15 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Bibliometric Analysis of the L2 Writing Journal Jiun-Iung Lei sure54japhan@yahoo.com.tw Department of Applied Foreign Languages Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C. Article History Abstract Received: 9-12-2021 Reviewed: 03-03-2022 Revised: 17-05-2022 Accepted: 20-05-2022 Keywords: L2 writing; HistCite; bibliometric; Journal of Second Language Writing DOI https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v10i1.3614 While researchers have begun to clarify the status of L2 writing studies, past bibliometric assessments of L2 writing research may still designate it as a field of applied linguistics. They sought the topic of L2 writing in key databases and journals, retrieved relevant publications, and ran a bibliometric analysis. They might increase the number of papers for review, but they undermine the value and influence of specialized publications, notably the flagship journal of L2 writing. The goal of this study was to undertake a bibliometric analysis of 656 publications published in the L2 Writing Journal from 2002 to June 2021, retrieved from WoS and based on HistCite Pro. The HistCite graph marker indicated 30 articles as nodes and 59 combinations of nodes as links. Four out of the five clusters on the citation map originated in 2003, demonstrating that major research issues emerged in the year and took root in subsequent studies. This study concludes with recommendations for further research. Introduction Second language studies have stayed in the shadow for a long time. When applied linguistics started at the end of the nineteenth century, literary texts no longer dominated. Therefore, it emphasized speech more than written texts, regulating L2 writing as its subfield (Matsuda, 2003). L2 writing remained a minor field of applied linguistics until the 1980s when it finally developed into a unique terrain (Hyland, 2019). After that, numerous L2 writing theories emerged, matured, and developed into a comparably BEYOND WORDS Vol. 10, No.1, May 2022 Graduate School, Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya mailto:sure54japhan@yahoo.com.tw https://doi.org/10.33508/bw.v10i1.3614 16 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS perfect system (Liu & Wei, 2020). Never- theless, even though researchers have paid more attention to the field of L2 writing, its current trends and status are still unsettled. Lately, researchers have attempted to capture the local and global shifts and changes in the terrain of second language studies. Locally, Fatimah and Masduqi (2017) conducted a literature review of L2 writing studies in Indonesia, grouping them into studies on writing products, the writing process, and a genre-based approach. In addition, Liu and Wei (2020) chose the L2 writing studies published in eight primary foreign language journals in China and performed a statistical analysis to examine their numbers of publications, research content, research categories, and development trends. Globally, Arik and Arik (2017) did a bibliometric analysis of L2 writing studies fetched from the Web of Science (WoS) to capture the development and trends of L2 writing research. Between 1900 and 2013, a total of 266 L2 writing publications were published in the Web of Science, the bulk of which were in the linguistics research area (92 percent). Articles, book reviews, and bibliographies had an average of 1.64 authors per publication, suggesting a low level of collaboration among scholars. Although researchers have begun to identify the status of L2 writing studies, past bibliometric analyses of L2 writing research may still treat it as a subfield of applied linguistics. They searched for the topic of L2 writing in core databases and journals, collected related publications, and performed a bibliometric analysis. They might increase the number of publications for examination, but they dilute the importance and contribution of individual journals, especially the flagship journal of L2 writing. The L2 Writing Journal (J. Second Lang. Writ.), launched in 1992, is the first specialized journal on L2 writing (Jun, 2008). It is the flagship publication of L2 writing because not only does it present current L2 writing research, but it also works as a change agent, being proactive and directing study (Iso-Ahola, 2009, p. 301). More importantly, it promotes L2 writing studies as a legitimate area of research. Thus, mapping and conducting a bibliometric analysis of it might yield valuable information for future L2 writing research. No single bibliometric study exists that focuses on a flagship journal in the field of L2 writing. In addition, researchers have not utilized the software HistCite Pro to deploy a bibliometric analysis on this topic. Therefore, the specific objective of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of 656 documents published in the L2 Writing Journal from 2002 to June 2021, retrieved from WoS and based on HistCite Pro. 17 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS An Overview of Bibliometric Analyses Due to the numerous publications annually, it is difficult for researchers to present a coherent account of the trend in an academic field. As a result, interest in bibliometric analysis is growing (Meara, 2014). Bibliometrics is a quantitative method that employs mathematical and statistical tools to analyze the interconnections and influences of published studies within a particular field of study (Lee et al., 2020). Researchers often rely on content or citation analysis as a bibliometric method (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015). Its quantitative output mainly includes the number of publications, researchers, and vocabulary items (Liu et al., 2021). Researchers have employed it for several reasons: to detect developing trends in article and journal performance, cooperation patterns, and research elements, and to study the intellectual structure of an area in the current literature (Donthu et al., 2021). The growth of bibliometric studies has rapidly increased since the late 1960s and has grown into a distinctive scientific discipline since the beginning of the 1980s (Glänzel & Schoepflin, 1994). Scholars have widely deployed bibliometric analysis in the natural and life sciences, but few have focused on the humanities (Nederhof et al., 1989). Meara (2014) conducted a co-analysis of 201 papers published in Modern Language Journal from 1916 to 2010, attempting to illustrate the trend of vocabulary acquisition research. The study found that the recent papers in this journal are more inward-looking and self- referential than the previous ones. It suggested future studies select journals more cautiously to avoid bias. By the same token, after conducting a bibliometric analysis of L2 vocabulary studies published in 1983, Meara (2015) concluded that a coherent approach to vocabulary research has not emerged based on the identified research clusters. Arik and Arik (2015) explored the bibliometric aspects of World English (WE) studies from 1975 to 2013 based on the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index of the WoS. Interestingly, it was only until 2005 that the number of studies started to increase, and most of them appeared between 2005 and 2013. The study predicts that the number will grow continuously. More recently, Radev et al. (2016) analyzed academic papers compiled by the Association for Computational Linguistics to uncover the most central authors and their research, the correlation between different ranking measures, and the patterns of the overall impact of various venues in computer linguistics. Arik and Arik (2017) examined the bibliometric indicator of L2 writing research in WoS. They pointed out that the 18 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS number of L2 writing studies will increase in the future and that linguistics and education influence L2 writing more greatly. While Arik and Arik’s study (2017) is the first bibliometric analysis on L2 writing, they may overlook the importance and contribution of the flagship journal, Journal of Second Language Writing. Methods Data Source The data for the study came from the Web of Science (WoS). While WoS is no longer the only citation analysis tool available, its quality is better than Google Scholar's, and it remains one of the primary sources for citing data (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). I searched and retrieved the data from the WoS through the online library of the Central Taiwan University of Science and Techno- logy on Oct. 11, 2021. The public-ation title, Journal of Second Language Writing, was the search phrase. The obtained publication began in 2002 and terminated in 2021.The total number of publications was 656. Bibliometric Software This study employed the bibliometric software, HistCite Pro, to analyze the 656 documents in the L2 Writing Journal. HistCite Pro is a click-and-run version of the original HistCite that generates the citation network, developed by Qing Wang of the Chinese Academy of Science, with similar features to HistCite (He et al., 2020). HistCite, created by Garfield and Istomin, made its debut at the 65th annual conference of the American Society for Information Science and Technology on November 8, 2002 (Barreiro, 2015). It has the capability of precisely locating a discipline's popular topics, historical progress, ongoing development, and future trends from complex and diverse material (Liu & Wang, 2020). Besides, it creates historiography in chronological order, highlights the most frequently mentioned works in the retrieved data, and enlists authors, journals, institutions, and vocabulary rankings (Garfield, 2009). Vocabulary analyses, which show the frequency of singular terms and title word pairs, are newer features (Garfield & Pudovkin, 2004). Results Annual Output of the L2 Writing The yearly publishing data for the journal are shown in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, the publishing year 2019 had the largest number of publication records, followed by 2017 and 2013. The publishing year of 2012 rated top for the overall local citation ratings (TLCS), whereas the years 2003 and 2004 placed second and third individually. The year 2003 rated top in terms 19 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS of the overall global citation ratings (TGCS), followed by 2004 and 2007. Table 1 Yearly Output of the L2 Writing Journal # Publication Year Recs Percent TLCS TGCS 1 2002 20 3.0% 0 540 2 2003 20 3.0% 124 1480 3 2004 23 3.5% 115 1368 4 2005 18 2.7% 68 903 5 2006 18 2.7% 68 986 6 2007 18 2.7% 105 1357 7 2008 20 3.0% 85 1068 8 2009 26 4.0% 66 1049 9 2010 20 3.0% 66 516 10 2011 27 4.1% 77 779 11 2012 40 6.1% 145 1315 12 2013 48 7.3% 97 818 13 2014 41 6.3% 77 703 14 2015 42 6.4% 58 735 15 2016 33 5.0% 37 522 16 2017 53 8.1% 58 421 17 2018 44 6.7% 33 227 18 2019 60 9.1% 19 200 19 2020 45 6.9% 0 106 20 2021 40 6.1% 0 9 Recs=Records; TLCS=Total Local Citation Score; TGCS=Total Global Citation Score Countries Table 2 shows the top ten countries with the most publication records in the Journal of Second Language Writing. HistCite Pro could not recognize the publication sites of 19 papers and labeled them as unknown because the concerned authors may not have registered them (Wu, 2018). As indicated by the table, The United States of America, the People's Republic of China, and the United Kingdom were placed first, second, and third in terms of publishing records. The United States of America is the top nation in terms of publication records, with 376 pieces in the flagship journal. Arik and Arik (2017) noted the same thing: the United States of America was the most prolific nation in terms of publications, accounting 20 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS for 65.41 percent of all L2 writing studies covered by WoS. Table 2 Top Ten Countries with the Most Publication Records # Country Recs TLCS TGCS 1 USA 376 579 5864 2 People’s R China 90 144 2222 3 UK 33 99 1476 4 Canada 31 74 707 5 Japan 30 47 630 6 Australia 27 81 978 7 Unknown 19 107 1265 8 New Zealand 21 67 808 9 Spain 17 20 240 10 Taiwan 11 34 698 As indicated by Hunter (2006), acknowledging sources is critical since ideas are like the money of academics. Consequently, academics want to amass that cash; they desire recognition for their accomplishments. When writers reference ideas, they pay homage to those who conceived them. TLCS stands for the total number of local citations in the collection. Users can see it on the lists of authors and sources (Barreiro, 2015). It serves as a measurement of noteworthy authorship since it indicates how much credit authors receive from their peers in the publication. Table 3 Top Five Countries by Total Local Citation Score # Country Recs TLCS TGCS 1 USA 376 579 5864 2 People’s R China 90 144 2222 3 Unknown 19 107 1265 4 UK 33 99 1476 5 Australia 27 81 978 Table 3 illustrates the top five countries by the total local citation score. Data from this table can be compared with the data in Table 2, which shows that the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, and the United Kingdom ranked the same for the total local citation score. Table 4 displays the top ten nations by total global citation score in the L2 Writing Journal. The Global Citation Score (GCS) is a numerical value that indicates the total 21 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS number of citations as reported by Web of Science. Consider the United States of America as an example. As indicated in the table, WoS authors mentioned the authors from the nation in the L2 Writing Journal 5,864 times between 2002 and 2021. As demonstrated in Table 4, the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, and the United Kingdom led in this category. Interestingly, the top three nations were the same for publication records, and the overall local and global citation ratings. Table 4 Top Ten Countries by Total Global Citation Score # Country TLCS Recs TGCS 1 USA 579 376 5864 2 People’s R China 144 90 2222 3 UK 99 33 1476 4 Unknown 107 19 1265 5 Australia 81 27 978 6 New Zealand 67 21 808 7 Canada 74 31 707 8 Taiwan 34 11 698 9 Japan 47 30 630 10 Sweden 37 9 418 Table 5 Top Fifteen Institutions for Publication Records # Institution Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Purdue Univ 92 35 196 2 Georgia State Univ 23 81 706 3 Univ Hong Kong 19 42 537 4 Arizona State Univ 17 27 206 5 Ohio State Univ 12 11 276 6 Penn State Univ 12 22 219 7 Univ Arizona 12 22 83 8 Univ Auckland 12 24 263 9 Chinese Univ Hong Kong 11 29 387 10 City Univ Hong Kong 11 46 566 11 Michigan State Univ 11 29 245 12 Univ British Columbia 11 24 152 13 Univ Melbourne 11 58 757 14 No Arizona Univ 8 27 262 15 Univ London 8 39 669 22 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Institutions Table 5 covers the top fifteen colleges by publication records in the L2 Writing Journal. Purdue University ranked first with 92 publication records, followed by Georgia State University, the University of Hong Kong, and Arizona State University. From the statistics in Table 5, it can be observed that eight out of the 15 institutions were in the United States. This result is not unexpected given that the United States is the nation with the most publishing records, TLCS, and TGCS. Table 6 indicates the top ten institutions for the total local citation scores. Georgia State University, with a total citation score of 81, was rated top, followed by the University of Melbourne, the California State University at Sacramento, the City University of Hong Kong, and the National Tsing Hua University. As Table 6 reveals, three out of the fifteen institutions were from Asia, including the City University of Hong Kong, the National Tsing Hua University, and the University of Hong Kong. Table 6 Top Ten Institutions by Total Local Citation Score # Institution Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Georgia State Univ 23 81 706 2 Univ Melbourne 11 58 757 3 Calif State Univ Sacramento 4 47 437 4 City Univ Hong Kong 11 46 566 5 Natl Tsing Hua Univ 4 43 517 6 Univ Hong Kong 19 42 537 7 Univ London 8 39 669 8 Univ Lancaster 4 38 255 9 Purdue Univ 92 35 196 10 Auckland Univ Technol 4 34 507 Table 7 presents the top ten universities by total global citation scores. With a total global score of 757, the University of Melbourne was rated the highest, followed by Georgia State University, the University of London, the City University of Hong Kong, and the University of Hong Kong. The University of Melbourne and Georgia State University were the two most important institutions in the L2 Writing Journal in terms of their total local and worldwide citation rating 23 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Table 7 Top Ten Institutions by Total Global Citation Score Keywords Keywords refers to the terms that appear in the journal's article titles and keyword lists. They represent the central idea of an article and are the most essential aspect of citation analysis study (Wu, 2018). Table 8 Top Fifteen Keywords in Publication Records Keywords Recs TLCS TGCS 1 WRITING 448 799 10057 2 LANGUAGE 221 311 3019 3 SECOND 179 204 1914 4 SCHOLARSHIP 78 6 57 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 75 0 11 6 RECENT 75 0 11 7 SELECTED 73 0 11 8 WRITERS 58 119 1358 9 RESEARCH 57 92 1115 10 ENGLISH 55 73 1117 11 ACADEMIC 53 80 983 12 STUDENTS 42 109 1476 13 FEEDBACK 38 163 2283 14 STUDENT 35 133 1673 15 GENRE 32 119 1285 # Institution Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Univ Melbourne 11 58 757 2 Georgia State Univ 23 81 706 3 Univ London 8 39 669 4 City Univ Hong Kong 11 46 566 5 Univ Hong Kong 19 42 537 6 Natl Tsing Hua Univ 4 43 517 7 Auckland Univ Technol 4 34 507 8 Calif State Univ Sacramento 4 47 437 9 Brigham Young Univ 3 11 406 10 Chinese Univ Hong Kong 11 29 387 24 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Table 8 counts the top fifteen keywords in the L2 Writing Journal for publication records. The five most used terms were writing (68.3 percent), language (33.7 percent), second (27.3 percent), scholarship (11.9 percent), and bibliography (11.4 percent). We can see that the journal elicited serious and detailed studies on second language writing. In addition, as demonstrated by the statistics, it stressed more on the components of second language writing than Second Language writers because the keyword "writing" was more frequently used than the term "writer. Table 9 provides the top ten keywords in the journal based on the overall local citation scores. It shows citations earned by studies containing certain keywords from other journal articles. It also indicates how much credit the publication's writers give to the research containing the keywords. Data from this table may be compared with the data in Table 8, which reveals that the top three keywords were the same for both tables. The data demonstrate that the journal was a specialized journal of L2 writing. Furthermore, feedback and written products were two prominent themes in this publication in terms of its overall local citation ratings. Table 9 Top Ten Keywords by Total Local Citation Score # Keywords Recs TLCS TGCS 1 WRITING 448 799 10057 2 LANGUAGE 221 311 3019 3 SECOND 179 204 1914 4 FEEDBACK 38 163 2283 5 WRITTEN 31 135 1353 6 STUDENT 35 133 1673 7 GENRE 32 119 1285 8 WRITERS 58 119 1358 9 STUDENTS 42 109 1476 10 COMPLEXITY 23 97 776 Table 10 lists the top ten keywords based on the overall global citation scores. It exhibits citations gathered from other WoS articles by papers containing certain keywords. In addition, it defines how much credit the WoS article writers give the researches with the keywords. Writing(66.6 percent), language (20.0 percent), and second (12.7 percent) held the first, second, and fourth ranks based on the TGCS, reinforcing the concept that the 25 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS L2 Writing Journal is a specialized L2 Writing journal Feedback is another prominent theme in terms of its TGCS. In addition, data from this table can be compared with the data in Table 9, where nine out of the ten keywords were the same for both tables. EFL was the only keyword Table 9 did not include. Table 10 Top Ten Keywords by Total Global Citation Score # Keywords Recs TLCS TGCS 1 WRITING 448 799 10057 2 LANGUAGE 221 311 3019 3 FEEDBACK 38 163 2283 4 SECOND 179 204 1914 5 STUDENT 35 133 1673 6 STUDENTS 42 109 1476 7 WRITERS 58 119 1358 8 WRITTEN 31 135 1353 9 GENRE 32 119 1285 10 EFL 30 62 1120 Table 11 The Type of Research Document # Document Types Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Article 344 1091 13336 2 Book Review 115 4 26 3 Editorial Material 92 117 738 4 Bibliography 74 0 11 5 Article; Proceedings Paper 13 34 599 6 Review 10 46 392 7 Correction 6 0 0 8 Biographical-Item 2 0 0 Document Types Table 11 lists the categories of papers in the L2 Writing Journal. As indicated by the table, there were eight types of documents in the publication: articles (52.4 percent), book reviews (17.5 percent), editorial materials (14.0 percent), bibliographies (11.3 percent), 26 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS proceedings papers (2.0 percent), book reviews (1.5 percent), corrections (0.9 percent), and bibliographical-items (0.3 percent), also called obituaries. Articles were the most common type of document in the journal, acounting for 52.4 percent of all records. It should be mentioned that the kind of docment proceedings paper was added to the WoS database to produce materials that were first given at a conference or workshop and subsequently converted for publication in a journal (González-Albo & Bordons, 2011). Table 12 Top Fifteen Authors by Publication Records # Authors Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Silva T 77 5 20 2 Wang ZZ 18 0 7 3 Cimasko T 17 6 39 4 Paiz JM 15 0 4 5 Matsuda PK 13 12 170 6 Yang K 13 0 6 7 Hyland K 11 74 1094 8 Lee I 10 38 505 9 Li YY 10 22 328 10 Lucas K 9 0 1 11 McMartin-Miller C 9 0 0 12 Atkinson D 8 18 135 13 Bitchener J 8 62 755 14 Kapper JL 8 0 0 15 Polio C 8 21 192 Authors Table 12 illustrates the top fifteen authors in terms of publication records. Silva was the most prolific researcher in the L2 Writing Journal, followed by Wang, Cimasko, Paiz, Matsuda, and Yang. Matsuda and Yang ranked fifth and produced 13 papers each. Table 13 presents the top ten authors of the journal based on their total local citation score. Hyland was the most influential in the journal’s collection, followed by Bitchener and Storch. Kormos and Lee retained the same rating because they had the same TLCS. 27 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Table 13 Top Ten Authors by Total Local Citation Score # Authors Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Hyland K 11 74 1094 2 Bitchener J 8 62 755 3 Storch N 8 44 608 4 Truscott J 4 43 517 5 Kormos J 4 38 255 6 Lee I 10 38 505 7 Chandler J 3 36 402 8 Kubota R 6 31 172 9 Pecorari D 3 29 317 10 Ferris DR 2 28 313 Table 14 Top Ten Authors by Total Global Citation Score # Authors Recs TLCS TGCS 1 Hyland K 11 74 1094 2 Bitchener J 8 62 755 3 Storch N 8 44 608 4 Truscott J 4 43 517 5 Lee I 10 38 505 6 Chandler J 3 36 402 7 Baker W 2 10 388 8 Li YY 10 22 328 9 Pecorari D 3 29 317 10 Ferris DR 2 28 313 Table 14 illustrates the top 10 writers in the journal based on their total global citation ratings. As mentioned in the table, Hyland had the largest amount of citations to his studies in the Web of Science Core Collection, followed by Bitchener, Storch, and Truscott. They were the most influential writers in the publication since their TLCS and TGCS were higher than everyone else's. Interestingly, despite their publication record numbers were not the greatest, their themes were fascinating enough to draw other researchers’ attention. 28 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS HistCite Citation Mapping Figure 1 displays the co-citation net- works among the 656 papers from 2002 to 2021. The HistCite graph marker revealed 30 articles as nodes and 59 combinations of nodes as links based on TLCS. Note that the larger the node, the greater its influence (Wu, 2018). Furthermore, Shah et al. (2020) stated that an arrowhead between two nodes illustrates the citation connectivity between two articles. The vertical scale in the co- citation networks indicates the year of publication, and each node with a particular number identifies each article. As demonstrated by Figure 1 with 19 nodes, the first half of the time axis from 2003 to 2009 was a productive age during which 63.3 percent of the 30 articles were produced. A detailed inspection of the figure suggests that 2003, 2008, and 2012 were fruitful, as four highly cited papers emerged in each of the three years. Figure 1 Citation Mapping of the Most Influential Authors in the L2 Writing Journal 29 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS The 59 linkages may be further divided into five clusters that each contained more than one link. Article 22, 35, 37, 39, 121 led the clusters. Article 35, created by Chandler (2003), led to the greatest cluster on the map. This article was based on experimental research which explored the impact of several forms of corrective feedback on L2 learners’ writing. As illustrated by Tables 12, 13, and 14, Chandler may not be the most prominent author in the journal, but her 2003 work on error correction and feedback spearheaded a larger cluster of highly cited papers. The outcome is instructive since the study issue of error correction and feedback may be more prevalent than we thought. More importantly, four of the clusters started in 2003, indicating that important research issues surfaced in the year and took root in the following studies. Interestingly, although Hyland was the most influential author based on his TLCS and TGCS, he merely generated three links on the map. Keeping track of sources is essential because academics must be able to trace the ancestry of concepts (Hunter, 2006). The table below depicts the five clusters identified based on the citation map. As seen in Table 15, Cluster 2, which is headed by Article 35, has 50 links, the most of the five clusters. In contrast to the 59 ties detected by the HistCite graph marker, the researcher discovered 61 linkages using the citation map. The bibliometric software may ignore some node combinations as links. Table 15 Links to the Citation Networks # Node Combination Starting Year Cluster 1 1 Article #22-86 2003 2 Article #22-110 2003 3 Article #22-147-335 2003 Cluster 2 4 Article #35-44-76-116-136-179-243 2003 30 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS 5 Article #35-44-76-116-136-179-273 2003 6 Article #35-44-76-116-136-241-246 2003 7 Article #35-44-76-116-241-246 2003 8 Article #35-44-76-116-243 2003 9 Article #35-44-76-243 2003 10 Article #35-44-102-136-179-243 2003 11 Article #35-44-102-136-241-246 2003 12 Article #35-44-102-179-243 2003 13 Article #35-44-116-136-179-243 2003 14 Article #35-44-116-136-179-273 2003 15 Article #35-44-116-136-241-246 2003 16 Article #35-44-116-241-246 2003 17 Article #35-44-116-243 2003 18 Article #35-44-125-179-243 2003 19 Article #35-44-125-179-273 2003 20 Article #35-44-125-243 2003 21 Article #35-44-125-273 2003 22 Article #35-44-136-179-243 2003 23 Article #35-44-136-179-273 2003 24 Article #35-44-136-241-246 2003 25 Article #35-44-136-243 2003 26 Article #35-44-273 2003 27 Article #35-61-116-136-179-241-246 2003 28 Article #35-61-116-136-179-243 2003 29 Article #35-61-116-136-179-273 2003 30 Article #35-61-116-136-241-246 2003 31 Article #35-61-116-136-243 2003 32 Article #35-61-116-241-246 2003 33 Article #35-61-116-243 2003 34 Article #35-61-125-179-243 2003 35 Article #35-61-125-179-273 2003 36 Article #35-61-125-179-241-246 2003 37 Article #35-61-125-243 2003 38 Article #35-61-125-273 2003 39 Article #35-61-241 2003 40 Article #35-61-243 2003 41 Article #35-76-116-136-179-243 2003 31 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS 42 Article #35-76-116-136-179-273 2003 43 Article #35-76-116-136-241-246 2003 44 Article #35-76-116-136-243 2003 45 Article #35-76-116-241-246 2003 46 Article #35-76-116-243 2003 47 Article #35-76--125-179-243 2003 48 Article #35-76-125-179-273 2003 49 Article #35-76-125-243 2003 50 Article #35-76-179-243 2003 51 Article #35-76-179-273 2003 52 Article #35-147-335 2003 53 Article #35-241 2003 Cluster 3 54 Article #37-96-147-335 2003 55 Article #37-147-335 2003 Cluster 4 56 Article #39-196 2003 57 Article #39-230-335 2003 Cluster 5 58 Article #121-180 2008 59 Article #121-196 2008 60 Article #121-241-246 2008 Discussion Employing the tool HistCite Pro, this study conducted a bibliometric analysis of 656 papers published in the L2 Writing Journal from 2002 to June 2021, obtained from WoS. The primary findings of the bibliometric study are as follows. The publishing year 2019 has the largest number of publication records, followed by 2017 and 2013. Year 2012 ranked first for the total local citation ratings. The years 2003 and 2004 placed second and third separately. Year 2003 scored highest in terms of the total global citation ratings, followed by 2004 and 2007. Additionally, the United States, People's Republic of China, and United Kingdom were the top three nations for publication records, and overall local and global citation ratings. The evaluation of the data indicated the rankings of the institutions based on the publication number, TLCS, and TGCS. To begin with, Purdue University placed top with 92 publication records, followed by Georgia State University, the University of 32 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Hong Kong, and Arizona State University. Eight out of the top 15 institutions for publishing records were in the United States. Next, Georgia State University, with a total citation score of 81, was ranked first, followed by the University of Melbourne, the California State University at Sacramento, the City University of Hong Kong, and the National Tsing Hua University. Even more, with a total global score of 757, the University of Melbourne was ranked the highest, followed by Georgia State University, the University of London, the City University of Hong Kong, and the University of Hong Kong. The five most often used terms were writing, language, second, scholarship, and biblio- graphy. We can observe that the journal stimulated significant and extensive investigations into second-language writing. As suggested by the total and local citation scores, the journal was a specialized journal of second language writing. Furthermore, feedback was an important theme in this publication in terms of its TLC and TGCS. There were eight types of documents in the publication: articles (52.4 %), book reviews (17.5 %), editorial materials (14.0 %), bibliographies (11.3 %), proceedings papers (2.0%), book reviews (1.5 %), corrections (0.9 %), and bibliographical-items (0.3 %), also called obituaries. Articles were the most prevalent sort of document in the journal, accounting for 52.4 % of all entries. The study also found that Silva was the most productive researcher in the L2 Writing Journal, followed by Wang, Cimasko, Paiz, Matsuda, and Yang. Hyland was the most influential in the journal’s collection in terms of his TLCS, followed by Bitchener, Storch, and Truscott. Besides, Hyland got the most citations for his research in the Web of Science Core Collection, followed by Bitchener, Storch, and Truscott. The four authors were the most influential in the publication, as their TLCS and TGCS were higher than everyone else's. And yet, evaluating the co-citation mapping graph with the aid of HistCite Pro, I discovered that Chandler may not be the most dominant author in the journal, but her 2003 paper on error correction and feedback influenced the biggest cluster on the map. The subject of error correction and feedback may be more prominent than we imagined. One paper published in 2003 generated the biggest cluster in the citation networks. Four out of the five clusters on the citation map began in 2003, suggesting that key research concerns arose in the year and took root in future studies. Using the bibliometric analysis tool AntConc, Arik and Arik (2017) collected data from papers on L2 writing covered in SSCI and A & HCI of WoS between 1900 and 2013, and 33 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS between 1975 and 2013. Even though their and my studies employed different bibliometric tools and data sources, the results in authors, countries, institutions, document types, and keywords are comparable. The comparison of the two research using various bibliometric approaches may enable us to determine whether the study's conclusions are clear and consistent. To begin with, both studies identified Silva and Cimasko as two of the three most productive researchers. In addition, both investigations classified the United States and China as two of the top three nations based on their publication records. What is more, Arik and Arik's research and this one selected Purdue University and Georgia State University as the top universities based on their publication numbers. Likewise, articles, book reviews, editorial materials, and bibliographies were the most common kinds of documents in both studies. Arik and Arik (2017) compiled a list of the ten most frequent terms as follows: writing, language, second, bibliography, scholarship, recent, selected, research, English, and instruction. Apart from "instruction," nine of these words were in the top ten in my study. In spite of the differences in bibliometric tools and data sources, Arik and Arik's research and mine may have found comparable results. Conclusion Some of the similarities between my study and that of Arik and Arik (2017) may be attributable to the prestigious position of the L2 Writing Journal. According to Iso-Ahola (2009), the political purpose of a flagship journal is to legitimize the investigation of a subject area and boost a field's standing in the greater academic community. Thus, not only does it publish the most recent theoretical and empirical research, but it also functions as a change agent, being proactive and directing research. As a result, the presence of a prominent publishing nation, institution, or author in the journal may have a similar effect in other WoS journals. By the same token, the typical formats of papers in this flagship journal may have formed a benchmark for scholars of L2 writing who publish in other WoS journals. In the same way, the researchers of the other WoS publications who study L2 writing may use the journal's most common words. Hairston (1982) observed that the movement of a process-oriented theory of teaching writing was probably in the early stages of a paradigm shift based on his interpretation of Kuhn's book (1970). Lei (2015) investigated whether the writing process paradigm had 34 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS lost its pedagogical hegemony and whether a paradigm change had ushered in the post- process age. Following the methodology outlined in Hairston's research, this report found that a paradigm shift promising to usher in a "post-process" period was in its infancy. However, both studies were argumentative academic articles devoid of statistical data. Bibliometric techniques could help explain the key trends in a vast body of work in a way that would be difficult to do normally (Meara, 2014). Thus, to determine whether the field of second language writing has experienced systemic changes, researchers might do bibliometric analysis on data gathered over many decades. Only HistCite Pro was used to analyze data for this investigation. Future research may include a second biliometric equipment, such as the VOSviewer, to confirm the accuracy and consistency of data. In addition, it is recommended to do such a bibliometric study in combination with a content analysis to gain more depth in L2 writing research in databases other than WoS (Kölemen, 2021). References Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2017). “Second language writing” publications in web of science: A bibliometric analysis. Publications, 5(1), 4. Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2015). World Englishes from a citation index perspective. J. Engl. Int. Lang, 10, 1–19. Barreiro, E. W. (2015). Using HistCite software to identify significant articles in subject searches of the Web of Science. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1512.07069. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. Fatimah, F., & Masduqi, H. (2017). Research Trends in EFL Writing in Indonesia: Where Art Thou. Journal of Teaching and Education, 1, 89–98. Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 173-179. Garfield, E., & Pudovkin, A. I. (2004). The HistCite system for mapping and bibliometric analysis of the output of searches using the ISI Web of Knowledge. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American 35 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Society for Information Science and Technology, 83. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics... And beyond? Scientometrics, 30(2–3), 375– 384. González-Albo, B., & Bordons, M. (2011). Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 369–381. Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and revolution in teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88. He, H., Dyck, M., & Lv, J. (2020). The heat pulse method for soil physical measurements: A bibliometric analysis. Applied Sciences, 10(18), 6171. Hunter, J. (2006). The importance of citation. Retrieved from http://web grinnell edu/Dean/Tutorial/EUS/IC pdf (1204 2007). Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge university press. Iso-Ahola, S. (2009). The flagship journal and its role in advancing new knowledge and the field of inquiry. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(3), 301–305. Jun, Z. (2008). A comprehensive review of studies on second language writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 12(2). Kölemen, Ü. (2021). A Systematic Review of Studies on Language Learning Strategies from 1977 to 2018. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 3(1), 151–169. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, I.-S., Lee, H., Chen, Y.-H., & Chae, Y. (2020). Bibliometric Analysis of Research Assessing the Use of Acupuncture for Pain Treatment Over the Past 20 Years. Journal of Pain Research, 13, 367–376. Lei, J. I. (2015). “Product, Process, and Post- Process: Whether the Writing Process Paradigm Shift Brings us to the Post- Process Era?" Presented at the 10th Annual Conference on Applied English with the theme, “Innovations in Language Teaching and Business Communication." Liu, H., Luo, Y., Geng, J., & Yao, P. (2021). Research Hotspots and Frontiers of Product R&D Management under the Background of the Digital Intelligence Era--Bibliometrics Based on Citespace and Histcite. Applied Sciences, 11(15), 6759. Liu, L., & Wang, X. Y. G. (2020). Analysis of Research Progress on Ecological Efficiency Based on Histcite and Web of Science. The 3rd International Conference on Economy, Management and Entrepreneurship (ICOEME 2020), 214–221. Liu, F., & Wei, Y. (2020). The Status and Trend of Domestic Research on Second Language Writing Based on Analysis of 8 Core Foreign Language Journals in 36 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS China from CNKI. World Scientific Research Journal, 6(1), 79–84. Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing, 1, 15–34. Meara, P. M. (2015). Vocabulary research in 1983: A bibliometric analysis. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW), 1(1), 187-198. Meara, P. M. (2014). Vocabulary research in the modern language journal: A bibliometric analysis. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3(1), 1–28. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. Nederhof, A. J., Zwaan, R. A., De Bruin, R. E., & Dekker, P. J. (1989). Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 15(5), 423–435. Radev, D. R., Joseph, M. T., Gibson, B., & Muthukrishnan, P. (2016). A Bibliometric and Network Analysis of the field of Computational Linguistics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 683-706. Shah, S. H. H., Lei, S., Noor, S., & Anjum, A. (2020). Research synthesis and new directions of Prosumption: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Information and Management Sciences, 31(1), 79–98. Wu, J. F. (2018). Huáyǔ wén jiàoxué yánjiū wénxiàn jìliàng xué fēnxī: Yǐ 1992 zhì 2016 WOS zīliào kù wèi jīchǔ [Bibliometirc Analysis of Chinese Teaching Research based on WOS database between 1992 and 2016], Journal of Sciences & Humanities, 5(3), 144-169. Authors’ Bio Jiun-Iung Lei Associate Professor Jiun-Iung Lei teaches at Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology. He has taught college-level English for almost twenty-five years. His research interests include reading and writing in a second language, TESOL, and discourse analysis. Please contact him through email at sure54japhan@yahoo.com.tw