The writing is an essential skill to share with the scientific community the findings obtained by the researchers; however, it requires the implementation of a series of strategies whose domain has not yet been acquired by researchers with less experience. This research has a double objective; on the one hand, it tries to know the opinion of the PhD students about their own process of scientific writing and, on the other, it analyzes the scientific texts produced by the novice researchers. For this, two instruments have been created: a brief questionnaire and a system of categories to analyze the 397 errors that have been detected in the scientific texts written by 11 PhD students from different areas chosen for convenience. The results show that approximately 40% of researchers with little experience previously plan the texts they write and, for the most part, use a scheme for this. In addition, more than 90% believe that the most complicated thing is to provide coherence and cohesion to the scientific text. In relation to errors, the most common occur in the introduction (43.6%) and the method (18.4%) of the text and are grammatical (39%) and APA regulations (24.9 %). Finally, some limitations of the study are discussed.


Alfaro, V. (2014). Principales apartados de un artículo científico. En K. Mabrouki & F. Bosch, (Coords.), Redacción científica en biomedicina: Lo que hay que saber (pp. 43-56). Barcelona: Esteve Foundation.

Alkhuzaee, F. S., Al-Mehmadi, A. A., Al-Sehly, A. A., Nahari, M. H., Al-Muwallad, M. A. y Ali, M. (in press). Identifying the facilitators and barriers for scientific writing among pharmacy students in College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University – A qualitative study. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning.

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2013). An Instrument for Assessing Scientists’ Written Skills in Public Communication of Science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56–85

Bas, A.; Klein, I.; Lotito, L. y Vernino, T. (1999). Escribir: apuntes sobre una práctica. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.

Breetvelt, I.; van den Bergh, H. y Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103â€123.

Buendía, L. (1997). La investigación por encuesta. La investigación observacional. En L. Buendía, P. Colás, y F. Hernández (Coords.), Métodos de investigación en psicopedagogía (pp. 120-203). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

Carlino, P., Iglesia, P. y Laxalt, I. (2013). Concepciones y prácticas declaradas de profesores terciarios en torno al leer y escribir en las asignaturas. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. REDU, 11 (1), 105-135.

Cho, K. &, MacArthur, C (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006

Cohen, L. y Manion, L. (1990). Métodos de investigación educativa. Madrid: La Muralla.

Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43-56. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001

Day, R., & Gastel, B. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ercarnot, F., Seronde, M. F., Chopard, R., Schiele, F. y Meneveau, N. (2015). Writing a scientific article: A step-by-step guide for beginners. European Geriatric Medicine, 6, 573-579.

Fernández, M. J., Lucero, M. & Montanero, M. (2016). Rojo sobre negro. ¿Cómo evalúan los maestros las redacciones de sus estudiantes? Revista de educación, 372 (abril-junio), 63-82. Disponible en: [Consultado el 8 de noviembre 2019].

Ferriols, R. & Ferriols, F. (2005). Escribir y publicar un artículo científico original. Madrid, Ediciones Mayo. Disponible en: [Consultado el 8 de noviembre de 2019).

Gairín, J. (1990). Las actitudes en educación. Un estudio sobre la educación matemática. Barcelona: Boixareu Universitaria.

González-Martín, N., Suárez-Coalla, P., Afonso, O. & Cuetos, F. (2017). Estudio de los mecanismos de escritura en niños españoles de Educación Primaria. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40 (1), 1-32. Doi: 10.1080/02103702.2016.1263448

Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2002). Contributions of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669—686.

Hopkins, D. (1989). Investigación en el aula. Guía del profesor. Barcelona: PPU.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum, London.

Jiang, K., Hyland, K. (2015). ‘‘The fact that’’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 17 (5), 529--550. doi: 10.1177/ 1461445615590719

Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275–304.

Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27(3), 85-103.

Rakedzon, T. y Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). To make a long story short: A rubric for assessing graduate students’ academic and popular science writing skills. Assessing Writing, 32, 28-42.

Rodríguez, G., Gil, J. y García, E. (1996). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe.

Seoane, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. J. Hist. Pragm., 14 (1), 70-99.

Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 207–223.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

White, J. (2009). Why General Education? Peters, Hirst and History’. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43 (1), 123-141.






Qualitative Research in Education, Technology and Society