A reception study of the articles published in English for Specific Purposes from 1990-1999

English for Specific Purposes

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 137-146

  Swales, John M ^a   Leeder, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Citation uptake; Reception studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856954396     PISSN: 08894906     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Amsterdamska O., Leydesdorff L. Citations: Indications of significance?. Scientometrics 1989, 15:449-471.
2. Bakkalbasi N., Bauer K., Glover J., Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2007, 3(1).
3. Becher T. Disciplinary discourse. Studies in Higher Education 1987, 12:261-274.
4. Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (Suppl), 41-56.
5. Cadman K. English for academic possibilities: The research proposal as a contested site in postgraduate genre pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2002, 1:85-104.
6. Casanave C.P. Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
7. Cheng A. Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes 2006, 25:76-89.
8. Corbyn Z. An easy way to boost a paper's citations. Nature News 2010, 10.1038/news.2010.406.
9. Flowerdew J. Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists' writing for publication. Applied Linguistics 1997, 18:440-465.
10. Flowerdew J. Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly 2000, 34:127-150.
11. Fortanet I. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008, 7:27-37.
12. Gosden H. Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructive perspective. English for Specific Purposes 1995, 13:37-57.
13. Harris R.A. Reception studies in the rhetoric of science. Technical Communication Quarterly 2005, 14:249-255.
14. Economics and language 1993, Routledge, London. W. Henderson, A. Dudley-Evans, R. Backhouse (Eds.).
15. Helal, F. (2009). Genres, styles and discourse communities in global communicative competition: The case of the Franco-American AIDS controversy (1983-1987). Plenary paper presented at the fifth conference on intercultural rhetoric and discourse, Ann Arbor, MI.
16. Hyland K. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 1994, 13:239-256.
17. Hyland K. English for professional academic purposes: Writing for scholarly publication. English for specific purposes in theory and practice 2009, 83-105. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. D. Belcher (Ed.).
18. James K. The writing of theses by speakers of English as a foreign language. Common ground: Shared interests in ESP and communication studies 1984, 99-113. Pergamon Press, Oxford. R. Williams, J. Swales, J. Kirkman (Eds.).
19. Kourilova M. Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native speakers of English. Endrocine Regulations 1998, 32:107-114.
20. Levine-Clark M., Gil E.L. A comparative analysis of social sciences citation tools. Online Information Review 2009, 33:986-996.
21. Mauranen A. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts. English for Specific Purposes 1993, 12:3-22.
22. McCloskey D.N. Knowledge and persuasion in economics 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
23. McCloskey D.N. The rhetoric of economics 1998, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
24. Meho L.I., Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2007, 58:2105-2125.
25. Miller C.R. Kairos in the rhetoric of science. A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy 1992, 309-327. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IS. S.P. Witte, N. Nakadate, R.D. Cherry (Eds.).
26. Paul D., Charney D., Kendall A. Moving beyond the moment: Reception studies in the rhetoric of science. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 2001, 15:372-399.
27. Peters D.P., Ceci S.J. Peer-review practices of psychology journals: The fate of published articles submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982, 5:187-255.
28. Salager-Meyer F. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 1994, 13:149-170.
29. Sanderson T. Corpus, culture, discourse 2008, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, Germany.
30. Schroeder R. Pointing users toward citation searching: Using Google Scholar and Web of Science. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 2007, 7:243-248.
31. Small H. Why authors think their papers are highly cited. Scientometrics 2004, 60:305-316.
32. Swales J.M. Research genres: Explorations and applications 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
33. Swales J.M., Feak C.B. Navigating academia: Writing supporting genres 2011, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
34. Tardy C.M. Building genre knowledge 2009, Parlor Press, Anderson, SC.
35. Tadros A.A. Predictive categories in expository text. Advances in written text analysis 1994, 69-82. Routledge, London. M. Coulthard (Ed.).
36. Yang K., Meho L.I. Citation analysis: A comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2006, 43:1-15.
37. White H.D. Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2001, 52:87-102.
38. White H.D. Citation analysis and discourse analysis revisited. Applied Linguistics 2004, 25:89-116.