Aalbersberg, I. J., Heeman, F., Koers, H. and Zudilova-Seinstra, E. (2012). Elsevier’s Article of the Future. Enhancing the user experience and integrating data through applications. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 25(1), 33–43.Google Scholar

Abt, H. A. (2007). Changing sources for research literature. In Heck, A. and Houziaux, L., eds., Future Professional Communication in Astronomy. Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, pp. 151–160.Google Scholar

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ai, H. (2010–2017a). Web-based L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer. Available at https://aihaiyang.com/software/ [last accessed 5 June 2020].Google Scholar

Ai, H. (2010–2017b). Web-based Lexical Complexity Analyzer. Available at https://aihaiyang.com/software/lca/ [last accessed 5 June 2020].Google Scholar

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.Google Scholar

Altbach, P. G. (2007). The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(36), 3608–3611.Google Scholar

Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P. and Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biology, 14(12), e2000933.Google Scholar

Ammon, U. (2001). English as a future language of science at German universities? A question of difficult consequences, posed by the decline of German as a language of science. In Ammon, U., ed., The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 343–361.Google Scholar

Ammon, U. (2006). Language planning for international scientific communication: An overview of questions and potential solutions. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 1–30.Google Scholar

Anderson, K. (2009). The ‘Article of the Future’ – Just lipstick again? Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/21/the-article-of-the-future-lipstick-on-a-pig/ [last accessed on 16 April 2019].Google Scholar

Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ [last accessed on 7 July 2020].Google Scholar

Anthony, L. and Hardaker, C. (2017). FireAnt (Version 1.1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at www.laurenceanthony.net/software [last accessed on 7 July 2020].Google Scholar

Askehave, I. and Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, D. (2003). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 49–63.Google Scholar

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 277–289.Google Scholar

Aydinli, E. and Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 289–303.Google Scholar

Ayers, G. (2008). The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal Nature. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 22–41.Google Scholar

Bak, T. H. and Mehmedbegovic, D. (2017). Healthy linguistic diet: The value of linguistic diversity and language learning across the lifespan. Languages, Society & Policy, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.9854.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (trans.), Holquist, M., ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986a). Discourse in the novel. In Holquist, M., ed., The Dialogic Imagination (trans. Emerson, C. and Holquist, M.). Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 259–422.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986b). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. McGee, V. W. (trans.), Emerson, C. and Holquist, M., eds. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Ball, Ch. E. (2016). The shifting genres of scholarly multimedia: Webtexts as innovation. The Journal of Media Innovations, 3(2), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ball, D. (2016). The Impact of Open Science. Available at www.fosteropenscience.eu/content/impact-open-science [last accessed 1 July 2020].Google Scholar

Barbieri, F. (2018). I don’t want to and don’t get me wrong: Lexical bundles as a window to subjectivity and intersubjectivity in American blogs. In Kopaczyk, J. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Applications of Pattern-Driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–276.Google Scholar

Baron, N. S. (2016). The impact of electronically-mediated communication on language standards and style. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 329–340.Google Scholar

Barras, R. (1978). Scientists Must Write. A Guide to Better Writing for Scientists, Engineers and Students. London and New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Barton, D. (2001). Directions for literacy research: Analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world. Language and Education, 15(2), 92–104.Google Scholar

Barton, D. (2007). Literacy. An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2012). Local Literacies. Reading and Writing in One Community. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanič, R., eds. (2000). Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context. 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bateman, J. A. (2017). Triangulating transmediality: A multimodal semiotic framework relating media, modes and genres. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 160–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.009.Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Bawarshi, A. (2001). The ecology of genre. In Dobrin, S. I. and Weisser, C. R., eds., Ecocomposition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Approaches. New York: University of New York Press, pp. 69–80.Google Scholar

Bawarshi, A. (2016). Accounting for genre performances: Why uptake matters. In Artemeva, N. and Freedman, A., eds., Trends and Traditions in Genre Studies. Edmonton: Inkshed Publications, pp. 186–206.Google Scholar

Bawarshi, A. S. and Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre. An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and Pedagogy. 1st ed. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 79–101.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2004a). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds., What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 309–339.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2004b). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds., What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2011). Genre as social action. In Gee, J. P. and Handford, M., eds., Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 226–238.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. (2015). A genre-based theory of literate action. In Artemeva, N. and Freedman, A., eds., Genre Studies around the Globe: Beyond the Three Traditions. Edmonton: Inkshed Publications, pp. 80–94.Google Scholar

Bazerman, C. and Prior, P., eds. (2004). What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analysing Texts and Textual Practices. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Beaufort, A. (2007). College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar

Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–122.Google Scholar

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: The Society of Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar

Belcher, D. (2009). How research space is created in a diverse research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 221–234.Google Scholar

Bennett, K., ed. (2014). The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. and Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220.Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. K. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In Halmari, H. and Virtanen, T., eds., Persuasion across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 213–225.Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. K. (2017). Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2016). The competing demands of popularisation vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 314–328.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., eds. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blommaert, J. and Dong, J. (2010). Ethnographic Fieldwork. A Beginner’s Guide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J., Collins, J. and Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces for multilingualism. Language and Communication, 25, 197–216.Google Scholar

Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2015). Peer reviewers’ recommendations for language improvements in research writing. In Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207–230.Google Scholar

Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2016). Needs analysis for curriculum design. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, pp. 560–576.Google Scholar

Boekholt, P., Edler, J., Cunningham, P. and Flanagan, K. (2009). Drivers of International collaboration in research Final Report. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/drivers_of_international_cooperation_in_research.pdf [last accessed on 6 July 2020].Google Scholar

Bolter, J. D. and Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation – Understanding New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D. (2015). Discourse in and through the media: Recontextualizing and reconceptualizing expert discourse. In Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D., eds., Discourse In and Through the Media: Recontextualizing and Reconceptualizing Expert Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V. and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.Google Scholar

Bosch, T. (2012). Blogging and tweeting climate change in South Africa. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

boyd, D. M. (2002). Faceted Identity: Managing Representation in a Digital World. Unpublished master’s thesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Breeze, R. (2016). Tracing the development of an emergent part-genre: The author summary. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 50–65.Google Scholar

Breeze, R. (2019). Continuity and change. Negotiating relationships in traditional and online peer review genres. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–129.Google Scholar

Breiteneder, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca in Europe: An empirical perspective. World Englishes, 28(2), 256–269.Google Scholar

Briggs, C. L. and Bauman, R. (1992). Genre, intertextuality and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2(2), 131–172.Google Scholar

Britton, B., Jackson, C. and Wade, J. (2019). The reward and risk of social media for academics. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 3(8), 459–461.Google Scholar

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English. A Study of Its Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Büchi, M. (2016). Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 953–968.Google Scholar

Buck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on social network sites. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(1), 9–38.Google Scholar

Buckingham, L. (2014). Building a career in English: Users of English as an Additional Language in academia in the Arabian Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 6–33.Google Scholar

Buehl, J. (2016). Assembling Arguments: Multimodal Rhetoric and Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2002). Culture and Conventions: Writing and Reading Dutch Scientific English. Utrecht, LOT dissertation series 59, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Caliendo, G. (2012). The popularisation of science in web-based genres. In Caliendo, G. and Bongo, G., eds., The Language of Popularisation: Theoretical and Descriptive Models. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 101–132.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (1996). Non-discursive requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435–472.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2002a). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2002b). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 29–44.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S.（2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice. Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–54.Google Scholar

Canagarajah, S. and Said, S. (2011). Linguistic imperialism. In Simpson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 388–400.Google Scholar

Carli, A. and Ammon, U., eds. (2007). Linguistic inequality in scientific communication today. What can future applied linguistics do to mitigate disadvantages for non-Anglophones? AILA Review, 20.Google Scholar

Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64–65.Google Scholar

Casanave, C. P. (2008). The stigmatizing effect of Goffman’s stigma label: A response to John Flowerdew. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casanave, C. P. and Vandrick, S., eds. (2002). Writing for Scholarly Publication: Behind the Scenes in Language Education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Casper, C. F. (2016). The online research article and the ecological basis of new digital genres. In Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J., eds., Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville: Baywood’s Technical Communications Series, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 289–302.Google Scholar

Charles, M. (2012). ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 93–102.Google Scholar

Charles, M. (2015). Same task, different corpus: The role of personal corpora in EAP classes. In Leńko-Szymańka, A. and Boulton, A., eds., Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar

Charles, M. (2018). Corpus-assisted editing for doctoral students: More than just concordancing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, M. and Flowerdew, J. (2018). A critical review of research and practice in data-driven learning (DDL) in the academic writing classroom. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(3), 335–369.Google Scholar

Cheng, A. (2016). EAP at the tertiary level in China. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge, pp. 97–108.Google Scholar

Cheng, A. (2019). Examining the “applied aspirations” in the ESP genre analysis of published journal articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 36–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, W. (2007). Concgramming: A corpus-driven approach to learning the phraseology of discipline-specific texts. CORELL: Computer Resources for Language Learning, 1, 22–35.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. (2016). From manuscript to printing. Transformation of genres in the history of English. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar

Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S. and Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate change sentiment on Twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0136092. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136092Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93.Google Scholar

Collins, J. and Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and Literacies. Texts, Power, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural Rhetoric in the Writing Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (2013). ELF: Central or atypical second language acquisition? In Singleton, D., Fishman, J. A., Aronin, L. and Laoire, M. O., eds., Current Multilingualism: A New Linguistic Dispensation. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 27–44.Google Scholar

Cook, V. and Singleton, D. (2014). Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Corcoran, J. N., Englander, K. and Muresan, L.-M. (2019). Diverse global perspectives on scholarly writing for publication. In Corcoran, J. N., Englander, K. and Muresan, L.-M., eds., Pedagogies and Policies on Publishing Research in English: Local Initiatives Supporting International Scholars. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.Google Scholar

Cortes, V. (2013). ‘The purpose of this study is to’: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 33–43.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 [last accessed on 7 February 2020].Google Scholar

Coupland, N., ed. (2010). Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cox, L. (2015). Are Graphical Abstracts Changing the Way We Publish? https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/promoting-your-article/are-graphical-abstracts-changing-the-way-we-publish [last accessed 20 June 2020].Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2018). OpenCourseWare lectures: A new genre for knowledge dissemination?. Paper presented at the CERLIS Conference 2018, Bergamo, Italy, 21–23 June 2018.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63(1), 130–152.Google Scholar

Curry, M. J. and Lillis, T. (2019). Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: A discussion paper. Publications, 7, 1–27.Google Scholar

Davis, J. L. and Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 476–485.Google Scholar

Demarest, B. and Sugimoto, C. S. (2014). Argue, observe, assess: Measuring disciplinary identities and differences through socio-epistemic discourse dissertations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1374–1387.Google Scholar

Desnoyers, L. (2011). Visuals and text in scientific articles. Information Design Journal, 19(2), 155–171.Google Scholar

Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar

Devitt, A. J. (2009). Re-fusing form in genre study. In Giltrow, J. and Stein, D., eds., Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar

Ding, H. (2008). The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 3–52.Google Scholar

Duszak, A. and Lewkowicz, J. (2008). Publishing academic texts in English: A Polish perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 108–120.Google Scholar

Eaquals (2016). The Eaquals Framework for Language Teacher Training and Development. https://www.eaquals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Eaquals-Framework-for-Language-Teacher-Training-and-Development-Online.pdfGoogle Scholar

Edminster, J. and Moxley, J. (2002). Graduate education and the evolving genre of electronic theses and dissertations. Computers and Composition, 19(1), 89–104.Google Scholar

Eitzel, M. V., Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E. et al. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1.Google Scholar

Engberg, J. and Maier, C. D. (2015). Exploring the hypermodal communication of academic knowledge beyond generic structures. In Bondi, M., Cacchiani, S. and Mazzi, D., eds., Discourse In and Through the Media: Recontextualising and Reconceptualising Expert Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 46–65.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y., Engeström, R. and Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.Google Scholar

Erickson, T. (2000). Making sense of computer-mediated communication (CMC): Conversations as genres, CMC systems as genre ecologies. In Sprague, Ralph H Jr., ed., 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2. Maui, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275–296.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Feak, C. B. (2011). Putting strategy into ESP materials development. In Pérez-Llantada, C. and Watson, M., eds., Specialized Languages in the Global Village. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 239–260.Google Scholar

Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a Research Story. Writing a Literature Review. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar

Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2010). Writing for publication: Corpus-informed materials for post-doctoral fellows in perinatology. In Harwood, N., ed., English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–300.Google Scholar

Feak, C. B. and Swales, J. M. (2011). Creating Contexts. Writing Introductions across Genres. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar

Fecher, B. and Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In Bartling, S. and Friesike, S., eds., Opening Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 17–47.Google Scholar

Ferguson, G. R. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ferguson, G. R. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 13, 7–38.Google Scholar

Ferguson, G. R. (2012). English in language policy and management. In Spolsky, B., ed., Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 475–498.Google Scholar

Ferguson, G. R., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 29(3), 41–59.Google Scholar

Fill, A. and Mühlhäusler, P. (2001). The Ecolinguistics Reader. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

de Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds. (2017). Diversity and Super-diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fishelov, D. (1993). Metaphors of Genre. The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

Fletcher, W. H. (2002–2007). KfNgram. Annapolis: USNA.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123–146.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic professional language. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. A., eds., Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s stigma tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 77–86.Google Scholar

Follett, R. and Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE 10(11), e0143687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687.Google Scholar

Fujun, R. (2013). The connotation and goal of science popularisation in modern China. Journal of Scientific Temper, 1, 29–45.Google Scholar

Gates, D. (1968). Energy exchange and ecology. BioScience, 18(2), 90–95.Google Scholar

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideologies in Discourse. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts. Thresholds of Interpretation. Foreword by Macksey, Richard. Translated by Lewin, Jane E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511549373Google Scholar

Geng, Y. and Wharton, S. (2016). Evaluative language in discussion sections of doctoral theses: Similarities and differences between L1 Chinese and L1 English writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 80–91.Google Scholar

Gentil, G. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 6–23.Google Scholar

Gentil, G. (2017). Afterword: Moving forward with academic biliteracy research. In Palfreyman, D. and van der Walt, C., eds., Academic Biliteracies: Translanguaging and Multilingual Repertoires in Higher Education Settings. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 206–220.Google Scholar

Gentil, G. and Séror, J. (2014). Canada has two official languages – or does it? Case studies of Canadian scholars’ language choices and practices in disseminating knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13(1), 17–30.Google Scholar

Geuna, A. (2015). Global Mobility of Research Scientists. The Economics of Who Goes Where and Why. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Giampapa, F. and Canagarajah, S. (2017). Skilled migration and global English. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 1–4.Google Scholar

Giannoni, D. (2008). Medical writing at the periphery: The case of Italian journal editorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 97–107.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the Knowledge Wave? The Knowledge Society and the Future of Education. Wellington: NZGER Press.Google Scholar

Gilquin, G., Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319–335.Google Scholar

Giltrow, J. (1994). Genre and the pragmatic concept of background knowledge. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 155–178.Google Scholar

Giltrow, J. (2017). Bridge to genre: Spanning technological change. In Miller, C. R. and Kelly, A. R., eds., Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. Baltimore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar

Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (2009). Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gimenez, J., Baldwin, M., Breen, P., Green, J., Gutierrez, E., Paterson, R. et al. (2020). Reproduced, reinterpreted, lost: Trajectories of scientific knowledge across contexts. Text & Talk, 40(3), 293–324.Google Scholar

Gladkova, O. L., DiMarco, C. and Harris, R. A. (2015). Argumentative meanings and their stylistic configurations in clinical research publications. Argument and Computation, 6(3), 310–346.Google Scholar

Glänzel, W., Debackere, K. and Meyer, M. (2007). Triad or tetrad? On global changes in a dynamic world. Working Paper Series, 1–17.Google Scholar

Glänzel, W. and Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W. and Schmoch, U., eds., Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar

Glaser, E., Guilherme, M., Méndez García, M. C. and Mughan, T. (2007). Intercultural Competence for Professional Mobility. Graz: Council of Europe.Google Scholar

Goodrum, A. A., McCain, K. W., Lawrence, S. and Giles, C. L. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: A citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing and Management, 37, 661–675.Google Scholar

Goodwin, S., Jeng, W. and He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.Google Scholar

Gordin, M. F. (2015). Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gosden, H. (2001). Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions: Compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 3, 3–17.Google Scholar

Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101.Google Scholar

Gotti, M. (2014). Reformulation and recontextualisation in popularisation discourse. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 27, 15–34.Google Scholar

Greaves, C. and Warren, M. (2007). Concgramming: A computer driven approach to learning the phraseology of English. ReCALL, 19(3), 287–306.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G. (1990). The Rhetoric of Science: The Rhetorical Analysis of Scientific Texts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 3–23.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G. (2016). Why all scientists write in English. Metascience, 25(1), 125–129.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J. (2016). Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood’s Technical Communications Series.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G. and Harmon, J. E. (2016). The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. and Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Guillén-Galve, I. and Vázquez, I., eds. (2018). English as a Lingua Franca and Intercultural Communication: Implications and/or Applications to the Feld of English Language Teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Guillén-Galve, I. and Bocanegra-Valle, A., eds. (2021). Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research: Theory, Methods, and Interpretation. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gunnarsson, A. and Elam, M. (2012). Food fight! The Swedish Low-Carb/High Fat (LCHF) movement and the turning of science popularisation against the scientists. Science as Culture, 21(3), 315–334.Google Scholar

Guthrie, S., Lichten, C., Corbett, J. and Wooding, S. (2017a). International Mobility of Researchers. A Review of the Literature. Santa Monica, CA, and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation. www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1900/RR1991/RAND_RR1991z1.pdf [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar

Guthrie, S., Lichten, C., Harte, E., Parks, S. and Wooding, S. (2017b). International Mobility of Researchers. A Survey of Researchers in the UK. Santa Monica, CA, and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar

Haberland, H. (2005). Domains and domain loss. In Preisler, B, Fabricius, A., Haberland, H., Kjærbeck, S. and Risager, K., eds., The Consequences of Mobility. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department of Language and Culture, pp. 227–237.Google Scholar

Hafner, C. A. (2018). Genre innovation and multimodal expression in scholarly communication: Video methods articles in experimental biology. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 36, 15–42.Google Scholar

Hafner, C. A. and Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 68–86.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R., eds. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London and Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Hamel, R. E. (2006a). The development of language empires. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P., eds., Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 2240–2258.Google Scholar

Hamel, R. E. (2006b). Spanish in science and higher education: Perspectives for a plurilingual language policy in the Spanish-speaking world. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 95–125.Google Scholar

Hamel, R. E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review, 20, 53–71.Google Scholar

Hancioğlu, N., Neufeld, S. and Eldridge, J. (2008). Through the looking glass and into the land of lexico-grammar. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 459–479.Google Scholar

Hara, N., Abbazio, J. and Perkins, K. (2019). An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. PLoS ONE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216789Google Scholar

Harmon, J. E. (2019). At the frontiers of the online scientific article. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Genres and Science in the Digital Age: Connecting Traditional and New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar

Harwood, N., ed. (2010). English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harzing, A. W. K. and van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar H-Index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.Google Scholar

Hendges, G. R. and Florek, C. S. (2019). The graphical abstract as a new genre in the promotion of science. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar

Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Herring, S. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In Tannen, D. and Trester, A., eds., Discourse 2.0. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Hewings, A., Lillis, T. and Vladimirou, D. (2010). Who’s citing whose writings? A corpus based study of citations as interpersonal resource in English medium national and English medium international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 102–115.Google Scholar

Hirvela, A. and Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 83–106.Google Scholar

Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J. and Herzog, C. (2018). Dimensions: Building context for search and evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics Analytics, 3, 1–11, DOI: 10.3389/frma.2018.00023 (online).Google Scholar

House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca. A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578.Google Scholar

Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. In Hewings, M., ed., Academic Writing in Context. Implications and Applications. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press, pp. 93–103.Google Scholar

Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F. and Thøgersen, J. (2014). English in Nordic Universities: Ideologies and Practices. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context. The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437–455.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 173–191.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities. Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. (2018). Narrative, identity and academic storytelling. ILCEA (online), 31. DOI: http:///doi.org/10.4000/ilcea.4677Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. (K.) (2019). Academic Discourse and Global Publishing. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 12–39.Google Scholar

Hynninen, N. (2018). Exploring regimes of academic writing: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Education, 32(6), 471–476.Google Scholar

Hynninen, N. and Kuteeva, M. (2017). ‘Good’ and ‘acceptable’ English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 53–65.Google Scholar

Irwin, D. (2020). The pandemic adds momentum to the deglobalisation trend. VOX CEPR Policy Portal. Retrieved from https://voxeu.org/article/pandemic-adds-momentum-deglobalisation-trend [last accessed on 1 July 2020].Google Scholar

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity. The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jamieson, K. M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 406–415.Google Scholar

Jamieson, K. H. and Campbell, K. K. (1982). Rhetorical hybrids: Fusions of generic elements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 146–157.Google Scholar

Jeng, W., Goodwin, S., He, D. and Li, L. (2017). Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on ResearchGate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 68(3), 638–652.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85.Google Scholar

Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johns, A. M., ed. (2002). Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Johns, A. M. and Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 13–28.Google Scholar

Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar

Jones, R. and Hafner, C. (2012) Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jordan, K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). DOI: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937Google Scholar

Jørgensen,  J. N. (2010). Languaging. Nine Years of Poly-Lingual Development of Young Turkish-Danish Grade School Students. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar

Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M. and Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 23–38. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art2 [last accessed on 26 January 2020].Google Scholar

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H., eds., English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press in Association with the British Council, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2–3), 121–140.Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Kelly, A. R. and Maddalena, K. (2016). Networks, genres, and complex wholes: Citizen science and how we act together through typified text. Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(2), 287–303.Google Scholar

Kelly, A. R. and Miller, C. R. (2016). Intersections: Scientific and parascientific communication on the Internet. In Gross, A. G. and Buehl, J., eds., Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 221–245.Google Scholar

Kim, L. C. and Lim, J. M. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146.Google Scholar

Kirilenko, A. P. and Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014). Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global Environmental Change, 26, 171–182.Google Scholar

Kjellberg, S. (2009). Scholarly blogging practice as situated genre: An analytical framework based on genre theory. Information Research, 14(3), paper 410. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/14-3/paper410.html [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar

Knievel, M. (2009). What is humanistic about computers and writing? Historical patterns and contemporary possibilities for the field. Computers and Composition, 26(2), 92–106.Google Scholar

Kravchenko, A. V. (2016). Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics. Language Sciences, 54, 102–113.Google Scholar

Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Taylor & Francis, Routledge.Google Scholar

Kuteeva, M. (2007). The use of online forums in language teaching: The importance of task design. In Nunes, M. B., McPherson, M. and Isaĺas, P., eds., IADIS International Conference Proceedings: E-Learning, 6–8 July, Lisbon, Portugal, IADIS, Lisbon (2007), pp. 305–308.Google Scholar

Kuteeva, M. (2016). Research blogs, tweets and wikis. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P., eds., The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge, pp. 433–445.Google Scholar

Kuteeva, M. and Mauranen, A. K. (2018). Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts. Introduction. Discourse, Context and Media, 24, 1–7.Google Scholar

Kuteeva, M. and McGrath, L. (2014). Taming tyrannosaurus rex: English use in the research and publication practices of humanities scholars in Sweden. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 33(3–4), 367–389.Google Scholar

Kwok, R. (2018). Lab notebooks go digital. Nature, 560, 269–270.Google Scholar

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, H. and Lee, K. (2013). Publish (in international indexed journals) or perish: Neoliberal ideology in a Korean university. Language Policy, 12(3), 215–230.Google Scholar

Lejano, R. P., Tavares-Reager, J. and Berkes, F. (2013). Climate and narrative: Environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environmental Science and Policy, 31, 61–70.Google Scholar

Lillis, T. (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.Google Scholar

Lillis, T. and Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lillis, T., Hewings, A., Vladimirou, D. and Curry, M. J. (2010). The geolinguistics of English as an academic lingua franca: Citation practices across English‐medium national and English‐medium international journals. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 111–135.Google Scholar

Linares, E. (2019). Afterword: Socialization to the practice of multilingual research. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(1), 124–129.Google Scholar

Linn, A. (2016). Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ljosland, R. (2007). English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World Englishes, 26(4), 395–410.Google Scholar

Loroño-Leturiondo, M. and Davies, S. R. (2018). Responsibility and science communication: Scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 170–185.Google Scholar

Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. (2011). Interesting post, but I disagree: Social presence and antisocial behaviour in academic weblogs. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 517–540.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J.  (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. (2017). Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication. Written Communication, 34(4), 441–471.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. (2018a). Features of online ELF in research group blogs written by multilingual scholars. Discourse, Context and Media, 24, 24–32.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. (2018b). English as a Lingua Franca in academic blogs: Its co-existence and interaction with other languages. In Tatsioka, Z., Seidlhofer, B., Sifakis, N. and Ferguson, G., eds., Using English as a Lingua Franca in education in Europe. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 125–149.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds. (2019). Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar

Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (forthcoming). Digital Genres in Knowledge Production and Dissemination: Perspectives and Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Mackenzie Owen, J. (2007). The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Maier, C. D. and Engberg, J. (2019). The multimodal bridge between academics and practitioners in the Harvard Business Review’s digital context: A multi-levelled qualitative analysis of knowledge construction. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet: Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar

Major, J. (1969). Historical development of the ecosystem concept. In Van Dyne, G. M., ed., The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management. New York: Academic Press, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar

Marwick, A. and boyd, d. (2011). ‘I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately’: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13, 96–113.Google Scholar

Matsuda, P. K. and Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2013). Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 7–36.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. (2018). Second Language Acquisition, World Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). World Englishes, 37(1), 106–119.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic Englishes: A standardised knowledge? In Kirkpatrick, A., ed., The World Englishes Handbook. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 634–652.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2020). Academic Englishes: A standardised knowledge? In Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.), The World Englishes Handbook. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 659–676.Google Scholar

McGrath, L. (2016). Open-access writing: An investigation into the online drafting and revision of a research article in pure mathematics. English for Specific Purposes, 43, 25–36.Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. (1987). Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man. London: Ark.Google Scholar

Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 127–144.Google Scholar

Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019a). Registered reports: An emerging scientific research article genre. Written Communication, 36(1), 38–67.Google Scholar

Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019b). Science Communication Online. Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Mehlenbacher, A. R. and Mehlenbacher, B. (2019). The case of the scientific research article and lessons concerning genre change online. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15, 584–597.Google Scholar

Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (2013). Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1105–1119.Google Scholar

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.Google Scholar

Miller, C. R. (1994). Rhetorical community. The cultural basis of genre’s understanding how to participate in the actions of a community. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar

Miller, C. R. (2011). Exploring genres in cultural contact zones. Featured Presentation. 22nd Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition: Rhetoric and Writing across Language Boundaries. Penn State University, July 2011.Google Scholar

Miller, C. R. and Kelly, A. R., eds. (2017). Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Miller, C. R. and Shepherd, D. (2004). Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog. In Gurak, L., ed., Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and the Culture of Weblogs. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11299/172818 [last accessed on 5 July 2020].Google Scholar

Misăk, A., Marusìć, M. and Marusìć, A. (2005). Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 122–131.Google Scholar

Mogull, S. A. and Stanfield, C. T. (2015). Current use of visuals in scientific communication. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/IPCC.2015.7235818Google Scholar

Mort, P. and Drury, H. (2012). Supporting student academic literacy in the disciplines using genre-based online pedagogy. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 6(3), A1-A15. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/173Google Scholar

Motta-Roth, D. (2009). Popularização da ciência como prática social e discursiva. In Motta-Roth, D. and Giering, M. E., orgs., Discursos de popularização da ciência. Hipers@beres. Santa Maria, RS: PPGL Editores, pp. 131–195.Google Scholar

Motta-Roth, D. and Scherer, A. S. (2016). Science popularization: Interdiscursivity among science, pedagogy, and journalism. Bakhtiniana, 11(2), 171–194.Google Scholar

Mufwene, S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mufwene, S. (2013). Globalization, Global English and World English(es), myths and facts. In Coupland, N., ed., The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic Ecology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge Publications.Google Scholar

Muresan, L.-M. and Nicolae, M. (2015). Addressing the challenge of publishing internationally in a non-Anglophone academic context: Romania – a case in point. In Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–310.Google Scholar

Muresan, L.-M. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 53–64.Google Scholar

Myers, G. (1990). Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles. In Bazerman, C. and Paradis, J., eds., Textual Dynamics in the Professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 45–75.Google Scholar

Myers, G. (2010). The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179.Google Scholar

Negretti, R. and McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 12–31.Google Scholar

Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. and Watkinson, A. (2005). Scholarly journal usage: The results of deep log analysis. Journal of Documentation, 61(2), 248–280.Google Scholar

Nieman, A. (2000). The Popularisation of Physics: Boundaries of Authority and the Visual Culture of Science. Unpublished thesis. Faculty of Applied Sciences and Faculty of Humanities, University of the West of England, Bristol.Google Scholar

North, B. and Piccardo, E. (2016). Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), a Council of Europe project. Language Teaching, 49(3), 455–459.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U. and Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing. Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.Google Scholar

Okamura, A. (2008). Citation forms in scientific texts: Similarities and differences in L1 and L2 professional writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 61–81.Google Scholar

Olmos-López, P. (2019). Back and forth between languages: An early-career bilingual academic’s writing odyssey. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(1), 32–43.Google Scholar

O’Neil, D. (2018). English as the lingua franca of international publishing. World Englishes, 37(2), 146–165.Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Main Science and Technology Indicators 2008. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 541–574.Google Scholar

Orpin, D. (2019) #Vaccineswork: Recontextualizing the content of epidemiology reports on Twitter. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 173–194.Google Scholar

Ostergren, M. (2013). How Scientists Develop Competence in Visual Communication. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/ostergrn/Dissertation/OstergrenDissertationFINAL.pdf [last accessed on 1 March 2020]Google Scholar

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.Google Scholar

Paltridge, B. (2020). Writing for academic journals in the digital era. RELC Journal, 51(1), 147–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219890359Google Scholar

Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Paltridge, B., Starfield, S. and Ravelli, L. J. (2012). Change and stability: Examining the macrostructures of doctoral theses in the visual and performing arts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 332–344.Google Scholar

Pasquali, M. (2007). Video in science. Protocol videos: The implications for research and society. EMBO reports, 8(8), 712–716.Google Scholar

Patrão, A. (2018). Linguistic relativism in the age of global ‘lingua franca’ reconciling cultural and linguistic diversity with globalization. International Review of General Linguistics, 210 –211, 30–41.Google Scholar

Paulus, T. M. and Roberts, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding a real-life superhero: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context and Media, 21, 64–72.Google Scholar

Pauwels, L. (2006). Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (2010a). The future of Englishes: One, many or none? In Kirkpatrick, A., ed., The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 673–688.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (2010b). Language as a Local Practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pennycook, A. (2018). Repertoires, registers and linguistic diversity. In Creese, A. and Backledge, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity. London: Routledge, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published writing. Culture and language issues. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41–68.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2011). Heteroglossic (dis)engagement and the construal of the ideal readership: Dialogic spaces in academic texts. In Bhatia, V., Sánchez, P. and Pérez-Paredes, P., eds., Researching Specialized Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization. The Impact of Culture and Language. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013a). ‘Glocal’ rhetorical practices in academic writing: An intercultural rhetoric approach to L2 English discoursal hybridisation. European Journal of English Studies, 17(3), 251–268.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2013b). The Article of the Future: Strategies for genre stability and change. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), 221–235. DOI: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158515300059Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84–94.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2015). Genres in the forefront, languages in the background: The scope of genre analysis in language-related scenarios. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 10–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.005Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2016). How is the digital medium shaping research genres? Some cross-disciplinary trends. ESP Today, 4(1), 22–42.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2018). Bringing into focus multilingual realities: Faculty perceptions of academic languages on campus. Lingua, 212, 30–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.05.006Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019). Ecologies of genres and an ecology of languages of science: Current and future debates. In Gruber, D. R. and Walsh, L., eds., Routledge Handbook of Language and Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 361–374.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021a). Grammar features and discourse style in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 54(105), 73–96.Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021b). Genres and languages in science communication: The multiple dimensions of the science-policy interface, Language & Communication. 78, 65–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.02.004Google Scholar

Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. M. (2017). English for Academic Purposes. In Hinkel, E., ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning III. New York: Routledge, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Phillipson, R. (2003). English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1993). Sproglige menneskerettigheder. In Holmen, A., Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., eds., Minoriteter og uddannelse. Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed 18. Copenhagen: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole, Center for multikulturelle studier, pp. 8–19.Google Scholar

Phothongsunan, S. (2016). Thai university academics’ challenges of writing for publication in English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(4), 681–685.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S. and Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Kroll, J. F. and DeGroot, A. M. B., eds., Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 128–153.Google Scholar

Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C. and Sandel, T., eds., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 917–927.Google Scholar

Plastina, A. F. (2017). Professional discourse in video abstracts: Re-articulating the meaning of written research article abstracts. In Garzone, G., Catenaccio, P., Grego, K. and Doerr, R., eds., Specialised and Professional Discourse across Media and Genres. Milano: Ledizioni, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar

Plo Alastrué, R. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (2015). English as a Scientific and Research Language. Debates and Discourses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pluchino, A., Burgio, J., Rapisarda, A., Biondo, A. E., Pulvirenti, A. Ferro, A. and Giorgino, T. (2019). Exploring the role of interdisciplinarity in physics: Success, talent and luck. PLoS ONE, 14, 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218793Google Scholar

Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M. and Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8.Google Scholar

Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34–47.Google Scholar

Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity. A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Prior, P. A. (2009). From speech genres to mediated multimodal genre systems: Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and the question of writing. In Bazerman, C., Bonini, A. and Figueiredo, E., eds., Genre in a Changing World. Fort Collins: Parlor Press, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar

Prior, P. A. (2013). Multimodality and ESP research. In Paltridge, B. and Starfield, S., eds., The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. 1st ed. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 519–534.Google Scholar

Prior, P. and Bilbro, R. (2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. In Castelló, M. and Donahue, C., eds., University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar

Prior, P. and Hengst, J. (2010). Introduction: Exploring semiotic remediation. In Prior, P. and Hengst, J., eds., Exploring Semiotic Remediation as Discourse Practice. New York: Palgrave, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

Puschmann, C. (2014). (Micro)blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In Friesike, S. and Bartling, S., eds., Opening Science. New York: Springer, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar

Putnam, L. L. (2009). Symbolic capital and academic fields: An alternative discourse on journal rankings. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 127–134.Google Scholar

Rakedzon, T., Segev, E., Chapnik, N. Yosef, R. and Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLoS ONE. 12(8), e0181742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742.Google Scholar

Rayson, P. and Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, held in Conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2000). 1–8 October 2000, Hong Kong, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar

Reid, G. (2019). Compressing, expanding, and attending to scientific meaning: Writing the semiotic hybrid of science for professional and citizen scientists. Written Communication, 36(1), 68–98.Google Scholar

Reid, G. and Anson, C. M. (2019). Public- and expert-facing communication: A case study of polycontextuality and context collapse in Internet-mediated citizen science. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 219–238.Google Scholar

Riboni, G. (2020). Vlogging science: Scholarly vlogs between scholarship and popularisation. In Gotti, M., Maci, S. and Sala, M., eds., Scholarly Pathways. Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Exchange in Academia. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar

Ringdal, K. G., Lossius, H. M. and Søreide, K. (2009). Getting your message through: An editorial guide for meeting publication standards. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 17, 1–4. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804571/?tool=pubmed [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar

Römer, U. (2011). Corpus research applications in second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 205–225.Google Scholar

Roque, G. (2017). Rhetoric, argumentation, and persuasion in a multimodal perspective. In Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C., eds., Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar

Rounsaville, A., Goldberg, R. and Bawarshi, A. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 32(1–2), 97–112.Google Scholar

Royal Society (2011). Knowledge Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Communication in the 21st Century. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Rozycki, W. and Johnson, N. H. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32(3), 157–169.Google Scholar

Rubin, D. L. and Kang, O. (2008). Writing to speak: What goes on across the two-way street. In Belcher, D. and Hirvela, A., eds., The Oral-Literate Connection. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 210–225.Google Scholar

Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In Petraglia, J., ed., Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 51–78.Google Scholar

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121–132.Google Scholar

Salö, L. (2015). The linguistic sense of placement. Habitus and the entextualization of translingual practices in Swedish academia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(4), 511–534.Google Scholar

Salö, L. and Hanell, L. (2014). Performance of unprecedented genres. Interdiscursivity in the writing practices of a Swedish researcher. Language & Communication, 37, 12–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.04.001Google Scholar

Salter, A. J. and Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research. A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.Google Scholar

Samraj, B. and Swales, J. M. (2000). Writing in conservation biology: Searching for an interdisciplinary rhetoric? Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 3(3), 36–56.Google Scholar

Sancho-Guinda, C. (2019). Promoemotional science? Emotion and intersemiosis in graphical abstracts. In Mackenzie, J. L. and Alba Juez, L., eds., Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 357–386.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.Google Scholar

Schryer, C. F. (1994). The lab vs. the clinic: Sites of competing genres. In Freedman, A. and Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 105–124.Google Scholar

Schryer, C. F. (2011). Investigating texts in their social contexts: The promise and peril of rhetorical genre studies. In Starke-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Artemeva, N., Horne, M., and Yousoubova, L., eds., Writing in Knowledge Societies. Anderson: Parlor Press, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar

Schulson, M. (2018). Science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’ is being used as political ammunition. Wired, 20 April 2018. Available online: www.wired.com/story/sciences-reproducibility-crisis-is-being-used-as-political-ammunition/ [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar

Science Europe (2017). The rationales of Open Science: Digitalisation and democratisation in research. Science Europe High-Level Workshop, September 14, 2017, Berlin.Google Scholar

Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–231.Google Scholar

Shaw, P. and Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290–305.Google Scholar

Shema, H., Bar-Ilan, J. and Thelwall, M. (2012). Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035869.Google Scholar

Shih, R. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating ‘Facebook’ and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 829–845.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language Policy. Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shohamy, E. (2017). Linguistic landscape: Interpreting and expanding language diversities. In de Fina, A., Ikizoglu, D. and Wegner, J., eds., Diversity and Super-diversity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 37–64.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (2015). How language communities intersect: Is ‘superdiversity’ an incremental or transformative condition? Language & Communication, 44, 7–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.015Google Scholar

Simpson-Vlach, R. and Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058Google Scholar

Sivertsen, G. (2018). Balanced multilingualism in science. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 40. Retrieved from http://bid.ub.edu/en/40/sivertsen.htm [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Human rights and language wrongs – A future for diversity? Language Sciences, 20(1), 5–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(97)00008-9Google Scholar

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (2001). Language ecology. Dominance, minorisation, linguistic genocide and linguistic rights. In Østergaard, M., ed., Images of the World. Globalisation and Cultural Diversity. Copenhagen: Center for kultursamarbejde med udviklingslandene, pp. 32–47, 206–208.Google Scholar

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (2011). Language ecology. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O, Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Smart, G. (2011). Argumentation across web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change. In Sarangi, S. and Candlin, C., eds., Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 363–386.Google Scholar

Smart, G. and Falconer, M. (2019). The representation of science and technology in genres of Vatican discourse: Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ as a case study. In Luzón, M.-J. and Pérez-Llantada, C., eds., Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, H. and Dauber, D. (2015). How internationalised is your university? From structural indicators to an agenda for integration. GlobalPAD Working Papers. Available at GlobalPADOpen House www.warwick.ac.uk/globalpadintercultural [last accessed on 10 April 2020].Google Scholar

Spicer, S. (2014). Exploring video abstracts in science journals: An overview and case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(2), eP1110.Google Scholar

Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Spinuzzi, C. (2004). Describing Assemblages: Genre Sets, Systems, Repertoires, and Ecologies. Austin, TX: Digital Writing and Research Lab.Google Scholar

Spinuzzi, C. and Guile, D. (2019). Fourth-generation Activity Theory: An integrative literature review and implications for professional communication. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), Aachen, Germany, 2019, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar

Spinuzzi, C. and Zachry, M. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 169–181.Google Scholar

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. and Wilsdon, J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 4–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154Google Scholar

Stockemer, D. and Wigginton, M. J. (2019). Publishing in English or another language: An inclusive study of scholar’s language publication preferences in the natural, social and interdisciplinary sciences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 645–652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2987-0Google Scholar

Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327–341.Google Scholar

Street, B. (1984). Academic Writing. Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, A., Mongeon, P. and Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Characteristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e62403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403Google Scholar