CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF

Crosthwaite, Peter, Ningrum, Sulistya, Lee, Icy·2022·Journal of Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 78

Metadata

Authors
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya (ID)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Crosthwaite, Peter
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
58
Pages
100934
ISSN
1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
OpenAlex
W4308032007
Cited by
78
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 17
FWCI
63.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
written corrective feedback, second language writing, research trends, teacher feedback, peer feedback, automated writing evaluation, grammatical accuracy, student engagement, editing, second language acquisition, research geography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review