The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analyzing Revision
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Experienced writers treat revision as a recursive, non-linear process [81,87], and engage with the text in repeated cycles, with multiple objectives including finding the form or shape of an argument [87], experimenting with vocabulary and style [43], and going back and forth between multiple composing activities during revision [22].”
From ABScribe: Rapid Exploration & Organization of Multiple Writing Variations in Human-AI Co-Writing Tasks using Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · Cited by 703
The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522
Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088313491692 · Cited by 513
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality
Min, H.-T. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · Cited by 482
The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers
Hyland, F. (1998) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90017-0 · Cited by 456
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1 · Cited by 294
The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing
Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007 · Cited by 275
Zhang, Z. (. (2020) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439 · Cited by 256
ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988) · System · doi:10.1016/0346-251x(88)90078-4 · Cited by 233
The Effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x · Cited by 175
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009 · Cited by 124
Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Johnson, A. C., & Mayra, C. R. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.076 · Cited by 98
Song, Y., & Ferretti, R. P. (2013) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9381-8 · Cited by 81
Tran, T. T. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020232 · Cited by 68
Do Teachers' Comments on Students' Papers Help
Dohrer, G. (1991) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.1991.9925485 · Cited by 56
Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Gai, X. (2022) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541 · Cited by 63
Reza, M., Laundry, N. M., Musabirov, I., Dushniku, P., Yu, Z. Y. “., Mittal, K., Grossman, T., Liut, M., Kuzminykh, A., & Williams, J. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641899 · Cited by 52
Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing
Pham, H. T. P. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530 · Cited by 51
Bouwer, R., & Dirkx, K. (2023) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101745 · Cited by 37
Fostering Revision of Argumentative Writing through Structured Peer Assessment
Tsai, Y.-C., & Chuang, M.-T. (2013) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/10.23.pms.116.1.210-221 · Cited by 36
The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W., Van den Bergh, H. H., & Sercu, L. (2014) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5 · Cited by 32
Remodeling writers’ composing processes: Implications for writing assessment
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2021) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100547 · Cited by 31
On the role of engagement in automated feedback effectiveness: Insights from keystroke logging
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Höft, L., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105386 · Cited by 14
Yallop, R. M. A., Taremaa, P., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2021) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.02 · Cited by 10
Learner agency in revising GenAI ‐generated statements of purpose
Jiang, Y., Wu, Q., Yang, Y., Jian, C., & Zhao, J. (2026) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70041 · Cited by 9
Student perceptions of screen recording and screencast assignments in first-year writing
Townsend, J., & Gagich, M. (2026) · Computers and Composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2026.102979 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Faigley, L., & Witte, S.
- Venue
- College Composition & Communication
- Published
- 1981-12-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-414
- ISSN
- 0010-096X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9006
- OpenAlex
- W4237719669
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 94.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- College Composition and Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
- Keywords
- revision, writing process, writing instruction, student writing
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
