedges is generally deemed an accepted norm in academic writing (Hyland, 2016). It should be noted, however, that a caveat is in order here. Given that the text and the particular context—in which the word “might” was embedded—are not subject to analysis and scrutiny here, it is 108  hard to know for certain whether using hedging in that particular instance is warranted or not; but regardless of the appropriacy (or lack thereof) of the hedging, one could argue that there are certainly better and more tactful ways of framing feedback where the aim is to clearly and unequivocally indicate to the author that a certain word has not been aptly used and thus needs to be replaced or otherwise excised.   I should also point out that, though displeased with the tone and tenor of the remarks referred to above, thankfully Sam managed to maintain his interest and investment in following up on the process, and carefully and duly addressed the review comments – which in the end, and after another round of revisions, culminated in the acceptance for the given sole-authored article.    A somewhat similar (perhaps) unorthodox language-related comment was given to Heather, who happens to be an Anglophone writer. Much like Sam, she had also sent a sole-authored submission to a well-known journal, and had received a rejection (with review from three reviewers). Oddly enough, the third reviewer had made a (rather cliché-sounding) comment regarding the language in the manuscript. The comment read “Get it proofread by a native speaker”. Needless to say, Heather in her interview expressed utter astonishment at having received such a remark, and was dismayed by the comment, saying in a complaining tone “I am a native speaker!” (Final Interview, October 21, 2015, emphasis in the original interview). Possibly, another (non-vitriolic) variant could have simply been “perhaps you could get it proofread by an expert”.   There are at least two issues with the mentioned remark. First, there is an explicit (erroneous) presumption on the part of the reviewer that the contributor is an EAL author –  which suggests the underlying ideology (espoused by the reviewer) regarding the supremacy of  the so-called “native speaker” English over other non-orthodox varieties of English. Also relevant here is the question of whether the reviewers writing such remarks have themselves been adequately socialized into the review genre, and its intended function and norms, one of which seems to be the skill of providing critical feedback in a tactful and courteous manner, irrespective of how flawed a given submission might be. Critical feedback, if not properly framed, can in fact be counterproductive, and is likely to adversely affect the academic identity 109  formation of particularly novice scholars who may feel more vulnerable, as they might lack the requisite coping mechanism to properly deal with criticisms.  The two examples above call into question the assertion made by Hyland (2016) (among other scholars) who have dismissed reports and claims of language bias and harsh language-related comments in the review process. In fact, Hyland (2016) in his article entitled “Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice”, referring to earlier studies by Belcher (2007) and Coniam (2012), argues that reviewers, “Certainly, in applied linguistics at least, do not typically take the non-Native speaker status of authors in account” (p. 65).  On a different note, while it is inarguable that reviewers and editors generously invest their precious time and energy in reviewing submissions—which is truly commendable— it should also be noted that peer reviews are meant to serve at least two purposes: to regulate knowledge, and to educate the knowledge-producer (Hyland, 2015). Peer review, as argued by Hyland (2015), is:  a process designed not just to advise editors, but as mechanism for improving papers and mentoring their writers. This opportunity to support authors’ attempts to contribute to disciplinary knowledge perhaps helps to account for the politeness and indirectness evidenced in these reviews. (p. 175)  Taking the above argument into consideration, one could legitimately raise the question and concern as to whether or not the aforementioned comments were in any conceivable way instructive and constructive. Just because a text may contain flawed or infelicitous grammar or language, it does not grant one the license to use unduly dismissive or “flippant” (Heather, Final Interview, October 21, 2015) remarks. Quite clearly, criticism constitutes “a key feature of reviews as readers seek to help improve a potentially publishable paper” (Hyland, 2015, p. 173); nevertheless, in order for feedback to serve its intended purpose of improving the text and in fact helping the author, it also needs to be properly framed. It is understandable that in this day and age scholarly journals are saddled with backlogs of submissions, and as a consequence, editors and reviewers are overworked and overwhelmed, and burdened with multiple roles and responsibilities to attend to—from serving on multiple committees, to supervising students, to presenting and publishing; the latter often being a requisite for their annual review and promotion, at least for many, if not all—but nonetheless the new and emerging generation of scholars and authors are in fact being socialized by not only by 110  their mentors and departments, but also by the very communications with editors and anonymous reviewers. That is, engagement in peer review also serves a pedagogical and modelling value in that it sets an example and model for emerging scholars to follow and emulate, as part of their socialization into the world of scholarly publications.   5.4.2 Confusing reviews: Positively reviewed and yet rejected? Reviews can also at times be unclear and confusing, or may send mixed or conflicting messages to the author, which can be particularly disconcerting to a novice author, who may be in the early stages of testing the waters, so to speak. For instance, in her experience of being rejected by a given journal, Rose perceived a marked mismatch between what two (of the three) reviewers suggested and the editorial decision to reject the piece. For instance, she was confused by the opening statement in the review by the second reviewer that read “This is a strong article that potentially adds to the fields of… [the area of research] …both in Canada and the US” (Email communication, July, 11, 2014). Perhaps not surprisingly, the reviewer had also carefully specified – in a point-by-point manner – how the article could be improved, which is why Rose thought the submission could have been given a revise-and – resubmit verdict rather than an outright rejection.  Referring to the comments, Rose remarked “it is confusing to get comments like ‘strong article’ and then a rejection, not even a R & R [revise and resubmit]”. She further stated “this reviewer’s comments are definitely addressable…definitely more R & R than reject”. Quite strikingly, the third reviewer — much like the second reviewer — started with “The authors present an important, timely, and compelling story of… [the research area]”. Again, Rose expressed utter surprise that the piece had received a rejection, despite reviewers’ use of adjectives such as “’important’ and other positive R & R-leaning adjectives”. What further confounded Rose was the paragraph below which concluded the third review:   I appreciate how the authors bring up the cultural and contextual factors and forces associated with ...  The critical lens reflected in this sentence… is one I would like to see more consistently throughout the paper.  My suggestions for revision above will address some of this, but I also think the authors have an important story to tell about the power/status/access issues at play for this ... in this context.  I would encourage the authors to unpack some of these contextual issues in the discussion section so that the 111  precise contribution of the piece  can  be  realized. (Email communication, July, 11, 2014)  Commenting on the above paragraph, and clearly discontented by the discord between reviewers’ feedback and the editorial decision to reject the paper, Rose remarked  This whole last paragraph says R & R, not reject, to me…It sounds like the first reviewer’s comments were what the editors listened to, so it makes me wonder who the first reviewer was and whether the editors had some sort of bias in favor of their comments... Oh well! Things we’ll never know… (Email communication, July, 11, 2014)  It seems abundantly clear that, as Rose argued, the second and third reviewers clearly saw at least some potential in the piece, and that they offered the authors suggestions and encouragements to improve the paper. The fact that the editor decided to reject the submission, notwithstanding the positives in two (of the three) reviews, raises the question as to whether all the reviewers are given an equal weight, so to speak. Somewhat similarly, Heather, thinking back to the reviews she had received (accompanying rejection), remarked: Okay, first reviewer…very positive [but] not constructive, … second reviewer constructive and had plenty of interesting feedback….and third reviewer totally insulting…was basically like the fit is terrible; and there were like 3 grammar mistakes there so you should get it proofread by a native-speaker, so I was like okayyy [shocked]… (Final Interview, October, 21, 2015)  Obviously perplexed by the conflicting reviews, and especially affronted by the third reviewer, Heather said she was “crushed…and thought… [she]…could not do anything” and “lost momentum”.  The instances above speak to the importance of sound feedback practices by reviewers and editors, as their reviews can significantly affect the fate and trajectory of a text, particularly when on the receiving end of the review is a novice author who, quite conceivably, may not be yet equipped with the same savvy and sensibilities of how to tackle such situations as established scholars. 5.4.3 Suspicious non-mainstream publishers   It is not uncommon these days to receive unsolicited emails containing (often duplicitous) offers for publication, usually contingent upon payment of processing or publication fees — which may not be always apparent at the outset or explicitly stated. These publishers often, 112  though not always, purport to conduct peer review – which, at best, may not be rigorous, if done at all. Two such suspicious unsolicited emails were received and reported by Daisy and Sam, during the study period.   Almost a month into the study, Daisy apprised me that she had received an invitation to publish (via email) from an open access journal, which purported to be “international and peer reviewed”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the topics covered by the journal fell squarely within her area of interest – which seemed “fishy and …too good to be true” (Interim Interview, July 18, 2014). Upon closer scrutiny of the journal website, and realizing that there was a requisite processing fee of over 100 dollars – among other irregularities, such as the unfamiliar indexing system of the journal – she had come to the conclusion that the journal was a subpar venue at best, and a scam at worst, as shown below: I think predatory journals take advantage of young emerging scholars who so badly wish to publish, or feel they have to [publish]. This one… [the journal] …matched my research interest. I thought [at first] it was a great opportunity to publish, but I remembered what we talked about in … [the student-initiated group], so I checked the link [to the journal website]. I found out that you have to pay more than 100 dollars to get your paper published…. I have also heard some journal that charges you over 200 dollars to publish. And it says indexed in…. so, so weird. In a world that has a lot of journals (including lots of on-line e journals), emerging scholars have to be careful in selecting journals. They do not have to pay and also take the risk for their career. (Email communication, July 17, 2014)    Interestingly enough, Daisy had already heard about and been alerted to such unsolicited, suspicious publication offers, through her peers at the student-led writing and peer support group, which suggests the benefits and socializing effect of such agentive initiatives taken by graduate students—peer-socialization (Duff & Anderson, 2015).  Quite similarly, Sam also notified me that he had he had “received an email from a predatory journal” (Email communication, March 3, 2015) which had, much to his utter surprise, personally addressed him and had referred to one of his previously publications. Like Daisy, he had judged the journal to be suspicious and potentially predatory, as he had already been made aware of such journals, mainly through his peers. Moreover, a few months prior to having received the email, he had attended a departmentally-held workshop aimed at raising graduate students’ awareness of potentially predatory publishers.  113   Upon closer examination of the emails from those journals and their respective websites, I discerned certain common features unifying both. Both claimed to be peer reviewed, international, and based in the United States, and offered to publish fast. In fact, the journal which had contacted Daisy promised to conduct the “peer review within approx 10-15 days” (Daisy, Email communication, July 17, 2014). Both Daisy and Sam were quick to suspect and avoid accepting these unsolicited publication offers. They had come to learn about such predatory practices through conversations with their peers who had shared similar experiences— first-hand or otherwise—of having received such emails. The knowledge of where (and where not to) publish one’s scholarly contribution is indeed a key part of socialization into scholarly publication (Fazel & Heng Hartse, 2017).   Unfortunately, there is no litmus test to definitively and distinctly differentiate genuine and bogus journals. However, it seems – in the absence of a clear means to identify seemingly suspicious, if not duplicitous, journals and publishers – emerging scholars had better consult more experienced scholars or critically check out a given journal or publisher website for possible red flags. Supervisors and professors, and on a different level, departments and institutions, can also work synergistically to help emerging scholars make judicious and more informed choices, when it comes to deciding where (and where not) to publish their work. Given the ubiquity and expansion of digital affordances, there has been an unprecedented proliferation of online publication outlets, not all of which are fully or strictly peer reviewed (Hyland, 2015; Ware & Mabe, 2012). Needless to say, novice (or marginalized) scholars – who are likely to be under pressure to publish and thus may be eagerly seeking publication opportunities – might be more prone to falling prey to duplicitous and predatory paid publishers.   A note of caution is in order here, though. While it is true that virtually all predatory journals (mis)use open access as a platform for their profiteering and predatory operations, not all open access journals are sub-par or predatory (Fazel & Heng Hartse, 2017). Perhaps more importantly, there are many journals whose practices may not be on par with the standards of practice common to journals in the west, and yet may, quite conceivably, serve a local regional audience.   114  5.4.4 “I am not a robot”: Rejection without explanation The quotation above is quoted verbatim from what Daisy told me when referring to a rejection without any accompanying feedback—otherwise known as a “desk rejection” (Hyland, 2015)— that she had received from a journal in her first year in the PhD program. In one of the doctoral courses in her first year, she had received encouraging comments and a high grade – on her final term paper – from the professor teaching the course. Consequently, she had decided to turn the assignment into an article and submit it to a journal – affiliated with a well-known North American university – where her supervisor had also published previously. After a rather fast turnaround time of almost a month, her article was rejected without any accompanying feedback, which she did not expect. What Daisy found particularly vexing, besides the negative response, was the robot-like email containing the rejection: I think it was automated … very generic. They just changed the name …. So impersonal…I am not a robot… it seemed like they copied and pasted the same passage. I think it was really like very mechanical and I was like okay forget about it and I did not do anything. I understand that they don’t have time but I don’t want that kind of email that I got from …. (the) editor… I want some actual feedback so that I can improve it. Yeah, I expected some kind of feedback, because I hear that some journals do that. Some top journals do that. Yeah even some kind of like feedback even if it is like one line or one sentence it will be really helpful. Something generic and they [can] suggest that maybe you should consider sending it to another journal… but they did not say that (which journal) to me… They did not give [any] feedback on the article at all. They just said we are sorry…. I did not feel good about it… (First Interview, June 11, 2014)  Not surprisingly, Daisy thought the communication was robot-like, and rightly expected at least minimal feedback accompanying the rejection or (at the very least) some guidance as to where and to which journal she could have sent the rejected article.  Much akin to what Daisy had experienced, Sam submitted a sole-authored article to a refereed journal in his field, and— much to his chagrin and dismay— received a rejection without review, as follows: Thank you for your submission ‘… [title of his submission]’ to the journal … [name of the journal]. On behalf of the editorial group, I regret to inform you that the editors have decided not to publish your manuscript. We regularly receive many more articles than we are able to publish. Please accept the editors’ best wishes as you continue to pursue publication. (Email communication, October 10, 2014)   115  Demonstrably disgruntled by the curt and terse rejection email and the fact that there was no accompanying feedback whatsoever, Sam wrote to me saying: No feedback…Not at all…   they rejected it … upfront like, ‘We don’t want your paper’…. I do not get it. Well, they are not telling me … [the problem]. They are being overly apologetic, and I don't like that. I want them to tell me what was wrong. Because now I don't know if I got rejected because of the content or because of my writing…I think it [the rejection email] was computer generated. This is [an] it’s-not-you-it’s-me approach … It’s terrible. Like having someone you date telling you ‘it’s not you, it’s me’ … I remember being rejected from a former girlfriend telling me, ‘you’re a great guy, it’s not you, it’s me.’… What the … (an expression showing discontent) …? okay… what can I do to fix it? … Of course, there’s something I can do, you’re not just telling me what [to do]. Tell me something, anything. I can have a harsh feedback. You know who my supervisor is [suggesting the harshness of feedback often provided by his supervisor] … I can handle it. I prefer someone telling me ‘I won’t publish this because it sucks in this sense’ than someone telling me, ‘It’s not you, it’s me’… I don’t care how they give me feedback, just give me feedback. If it’s harsh, I can take it. I’m a big boy I can take harsh feedback but what I can’t take is ‘it’s not you it’s me’, I hate it… or maybe it is because… you ’re so busy and popular. But what are those papers doing that will be published that I am not [doing]? What are they doing that I’m missing? (at least) …tell me… (Final Interview, October 2, 2015)  In both of the aforementioned anecdotes, the emerging scholars referred to found it particularly frustrating that no guidance or feedback was provided by the journals. Being rejected without receiving any tips on how to improve one’s work can indeed be depressing and disappointing, and it is an issue that I myself have grappled with, and one that I think deserves more attention from the scholarly community. Granted, journal editors (and reviewers) are overworked and overwhelmed with an increasing number of submissions from every corner of the world in this day and age when academics are beholden to comply with metrics and performative measures. But nonetheless, journal editors, in addition to being regulators and gatekeepers of knowledge, have another role as well and that is to guide and mentor emerging scholars who will go on to become the next generation of scholars. Such decisions can be consequential for the construction of identity and sustenance of investment of emerging scholars.    116  5.5 Learning to persist and negotiate  5.5.1 “I can stand up for myself”: The power to impose reception in peer review When authors receive peer reviewer remarks back from a journal, they are “not simply being told what revisions to make”, but rather they have now entered “in an asynchronous conversation with the discourse community.” (Thompson & Kamler, 2013, p. 128). Quite naturally, so as for this “conversation” to work smoothly, as with any other dialogic engagement, the involved parties (i.e., the author on the one hand and the journal editor and reviewers on the other) need to be not only well-acquainted with the conventional rules of engagement and reciprocity in the given discourse community, but also capable of and well-equipped to negotiate and navigate their positions, and, where needed, to be able to offer arguments and counterarguments to defend their stances and choices or otherwise to rebut and refute those of the other involved parties. Engaging and negotiating with journal editors and reviewers – where the power relationship is markedly asymmetrical –  is particularly difficult and daunting for novice academics, who may have never before experienced having to defend and argue for (or concede, where necessary) their viewpoints, especially where one needs to grapple with intense negotiation and engagement with the broader discourse community.  Of relevance to the above-mentioned point is an interesting and notable situation which occurred to Sam, when he received a revise-and-resubmit from a journal – on his single-authored submission. One of the two reviewers had recommended the work of a certain scholar to be incorporated into the article; nevertheless, after having read the recommended article, Sam came to the conclusion that it was not a good fit for his article, and hence decided not to include it, which he politely explained in the response to revisions. Moreover, the second reviewer had also suggested some revisions, which Sam did not agree with, because according to Sam:  [The reviewer] didn’t understand the paper…. He basically didn’t get what I was doing and it showed when he gave me his revisions, it showed. He or she didn’t get the core of the paper so I responded to the editor ‘This person didn’t get it’ but in polite words (Final Interview, October 2, 2015).  It is worth noting that, on both counts, the editor and reviewers were convinced by Sam’s responses and the arguments he had laid out, and after going through another round of 117  (relatively) minor revisions, the paper was finally accepted to be published. Reminiscing about the experience, Sam said: For me, it was a crucial process because I didn’t take it like just revising or submitting, [but rather] it was more like [engaging] in scholarly conversation …with these guys [the reviewers and editor] … so it gave me a lot of confidence, like I can stand up for myself and discuss with these people on these scholarly issues, and … I have the right to do it and they have to listen to me, [to] what I have to say, and I might be right and they have to assume that I might be right and the outcome of that kind of thinking…or assumption was communication. (Final Interview, October 2, 2015).  What particularly stands out in the quote above is the fact that upon seeing himself as a legitimate party involved in a “scholarly communication”—as noted by Thomson and Kamler (2013)— Sam also started to feel more confident, and more importantly, came to realize that he “can stand up for [him]self” and defend his positions and contentions in negotiation with reviewers and editors. Unsurprisingly, he found the experience formative and constructive, as he had managed to claim and invoke his academic identity, which inspired him to communicate further with the editor and reviewers.  The fact that, as a result of changing his perspective, he started to see himself legitimately engaged in a dialogic “scholarly conversation” with the editor and reviewers served as a confidence-booster to Sam, and reaffirmed his emerging academic identity. More significantly and crucially, he asserted “I have the right to do it, and they have to listen to me…(to)… what I have to say”, which is reminiscent of the oft-quoted Bourdieusian (1987) “right to speech” and “the power to impose reception” – also used by Darvin and Norton (2015) in reference to one’s rightful and agentive claim to his or her legitimate identity. Herein, Sam seems to have claimed his (scholarly) identity—and has positioned himself—as a legitimate member of the discourse community, and has come to believe that he is entitled to have the right to be heard and to rightfully and join the scholarly conversations of his target scholarly community, even if he is wrong, which was a turning point in claiming his academic identity.  Another interesting scenario occurred when Sam and his supervisor, after having presented at a conference, were asked to submit a piece to be published in the conference proceedings associated with the conference in question. After submitting the piece, the reviewers got back to Sam—who was the first author— saying that “[t]his paper is great, but we will have to phrase this … [a certain key sentence] … differently”. When Sam consulted his supervisor 118  regarding the suggested change, much to his surprise, she told him not to agree with the recommended change and to explicitly express their disapproval in the reply email. Reflecting back, Sam said: “Well, honestly of course, I was shocked but… I was relying a lot on my co-author, and she's a very seasoned scholar. If it was only me, maybe … [I would make the change]” (Final Interview, October 2, 2015). In a somewhat similar vein, Rose also had a noteworthy experience in this regard. After her (first) single-authored submission – which had undergone two rounds of revise-and-resubmits – was eventually accepted for publication by a peer reviewed journal, the manuscript was processed by a copy editor working for the journal – as the penultimate step prior to publication. Interestingly enough, the copy editor had applied some changes which Rose found to be meaning-altering and hence unacceptable, as shown in the excerpt below:  I had an interesting exchange with the copy editor of the journal where my first single- authored paper is supposed to be published in the next few weeks. So he sent me the ‘copy- edited’ draft of my manuscript in which he systematically omitted all of the that’s and passive voice constructions, with no consideration of the sentences themselves. (Email communication, October 13, 2014)   Frustrated and vexed by the unwanted changes, she opted to write an email to the copy editor and voice her disapproval of the applied revisions made by the copy editor: Regarding your stylistic suggestions, I thank you for taking the time to make them. However, I opted to keep most of the that’s that you omitted; I kept ‘we’ instead of your suggestion of ‘the reader’; and as a matter of accuracy, I reversed nearly all of your active voice re-constructions. Often the change altered the intended meaning or rendered the sentence ungrammatical. Again, I am very grateful to you for taking the time to proofread my work. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about the manuscript. (Email communication, October 13, 2014)   In the quote above, while thanking the copy editor, Rose was explicit and clear about her disagreement and dissatisfaction with the changes made. It should be noted, though, that she did so tactfully and courteously. The copy editor responded to her (rather promptly), tenaciously insistent that the changes in terms of style were unavoidable and thus necessary for the piece to be published, as shown in the extract below:  Thank you for returning your updated manuscript. After proofreading it with the faculty advisor of the journal, I need to inform you of the common adjustment that must be made when a writer submits to an international journal. Since… [the journal] …is based in the 119  United States, Standard American English is used for any published manuscripts. As such, I will have to remove your corrections and rewrite them into American English. The information you provided about sources and my errors regarding APA style with quotes will be maintained. Once I have made the necessary changes, I will send you the document in the template in which your article will appear. (Email communication, October 13, 2014)   Notably, Rose was resolute to stand her ground and defend her position. Not convinced by the rationale (for the structural changes) provided by the copy editor, she decided to persist in her position, threatening to retract her submission (even though the article had already been accepted by that point), and also suggesting the intervention of an arbiter—faculty adviser on the editorial boards of the journal: Thank you for your email. Just a question by way of clarification: Does “Standard American English” mean that you will be omitting almost all of my original that’s and changing all of my passive voice constructions into active voice? If this is the case, there are a few occasions where I felt that your grammar suggestions (especially from passive to active voice) significantly altered the meaning of the sentence, and I would like the opportunity to discuss these with you and/ or the faculty advisor before the paper is published. In the handful of cases to which I’m referring, I feel that it is not so much a case of “American” English, but of clear communication in written English generally. If we cannot agree on some of these critical points (i.e., where I feel that the substance of my message is significantly altered), I may have to retract the article. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. I appreciate your attention in this matter (Email communication, October 13, 2014)   Later, on the same day, in an email to me, Rose reiterated her solid resolution and determination to withdraw her article, if need be. Moreover, she was demonstrably dissatisfied and frustrated, and more importantly, outraged at the copy editor’s insistence on making structural changes to align the style with so-called “Standard American English” in her article. Quite clearly, her sense of self as an emerging scholar had also been adversely affected. I do not quote the original communication (i.e. her email to me) here – upon her request (in member checking) – as her emotions were raw and rather unfiltered – which itself speaks to how the editorial/publishing process can strongly impact perceptions and trajectories for emerging scholars in academia.  What is evident and noteworthy in the quote above and the preceding email exchanges is that the process of going through peer review, particularly if protracted by an incident like the 120  one above, can be potentially grueling, fraught and frustrating. It should also be noted that the prolonged and extended nature of these negotiations can be potentially challenging, daunting, and intimidating even and emotionally draining, all of which might turned out to eventuate in diminishment of investment and adverse effects on an emerging scholar’s identity, which may still not be solid and full-fledged.  Also telling in this scenario is the copy editor’s tenacious insistence on the need for the style to be converted and transformed to comply with the so-called “Standard American English”, which begs the question as to whether American English is presumed to have primacy over other varieties of English like Canadian English. Of relevance here is Kubota’s (2015) argument for “call[ing] into question the perceived superiority of mainstream American or British English and its native speakers that constitutes traditional linguistic conventions” (p. 21). The journal evidently had a preference for a certain style, which the copy editor purported to be the canonical grammatical rule in the standard American English; nevertheless, it is not necessarily so.  Fortunately, this scenario ultimately was amicably resolved, once a faculty adviser on the journal’s editorial board stepped in as an arbiter to mediate the dispute. While offering clarification on some of the changes (suggested by the copy editor in charge), the faculty advisor also conceded that it was his stylistic preference rather than Standard American English that the copy editor had strongly advised. Also worth noting is the fact that all along, even though Rose, an Anglophone writer with a solid command of academic English, was clearly disgruntled and dissatisfied with the copy editing, she was collegial, tactful, courteous and polite in her communications and interactions with all involved parties, even though she had reasons to disagree with them, which is an important point in academic socialization, which Rose was aware of. This ordeal can be nightmarish and emotionally draining for an emerging scholar who might be testing the waters, so to speak, trying to get his or her foot wet to enter the conversations of the discipline probably for the first time. The persistence shown by Rose (Anglophone) and her insistence on holding her position eventually served her well and paid off, which can be in part attributed to her identity as an Anglophone writer as well as the enriching experiences she had gained as a result of co-authorship with her mentor. Yet, one wonders how a less experienced, and conceivably less 121  secure, EAL writer would have responded in a similar situation. It is quite conceivable that an emerging EAL scholar who is not equally confident or less proficient in English (than Rose) might have quit. A somewhat similar story occurred to Heather – who described the anecdote as “a nightmare if you can believe it”. She had submitted a short piece – which was in fact a response to an article – to an academic newsletter affiliated with Pantheon University. Heather noted, though, that the newsletter in question “is run by undergraduate students…not seasoned scholars”. She had decided to write a response to the said article – which had been written by the editor – because it had expressed “a thinly veiled prejudice against” a large group of students at Pantheon University, and the topic fell within Heather’ area of expertise, which was why she had laid out solid counterarguments and critiques against the position taken by the editor. Consequently, there was a serious disagreement (and some ensuing back and forth) between Heather and the editor. Reflecting back on the situation, Heather stated:  he [the editor] wasn’t so happy. So what happened was that … he is the opinions editor, I was actually responding to a piece that he had written. He was also the one making the decision whether or not it would be published. So there was a serious conflict of interest in that but there's nothing I could do about that, right? So he took it quite personally that I responded to his comments. So we had many different exchanges where I had to sort of push forth that I wanted to do it…as a doctoral candidate in … [the field] ... Finally, he said sure but you have to basically cut it down to only 300 words instead of the 1000 … and then we'll publish it. It got published in the end but I had to kind of battle. That was actually a good experience because he was an undergrad student and I felt that I had more authority in this particular area. I felt like I could fight for what I wanted and what I believed what was right. (Final Interview, October 21, 2015)  It is indeed interesting to note that eventually the editor conceded to Heather’s argument, given that she had mastery over the subject matter, as a doctoral student specializing in the area in question, and thus had the upper hand, so to speak. Naturally, she found the experience validating and reaffirming to her nascent scholarly identity. It is worth noting how Heather’s identity as a doctoral student helped her persist in her position and sustain her investment in publishing the piece. A somewhat different yet relevant scenario was experienced by Daisy in the process of trying to publish a book chapter (co-authored) with her supervisor. Once the chapter was accepted – after two rounds of revision requested by editors (of the edited volume) – and had 122  reached its final stage of proofreading, the editors sent back the revised version of the chapter to the authors (i.e., Daisy and her supervisor) for a final check before sending it out for publication.  The editors had stated “we checked your … [revised submission] … Some parts have been slightly changed to make it [the book chapter] more concise and succinct, here is the final version. …. Please let us knew if you have any questions”. Upon receiving and perusing the chapter, her supervisor had discerned some (textual) changes made by the editors to “some parts of the book chapter…but then [in] some of the sentences, the meanings were kind of changed because they had … revised [some] parts”. Her supervisor “was unhappy with some… [of] the revisions… that the editors [had made]” and, much to Daisy’s amazement, she replied to the editors saying “No… this is not the final version at all. There are a few points that we need to clarify”.  Daisy was quite surprised that her supervisor possessed the power and confidence to disagree with the editors—who are prominent scholars in the given field—and she thought that was of great pedagogical value for her and important to her socialization into academic publishing. She acknowledged, though, that if a similar case had happened to her, she would have not perhaps shown her explicit resistance and disagreement with the editors, as she was “not there yet”, and yet she hoped to be able to do so in the future to come (Final Interview, October 26, 2015).  What unifies the above-mentioned anecdotes is the fact that the authors – Rose, Sam, and Heather (emerging scholars) and Daisy’s supervisor – managed to agentively negotiate and persist in their positions, and to assert “the right to speech” and wield their “power to impose reception” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 75) – which is also constitutive of and contributive to identity (Norton, 2013). All the above-mentioned anecdotes signify the paramount import of negotiation skills and learning how to negotiate and navigate the publication process, which arguably constitutes an essential part of socialization into scholarly publication. 5.5.2 Sagas of success: Persistence rewarded In the world of academic publishing, receiving rejections – especially from high ranking and reputable journals – appears to be par for the course and an inexorable part of learning the proverbial ropes of writing for scholarly publication (e.g., Curry & Lillis, 2013; Hyland, 2015; 123  Thomson & Kamler, 2013). What often determines the trajectory and success (or lack thereof) of a text intended for publication, more often than not, lies in how one responds to – and the actions that ensue – a given rejection (Belcher, 2007).  One such scenario occurred to Rose when she was still in her master’s program.  She and her supervisor collaboratively wrote a research article – out of her supervisor’s research project, which was why Rose was the second author – and submitted that to a journal whose scope matched the focus and thrust of the article. Quite surprisingly, though, their submission received a rejection after being reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Undeterred and determined, the supervisor – in collaboration with Rose – revised the paper, using some of the feedback accompanying the rejection from the journal, and submitted the revised article to a second journal, which asked for a revise-and-resubmit with major revisions, as is often the case with journals conducting a rigorous peer review. After meticulously addressing the review comments, they resubmitted the paper to the journal, which again, contrary to their expectation, rejected the paper. Yet once again, Rose was astonished to realize that her supervisor – despite having received the two successive rejections from the first and second journal – was still optimistically resolved and persistent in striving to get the paper published in a relevant journal, and that he had decided submit the paper to a third journal. Subsequently, and after revising the piece in light of the comments (provided by the reviewers and editor from the second journal), Rose and her supervisor, for the third time around, submitted the revamped article to another highly ranked journal in the given field. After going through two rounds of revise-and-resubmit – and making substantial changes as requested by the reviewers – their paper was eventually accepted for publication and finally published – when Rose was in her first year of her PhD. In essence, Rose witnessed first-hand how three years of unabated persistence and perseverance finally came to fruition. Looking back on the aforementioned momentous experience she had in collaborating with her supervisor, Rose remarked: that experience of repeated failures and not quitting was beyond valuable for me... it also allows you an emotional distance from the paper you submit...because I realized it has to be the right journal, right time, right place, right reviewers. It is like so much is out of your hands, so… you do the best that you can and that is it. So when you are rejected again and again, you do not take it personally, just like … [my supervisor] advised. It really matters how you take it [a rejection] (First Interview, June 20, 2014)  124  As Rose notes in the quote above, her direct and hands-on involvement in the experience of persisting and persevering in the face of “repeated failures” has been a formative and constructive learning opportunity for her. Another important takeaway for Rose was to have “an emotional distance” from the text and critical feedback one has received, such that one does “not take it personally”, when rejected – given the “deep connection between the scholarly identity and the text” (Thompson & Kamler, 2013, p. 20). Also significant was the realization and observation made by Rose that acceptance or rejection of a submission is contingent upon various (sometimes) unpredictable factors, and that “it has to be the right journal, right time, right place, right reviewers” for a paper to be accepted. Such an understanding, Rose rightly opined, can serve to mitigate the negative emotions evoked by a rejection. The exemplary mentoring role exhibited by Rose’s supervisor, who allowed his mentee to have a hands-on involvement in navigating the publication process, thereby affording her a learning opportunity which was “beyond valuable” (Rose).  Another story which showcases the possibility of turning a rejection to a publication was experienced by Sam who received a rejection on his submission to a journal. The article was of special importance to him, as it was his first attempt at writing a (sole-authored) manuscript in English without the assistance of a copy editor. After a rather quick turnaround time of almost two weeks, the journal sent him a desk rejection (i.e., rejection—by the editor—without blind peer review). Upon having received the rejection, Sam wrote to me stating that: It is a rejection. Now, I am going to send it to a different journal. I just have to tweak it a little bit… there are many possible reasons for the rejection… this particular journal is not really big in [the area] …Well, I definitely want to try again. I think the content is good enough, I just have to find the right showcase…I don’t feel discouraged at all, it is just an ego downer. Well, I was not expecting a positive reaction right away, to begin wit