An academic writing model: Lessons learned from experienced writers

Fahrus Zaman Fadhly, Muziatun Muziatun, Nanan Abdul Manan, Arrofa Acesta, Dadang Solihat


Academic writing seems daunting for novice writers. Unveiling cognitive processes of experienced writers in academic writing can presumably aid novice writers, primarily writing for publication. The purpose of this research is to explore the cognitive processes of experienced writers who have published articles in reputable journals in writing scientific articles. Three experienced writers participated in the study: one from the social science and two from the STEM fields. Thematic analysis following the six phases of Braun and Clark (2006) was conducted to analyze the interview data from three experienced writers. The findings from the interview generated five themes: search, topic, research, writing, and publication. These emerging themes have similarities with the previous academic writing models but expand some actions toward the publication process. The themes reflected the steps taken by the experienced writers who participated in the study in producing their published articles. Thus, these steps can be used as one of the models to guide novice writers intending to publish their work in academic journals.


Academic writing; experienced writers; novice writers; thematic analysis

Full Text:



Baier-Fuentes, H., Merigó, J. M., Amorós, J. E., & Gaviria-Marín, M. (2019). International entrepreneurship: A bibliometric overview. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 385–429.

Bazerman, C. (2013). A rhetoric of literate action: Literate action (Vol. 1). The WAC Clearinghouse.

Bazerman, C. (2018). What does a model model? And for whom? Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 301-318.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.

Brainard, J. J. S. (2020). Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat? Science, 13(10), 11-26.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bryson, M., Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., & Joram, E. (1991). Going beyond the problem as given: Problem solving in expert and novice writers. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 61–84). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Chanson, H. (2007). Research quality, publications and impact in civil engineering into the 21st century: Publish or perish, commercial versus open access, internet versus libraries? Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(8), 946- 951.

Chenoweth, N. A., & Haynes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98.

Fang, Z. (2021). Demystifying academic writing. Routledge.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Flowerdew, J. (2016). English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) writing: Making the case. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 5–32.

Graham, S. (2018). A writer(s)-within-community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, V. W. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. Langer, S. Murphy, … M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 272–325). National Council of English.

Grewal, A. Kataria, H., & Dhawan, I. (2016). Literature search for research planning and identification of research problem. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(9), 635–639.

Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 73-92.

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written communication, 29(3), 369- 388.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 284–294.

Kraus, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2021). The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 17, 1-12.

Lavelle, E., & Guarino, A. J. (2003). A multidimensional approach to understanding college writing processes. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 295-305.

Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5-32.

Lim, J. M. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229-245.

Min, L. H., San, P. H., Petras, Y., & Mohamad, A. R. (2013). Novice writers in Asian academia: Insights on writing issues. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19(3), 47-60.

Nur, S., Anas, I., & Rahayu. (2022). Engaging novice writers in online collaborative review through peer review circles. International Journal of Language Education, 6(1), 63-74.

Öchsner, A. (2013). Introduction to scientific publishing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. SAGE Publishings, Inc.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104(2019), 333-339.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

View My Stats

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.