This case study of three female Chilean scientists with distinct levels of scientific writing expertise—novice, competent, and near-expert—investigates their notions about drafts. Interrogation of data—that is, document analyses, an entry questionnaire, a set of semistructured interviews, and member-checks—identified seven different notions about drafts: (1) draft as a canonical structure of scientific research articles, (2) draft as influenced by medium/time, (3) draft as an incomplete text, (4) draft as a process, (5) draft as product, (6) draft as a nondefinitive version, and (7) academic writing as a draft from scientific writing. Findings show that some shared notions about drafts transcend writer profiles and that these notions are rooted in writer identity, their writing practices, and the context of producing scientific research articles.
AgostoS.PicóR. (2001). La textualización o escritura del primer borrador. In GarcíaI. (Coord . Ed.), Escribir textos expositivos en el aula: Fundamentación teórica y secuencias didácticas para diferentes niveles (pp. 67–84). Editorial Graó.
2.
ÁlvarezT. (2011). Revisar y reescribir textos académicos en la formación del profesorado. Revista Complutense de Educación, 22(2), 269–294.
BommaritoD. V. (2015). Collaborative research writing as mentoring in a USA English doctoral program. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 267–299. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.04
5.
CameloM. (2010). El mejoramiento cualitativo de la escritura a partir de la metacognición. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 12, 54–69.
6.
Cantillana-BarañadosR.Portilla-VásquezI. (2019). Por la senda de los “profesores taxis”: Los efectos de la desprofesionalización académica en educación superior. Una aproximación cualitativa desde Chile. Cultura-Hombre-Sociedad, 29(1), 306–330. https://doi.org/10.7770/0719-2789.2019.cuhso.01.a01
7.
ChengG. (2022). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draft revision: Evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1655769
8.
ColomboL.CarlinoP. (2015). Grupos para el desarrollo de la escritura científico-académica: Una revisión de trabajos anglosajones. Lenguaje, 43(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.25100/lenguaje.v43i1.4993
CotosE.HuffmanS.LinkS. (2020). Understanding graduate writers’ interaction with and impact of the Research Writing Tutor during revision. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 187–232. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.07
11.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
12.
DaliK.JaegerP. T. (2018). Beyond scholarly publishing: The human dimension of peer review in LIS. The Library Quarterly, 88(2), 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1086/696578
13.
EscorciaD.PasseraultJ. M.RosC.PylousterJ. (2017). Profiling writers: Analysis of writing dynamics among college students. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 233–273.
14.
EyresI. (2017). Conceptualising writing and identity. In CreminT.LokeT. (Eds.), Writer identity and the teaching and learning of writing (pp. 3–18). Routledge.
15.
FardellaC.Carvajal MuñozF. (2018). Los estudios sociales de la práctica y la práctica como unidad de estudio. Psicoperspectivas, 17(1), 1–12.
16.
FlowerL.HayesJ. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 35, 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
17.
FontúrbelF. E.Celis-DiezJ. L. (2025). The MDPIzation of Chilean science: A wake-up call about how we are conducting research and using public resources. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 98, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40693-025-00136-0
18.
GonzálezC.RivasN. (2017). El Artículo de Investigación Científica: regularidades y variación a través de las disciplinas. Leer y escribir para aprender. Alfabetización Disciplinar en la formación Inicial Docente. Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso.
19.
GonzálezS.BrunnerJ.SalmiJ. (2013). International Comparison About Academic Salaries: An Exploratory Comparación Internacional De Remuneraciones Académicas. Calidad En La Educación, 39, 21–42.
20.
HamiltonM.PittK. (2009). Creativity in academic writing. In CarterA.LillisT.ParkinS. (Eds.), Why writing matters: Issues of accessibility and identity in writing research and pedagogy (pp. 61–80). John Benjamins.
21.
HayesJ. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp.1-27). Routledge.
22.
HayesJ. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388.
23.
HayesJ.FlowerL. (1980). Identifying the organization for writing processes. In GreggL. W.SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
HylandK. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. Pearson Education Limited.
25.
HylandK. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27(2), 159-188.
26.
IbáñezR.GonzálezC. (2017). Leer y escribir para aprender. Alfabetización Disciplinar en la formación Inicial Docente. Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso.
27.
IvaničR. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
LeeI. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching, 47(2), 250–261.
31.
LillisT. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing” closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
32.
LillisT.CurryM. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754
33.
LillisT.LeedhamM.TwinerA. (2020). Time, the written record, and professional practice: The case of contemporary social work. Written Communication, 37(4), 431–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320938804
34.
LiuC.HarwoodN. (2022). Understandings of the role of the one-to-one writing tutor in a U.K. University Writing Centre: Multiple perspectives. Written Communication, 39(2), 228–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069057
35.
MallerC. (2012). Using social practice theory to understand everyday life in a master-planned state: Outcomes for health and wellbeing. The Annual Conference of the Australian Sociological Association: Emerging and Enduring Inequalities, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
36.
MilesM.HubermanA.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
37.
MortonJ.StorchN.ThompsonC. (2015). What our students tell us: Perceptions of three multilingual students on their academic writing in first year. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 1–13.
38.
OlmansonJ.KennettK.MagnificoA.McCartheyS.SearsmithD.CopeB.KalantzisM. (2016). Visualizing revision: Leveraging student-generated between-draft diagramming data in support of academic writing development. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 99–123.
39.
PadillaC.LópezE. (2019). Prácticas de retroalimentación en aulas universitarias de humanidades: Comentarios digitales docentes y perfiles estudiantiles de escritor. Revista Signos, 52(100), 330–356.
Sala-BubaréA.CastellóM.RijlaarsdamG. (2021). Writing processes as situated regulation processes: A context-based approach to doctoral writing. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.01.01
42.
SatoM.CárcamoB. (2024). Be(com)ing an educational researcher in the Global South (and beyond): A focus on the research-practice relationship. Educational Researcher, 53(6), 359–369.
43.
ShoveE.PantzarM.WatsonM. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage.
ThomasD. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research?Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14(1), 23–43. https://doi:10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435
46.
VassilakiE. (2017). Reflective writing, reflecting on identities: The construction of writer identity in student teachers’ reflections. Linguistics and Education, 42, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.08.001
47.
VaughanA.LesusM. (2024). On the page and off the page: Adolescents’ collaborative writing in an after-school spoken-word poetry team. Written Communication, 41(3), 449–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883241242107
48.
WiboolyasarinW.WiboolyasarinK.SuwanwihokK.JinowatN.MuenjanchoeyR. (2024). Synergizing collaborative writing and AI feedback: An investigation into enhancing L2 writing proficiency in wiki-based environments. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100228
