Aim/Purpose: This systematic review synthesizes the literature on doctoral writing and feedback published in peer-reviewed English-language journals between 1997 and 2017 to provide insight into how these topics have been theorized and approached. The goal was to examine how this literature characterizes the development of academic identity in doctoral students to better understand the conceptual relationships underpinning previous studies, and advance work on writing, feedback, and identity to support budding researchers. Background: Research on doctoral writing and identity development has been a focus of research in higher education over the past two decades, as identity development has been recognized as a key outcome of doctoral study; the PhD program is meant to transform students into independent researchers. As a site of identity development, writing—and feedback on writing—are central to doctoral growth. Methodology: The systematic search resulted in 887 citations, of which 579 abstracts were read reducing the number of relevant citations to 95. These 95 full text papers were reviewed, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. Frequently cited papers were identified and 3 were added to the final corpus for a total of 40 articles. (Limitations include the constraint to English-language articles and the exclusion of books, book chapters, and conference papers.) All 40 articles were open coded for definitions of academic identity, theoretical frameworks, research context, and key themes. Contribution: This paper contributes a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical perspectives on identity development underlying recent work on doctoral writing and feedback. It demonstrates that this literature takes a largely sociocultural approach to identity: conceived as shaped largely by social structures and interactions. This review also confirms a complex relationship between writing, feedback, and identity in which doctoral students draw upon feedback on their writing to learn about what it means to be a researcher in practice, and how to communicate like a researcher in their relevant discourse communities, thereby advancing their research thinking and encouraging critical reflection on writing and research practices. Findings: The review revealed that the literature draws primarily on sociocultural perspectives, that is, examining writing and feedback through the lens of the practices of the groups in which the individual engages - with academic identity development, though rarely defined, represented as an iterative process of writing and feedback. We noted two gaps resulting from this perspective, which are highlighted by the very few studies taking different perspectives. The first is the lack of attention to individual variation in agency as regards seeking out and using feedback. The second is the potential influence of feedback on critical thinking, which is seen as central to PhD progress. Future Research: Future research may adopt varying theoretical approaches to identity development to shed light on the role of individual agency in identity construction. Future studies that focus on the process of how students respond to and are influenced (or not) by feedback would be useful in illuminating the connections between feedback, writing, and the development of research thinking—all of which contribute to identity development.

This article systematically reviews recent empirical research on the factors shaping academics' knowledge about, and motivations to publish work in, so-called 'predatory' journals. Growing scholarly evidence suggests that the concept of 'predatory' publishing'used to describe deceptive journals exploiting vulnerable researchersis inadequate for understanding the complex range of institutional and contextual factors that shape the publication decisions of individual academics. This review identifies relevant empirical studies on academics who have published in 'predatory' journals, and carries out a detailed comparison of 16 papers that meet the inclusion criteria. While most start from Beall's framing of 'predatory' publishing, their empirical findings move the debate beyond normative assumptions about academic vulnerability. They offer particular insights into the academic pressures on scholars at the periphery of a global research economy. This systematic review shows the value of a holistic approach to studying individual publishing decisions within specific institutional, economic and political contexts. Rather than assume that scholars publishing in 'questionable' journals are naïve, gullible or lacking in understanding, fine-grained empirical research provides a more nuanced conceptualization of the pressures and incentives shaping their decisions. The review suggests areas for further research, especially in emerging research systems in the global South.

Over the past two decades, identity has emerged as a concept framing studies of early career researcher experience. Yet, identity is an amorphous concept, understood and used in a range of ways. This systematic review aimed to unpack the underpinnings of the notion of researcher identity. The final sample consisted of 38 empirical articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 20 years. Analyses focused on (a) identifying the dimensions used to define researcher identity, and (b) characterising the meta-theories—the underlying assumptions of the research—in relation to these dimensions. We identified four different stances towards researcher identity (clusters), based on variation on the identity dimensions in relation to the meta-theories. We characterised these as (1) transitioning among identities, (2) balancing identity continuity and change, (3) personal identity development through time and (4) personal and stable identity. These stances incorporate thought-provoking nuances and complex conceptualisations of the notion of researcher identity, for instance, that meta-theory was insufficient to characterise researcher identity stance. The contribution of the study is first to be able to differentiate four characterizations of researcher identity—important given that many studies had not clearly expressed a stance. The second is the potential of the four dimensions to help characterise identity, in past as well as future research—thus a useful tool for those working in this area. Many questions remain, but perhaps the biggest is to what extent and under what conditions is identity a productive notion for understanding early career researcher experience?

The central task for doctoral students, through the process of writing, feedback and revision, is to create a thesis that establishes their scholarly identity by situating themselves and their contribution within a field. This longitudinal study of two first-year doctoral students investigated the relationship between response to supervisor feedback on the thesis proposal and the development of scholarly identity (self-confidence, independence in research thinking, positioning the self in relation to others), through the lens of individual agency (self-assessing work, seeking and critically engaging with others’ feedback in order to clarify research thinking). Data consisted of semi-structured interviews conducted over 3 months, different drafts of the research proposal, and written supervisor comments on the drafts. Narrative analysis and open coding were used to produce in-depth portraits of the individual experiences and perceptions of each participant. There were differences between the two individuals in their growing scholarly identities as regards their agency. The degree of agency exhibited in engaging critically with feedback in relation to self-assessment, and clarifying research thinking appeared linked to the development of the student’s scholarly identity: her sense of confidence, scholarly independence in thinking, and positioning in relation to others. Such confidence and ownership in turn inspired greater agency. Interestingly, differences in the extent to which participants were agentive in relation to feedback appeared influenced by previous experiences with feedback. These results contribute a richer understanding of the relationship between use of supervisor feedback and growing scholarly independence.

No abstract