Article Review of Fahrus Zaman Fadhly's works “An Academic

Writing Model: Lessons Learned From Experienced Writers”

TITLE:
The title “Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis” is
both appropriate and effective in conveying the core topic and scope of the article. It
communicates the central theme of exploring and potentially redefining the practices
associated with doctoral publications. Additionally, “from and beyond the thesis” suggests a
comprehensive approach that includes traditional thesis writing and extends to broader
academic writing practices.
This title effectively sets the expectation for a scholarly discussion on the subject. It indicates
that the article will provide insights into the publication process, which is particularly
relevant for doctoral candidates and those in academia. It also implies a critical perspective,
inviting readers to consider current practices and how they might be improved or expanded.
ABSTRACT:
The abstract of the article titled “An academic writing model: Lessons learned from
experienced writers” seems to provide a clear and concise overview of the study’s main
points. It likely outlines the purpose of the research, which is to analyze the writing processes
of experienced authors and develop a practical model for academic writing aimed at journal
publication.
The abstract appears to be complete, as it mentions the method of data collection—interviews
with three expert authors for a total of 270 minutes—and the analytical approach, which is a
six-phase thematic analysis. This methodological transparency is crucial for readers to assess
the validity of the research.
Moreover, the abstract summarizes the key findings, indicating that experienced writers
follow similar stages in their writing process leading to publication. These stages are
categorized into search, topic, research, writing, and publication, with each stage including
several subthemes to guide novice writers.
The clarity of the abstract is evident in its straightforward presentation of the research’s
purpose, methodology, and findings. It succinctly encapsulates the article’s content, allowing
readers to quickly grasp the essence of the study and its contribution to the field of academic
writing.
KEYWORDS:
The keywords for an academic article play a crucial role in reflecting its content and focus, as
they help in indexing the article in databases and guiding potential readers to the work. Based
on the passage provided from the document, the keywords likely associated with the article
“An academic writing model: Lessons learned from experienced writers” would be expected
to revolve around academic writing, publication processes, thematic analysis, and perhaps the
experiences of expert authors.
From the passage, it is evident that the article deals with the writing processes of experienced
authors, the stages of writing leading to publication, and the development of a practical model
for academic writing aimed at journal publication. Therefore, effective keywords might
include terms like “academic writing,” “publication process,” “experienced authors,”
“thematic analysis,” and “writing model.”
These keywords should encapsulate the essence of the article and ensure that the content is
discoverable to those interested in the field of academic writing and publication. They should
be specific enough to attract the right audience but also broad enough to encompass the
article’s main themes.
INTRODUCTION:
The introduction of an academic article is pivotal as it sets the stage for the entire study. It
should effectively present the research question, establish the context, and provide a strong
rationale for the research. Based on the passage provided from the document, the introduction
of the article titled “Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the
thesis” seems to accomplish these objectives well.
Framing the Research Question: The introduction clearly outlines the research question:
exploring the cognitive processes of experienced writers who have published articles in
reputable journals. This is a specific and focused research question that promises to yield
insights into the writing practices of successful authors.
Establishing the Context: The context is set by identifying the target group of the study—
novice writers, primarily writing for publication. This establishes the relevance of the study
for a particular audience, which is crucial for academic writing and publication.
Providing Rationale: The rationale for the study is to guide novice writers intending to
publish their work in academic journals. By focusing on the experiences of writers from both
social science and STEM fields, the study promises a comprehensive look at publication
practices across disciplines.
Effectiveness: The introduction is effective in that it provides a clear preview of what the
study entails and what readers can expect to learn from it. The mention of thematic analysis
following Braun and Clark’s six phases adds methodological rigor to the study, assuring
readers of the systematic approach taken in the research.
METHOD:
Evaluating the methodology of the research article based on the passage provided, it’s clear
that the study employs a robust methodology that is intricately linked to the research
problem, ensuring an organic relationship between the two. The methodology is designed to
be innovative, allowing for the production of findings that are distinct from previous
research. This innovative aspect is crucial as it suggests that the study aims to contribute new
knowledge to the field. The researchers are encouraged to engage with a wide range of
references and to consider how others have applied similar methods, which speaks to the
thoroughness of the approach. Importantly, there is an emphasis on modifying existing
methods to advance data analysis further, indicating a commitment to enhancing the research
process.
The passage also highlights the importance of not discarding data that may initially seem less
interesting, as its relevance could emerge during the analysis phase. This approach to data
management underscores the study’s thoroughness and suggests a comprehensive
consideration of all data, which is essential for the integrity of the research. Additionally, the
mention of data being stored in the authors’ long-term memory and consciously evoked
points to a meticulous and reflective approach to data handling, which is beneficial for the
reproducibility of the study. Overall, the methodology is presented as both appropriate for the
research question and thorough in its execution, with a clear path laid out for replication by
other researchers, thereby meeting the criteria for a sound methodological framework in
academic research.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION:
In the “Results and Discussion” section of an academic article, the authors are expected to
present their findings in a clear and structured manner, and then discuss these results in the
context of the research question and the existing body of literature. The passage provided
suggests that the article presents detailed cognitive experiences of the participants, who are
experienced writers, as they engage in the various stages of writing a scientific article. This
approach aligns well with the research question, which aims to explore the cognitive
processes involved in academic writing for publication.
The discussion part should ideally extend the presentation of results by interpreting them,
linking them to the hypotheses or research questions, and situating them within the broader
scholarly debate. It seems that the article attempts to do this by comparing the writing
practices of the participants with common academic writing conventions and guidelines. This
not only validates the results but also provides a platform for readers to understand how the
findings fit into the larger academic narrative.
CONCLUSION:
The passage indicates that writing different sections of a scientific article, such as the
introduction, method, results and discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments, and
bibliography, provided the study participants with a unique cognitive experience. This
suggests that the conclusion successfully captures the essence of the research by highlighting
the cognitive processes involved in academic writing.
Moreover, the conclusion appears to address the implications of these findings by discussing
the need for scientific writers to adhere to established conventions or guidelines for academic
writing. This is an important aspect as it connects the individual experiences of the
participants to the collective practices of the academic community.
The implications are also well-articulated, with the conclusion emphasizing the importance of
reviewing and editing manuscripts, either independently or in a group, and the use of manual
or computer-assisted editing. These points underscore the practical applications of the
research and suggest ways in which the findings can inform and improve academic writing
practices.
REFERENCES:
The passage mentions the importance of searching for relevant literature as a key step in
conducting authentic research. It highlights that a systematic bibliographic review (SBR) is a
recognized research methodology that allows researchers to understand the global emphasis
on scientific knowledge. The references cited, such as Synder (2019) and Kraus et al. (2021),
appear to be directly related to the topic of literature review and its challenges, which is
pertinent to the article’s focus on academic writing and publication practices.
Furthermore, the passage refers to Hayes and Flower (1980), who proposed a writing model
that includes the Task Environment process. This model is relevant to the article’s exploration
of the cognitive processes involved in writing for publication, as it discusses how ideas and
expert opinions can motivate authors and influence the quality of their writing.
 REFERENCES
Fadhly, F. Z., Muziatun, M., Manan, N. A., Acesta, A., & Solihat, D. (2023). An academic writing model:
Lessons learned from experienced writers. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(3),
870-880. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v12i3.44952