Ethical approval.

The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Graduate School of International Cultural Studies, Tohoku University, with the approval number: 2023-13. The committee's approval confirms that the study meets the ethical standards required for research involving human participants. The original approval document from the Ethics Committee is uploaded.

Inclusivity in global research.

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the (S1 File).

Participant recruitment.

The recruitment of participants for this study involved distributing questionnaires and conducting semi-structured interviews. The recruitment period commenced on 23th, September, 2023 and concluded on 30th, November, 2023. Participants included university teachers, researchers, doctoral and master's students.

Informed consent.

All participants were fully informed about the nature and purpose of the study. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to their involvement in the study. Participants in the questionnaire survey must check the option agreeing to participate in the survey before they can proceed with the questionnaire. Therefore, all the valid questionnaires received are from participants who have given their consent. All thirteen interviewees provided signed consent to participate.

The consent provided participants with detailed information about the study's objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. They were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences.

Questionnaire respondents.

The target respondents for the questionnaire were Chinese academics in the fields of science and engineering, including university teachers, institute researchers, doctoral students, and master’s students. We employed purposive sampling to recruit participants who met the following three criteria: (1) being a Chinese native of mainland China; (2) being at least a master-level student or higher, or currently employed as a university teacher or institute researcher (undergraduate students were excluded due to their limited experience with thesis or paper writing, which could lead to speculative responses); (3) specializing in science or engineering. The questionnaire link was distributed via accessible online platforms to targeted groups of Chinese academics, with participation being entirely voluntary.

Out of 856 questionnaires received, we identified 732 as valid for analysis, resulting in an 86% response rate. The respondents comprised 87 university teachers or researchers, 119 doctoral students, and 526 master’s students, all specializing in science or engineering discipline (Table 1). These respondents were drawn from a range of provinces across mainland China.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Composition of questionnaire respondents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324760.t001

Interview participants.

To ensure the diversity and representativeness of the sample, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants from various academic roles, ranks and disciplines, selected through purposive sampling [40]. This method allows for targeted selection of individuals with specific knowledge relevant to the research questions. The sample included 1 associate professor in foreign languages and applied linguistics (who taught English academic writing), 2 professors, 2 researchers, 1 post-doctoral researcher, 4 doctoral students, and 2 master's students from different scientific and engineering disciplines. All participants were selected based on their experience with publishing papers in English and their willingness, thereby ensuring that their insights would directly align with the objectives of the research. Efforts were made to include a mix of career stages to capture a comprehensive range of perspectives, which is essential for a robust qualitative analysis [41]. To protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality, pseudonyms were used throughout the study. This approach is consistent with established qualitative research practices aimed at maximizing diversity and representativeness while upholding ethical standards. The demographic features are presented in Table 2.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Demographic features of interviewees.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324760.t002

Of all participants, except one interviewee affiliated with the research institute, the rest are from over 50 Chinese universities across different provinces in mainland China, including Tsinghua University, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Chang’an University, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shandong University, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Fudan University, Zhejiang University, Wuhan University, Shenzhen University and so on.

Using correct grammar.

During the interviews, only one doctoral student, Zhuang, mentioned grammar-related issues; However, he did not perceive them as a significant challenge. He attributed occasional grammatical lapses to a lack of recent formal study but noted that he addressed these issues by consulting grammatical rules as needed.

Non-native English speakers often perceive grammar as a significant barrier to academic publication due to lower confidence in their English proficiency. Politzer-Ahles et al. [61] reported that non-native speakers frequently doubt their grammatical accuracy, which can divert attention from the substantive content of their writing. Similarly, Hyland [63] noted that early English education for non-native speakers often overemphasizes grammatical accuracy at the expense of higher-order writing skills such as coherence, organization, and argumentation. This emphasis may lead to a perception of grammar as a more significant barrier than other aspects of academic writing, such as sentence construction or overall coherence.

Master’s students, in particular, are more likely to perceive grammar as a linguistic challenge, owing to limited academic writing experience, insufficient training, and the residual effects of grammar-focused instruction. Unlike doctoral programs--which often incorporate academic writing development through coursework, research activities, and publication requirements--master's programs typically prioritize coursework over preparation for scholarly publication [64]. This lack of exposure to academic writing conventions can leave many master's students underprepared for the grammatical demands of academic journals. Furthermore, limited experience with academic publishing process may intensify this perception, making grammar appear as a more noticeable challenge. The unfamiliarity with the peer-reviewed publication protocols likely exacerbates the sense that grammatical proficiency is a critical shortcoming.

Using proper words.

Two key vocabulary-related challenges emerged from the interview data. First, selecting appropriate words in academic contexts posed significant difficulties, resulting in unclear expressions and repetitive language. This finding aligns with Sun’s survey [65], in which second-year doctoral students identified English expression and word choice as major obstacles in academic writing. Second, participants reported struggles with handling complex noun strings, a difficulty particularly pronounced in scientific and engineering disciplines. As Mi, a doctoral student, explained:

“Technical terms in science and engineering are often very long, and I struggle with how to handle these multi-word terms, especially when writing paper titles. Combining these terms concisely while retaining their original meaning is particularly challenging.”

Mi’s concerns reflect findings of Ndoricimpa [66], which highlight the complexity of employing discipline-specific terminology in scholarly writing. Such challenges often lead to miscommunication or ambiguity, especially in scientific contexts where precision and clarity are critical.

The interviewees identified several underlying causes for these issues, including limited academic vocabulary, unfamiliarity with nuanced word usage, and negative transfer from their native language. For instance, Rong, a doctoral student, noted:

“As a non-native English speaker, I often think in Chinese and choose words that appear similar but are inappropriate for academic writing. My limited vocabulary and lack of formal training in academic writing also contribute to repetitive language and imprecise word choices, which may confuse readers.”

These findings are consistent with Hyland [63], who demonstrated that poor vocabulary often results in imprecise or contextually inappropriate word choices. The linguistic disparity between Chinese--a logographic language--and English--an alphabetic language, further compounds these challenges. Prior research [67,68] indicates that this structural difference complicates word recognition and selection in academic English for Chinese authors, resulting in ambiguity and miscommunication.

The pressure to publish in high-impact English-language journals further intensifies these challenges. Non-native authors, acutely aware of their lexical limitations, often experience anxiety and self-doubt [69]. This heightened pressure can undermine confidence in vocabulary selection, rendering the writing process more daunting and less effective.

Constructing appropriate sentences.

Sentence construction emerged as a pervasive challenge across all academic groups. The questionnaire results were consistent with interview data, revealing widespread difficulties in balancing short and long sentences and navigating syntactic structures. For example, Zhan, a researcher, explained:

“When writing papers, I always rack my brains to craft complex sentences because I believe long sentences make me appear more knowledgeable. However, I also read in the APA guidelines that scientific papers should avoid overly long sentences and be concise and clear. At the same time, it mentions that having too many short sentences can make the writing choppy. Therefore, I am quite confused about how to balance long and short sentences effectively.” (Interviewee 5: Researcher Zhan)

Similarly, Doctoral Student Zhuang remarked:

“I try my best to express my ideas clearly. However, reviewers have pointed out that my sentences are convoluted and hard to understand. When I revise, I can’t find any grammatical or structural errors, so I feel completely at a loss.” (Interviewee 9: Doctoral Student Zhuang)

These challenges stem from fundamental linguistic differences between Chinese and English. English syntactic structures and grammatical rules often conflict with the native patterns in Chinese, resulting in awkward phrasing and inconsistencies [70]. In addition, non-native English-speaking authors must navigate the additional complexity academic writing conventions, which vary across disciplines and impose distinct expectations for sentence complexity and clarity. Politzer-Ahles et al. [61] noted that language bias in academic reviews can exacerbate these difficulties, as reviewers may apply stricter standards to non-native authors, thereby intensifying the pressure to conform to normative expectations. The high stakes of publishing in competitive, high-impact journals further magnify these challenges. Authors must meet stringent publication standards, which often leads to heightened anxiety and self-doubt, complicating their ability to craft clear and effective sentences [71].

Using proper cohesive devices.

Interviewees mentioned incorrect use or overuse of cohesive devices. Rong, a fourth-year doctoral student, reported paying close attention to cohesion between sentences but acknowledged misunderstanding regarding the appropriate use of cohesive markers. For example, she noted an overuse of connectives such as “but,” “however,” and various adverbs indicating sequence. While such connectives may superficially signal logical relationships, their excessive use can undermine sentence-level logic and disrupt the overall coherence of the text.

Some scholars have observed that Chinese authors often rely heavily on summary transitions, reflecting problematic use of cohesive devices [72–74]. Over-reliance on these markers can produce a disjointed or artificial flow of ideas, ultimately reducing overall coherence and readability.

Flowerdew [42] further indicated that many EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners struggle to employ cohesive devices effectively, frequently resulting in fragmented and disjointed prose that impedes the reader's ability to follow the argument. Therefore, while cohesive devices play a critical role in establishing textual coherence, their incorrect or excessive use may diminish the overall quality and clarity of academic writing.

Organizing content with coherence.

Maintaining coherence in academic writing was identified as both essential and challenging. Interviewees emphasized that while individual sentences were often grammatically correct, their overall flow was frequently disjointed. Yan, an academic writing instructor, explained:

“I have often observed that students first write papers in Chinese and then translate them into English, which inevitably carries over Chinese thinking patterns. English thinking is straightforward, while Chinese thinking tends to be more circuitous. As a result, what is easily understood in Chinese becomes confusing in English, not conforming to the conventions of English academic writing.” (Interviewee 1: Academic English writing instructor Yan)

This negative transfer of Chinese rhetorical conventions into English writing often results in fragmented coherence, highlighting the importance of mastering cohesion. As Halliday and Hasan [75] emphasize, effective cohesion is fundamental to producing coherent texts. The research by Tso [76] also showed that Chinese EFL learners often struggle to produce fluent, cohesive English texts with clear logical flow. This challenge is largely attributed to the profound cultural and rhetorical differences between Chinese and English, even among learners with a solid understanding of English grammar and vocabulary.

Summary.

The challenges outlined above are interrelated, with difficulties in one area often exacerbating those in others. For example, vocabulary choice influences grammatical collocation, which, in turn, affects sentence structure and overall coherence. This creates a cascading effect, where minor issues can permeate and undermine the entire writing process.

Several interrelated factors contribute to these challenges. Limited proficiency in English is a key barrier, as it impedes the ability to select accurate vocabulary, construct coherent sentences, and utilize cohesive devices, thereby hindering effective communication of ideas [3,77]. Additionally, Chinese rhetorical conventions often influence sentence construction, coherence, and grammar in English academic writing, leading to further complications [76,78,79].

The Chinese educational system also plays a significant role in these challenges. The curriculum's focus on high-stakes standardized testing and the restricted language environment within universities often result in limited development of writing skills and strategies for English academic contexts [80]. Furthermore, the absence of formal training in academic writing conventions leaves many Chinese scholars ill-prepared for the demands of international publication [81].

Language transfer and related misconceptions represent additional obstacles. The transfer of first-language (L1) writing conventions into second-language (L2) academic texts, coupled with misconceptions regarding proper language use, can negatively impact sentence structure and coherence [48,82].

Question 3: What strategies do they employ to address these challenges, and how do these strategies vary among different academic groups?

Online platforms and software tools.

The trend of employing online platforms and software tools reflects the widespread adoption of technological solutions, which offer convenient and cost-effective methods for academic work. Among the tools preferred by interviewees, Baidu Translate, Youdao Translate and Google Translate were most noted with the former two providing abundant example sentences and contextual accuracy. Doctoral student Rong and researcher Wu preferred drafting their articles in Chinese before translating them into English. Similarly, Ms. Yan observed that most of her students compose their papers in Chinese, then machine translation followed by revisions. Conversely, some interviewees prefer writing directly in English, using translation tools only when necessary. Translation tools are highly effective for pre-editing, post-editing, and partial translation [83].

Lee [83] highlighted Google Translate’s significant impact on improving English writing skills, particularly in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and expressions. Additionally, these tools are highly effective during the revision process, as supported by various scholars [84–86]. They also mentioned Ai tools such as ChatGPT, ERNIE Bot, and iFlytek, which play a role in translating and refining the language by enhancing the lexical diversity, sentence structures and coherence of academic papers. But Google Translate and chatGPT were not so widely used due to its limited accessibility in mainland China.

Interview respondents also employ online platforms for refining their articles, with Grammarly being a popular choice. Postdoctoral researcher Liu, Professor Meng, and Professor Chen use Grammarly’s free version, which corrects basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, but does not address broader issues of expression and coherence. Prior research has praised Grammarly for reducing grammar errors, enhancing writing quality, and boosting authors’ confidence. However, its limitations include the need for a stable internet connection and occasional inaccuracies in suggestions. Furthermore, Grammarly has minimal impact on the overall structure and content of the article [87–90].

Tools such as grammar checkers, style guides, and writing assistants offer immediate feedback on language use, helping authors identify and correct grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and stylistic inconsistencies. Ramírez-Castañeda [70] emphasizes that such tools can significantly improve the writing quality of non-native speakers, allowing them to produce more polished manuscripts that adhere to academic standards. This support is particularly crucial for authors who may lack confidence in their language skills, as it enables them to focus on content while ensuring grammatical accuracy.

Assistance from native Chinese speakers.

Given that non-native English speakers often struggle with grammatical accuracy, vocabulary selection, and overall writing structure, support from peers who have similar experiences becomes particularly valuable. For instance, Yang [91] found that Chinese EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students frequently face challenges in using non-finite clauses correctly, which can lead to awkward sentence constructions and reduced clarity in academic writing. By consulting with native Chinese speakers proficient in English, authors can gain context-specific insights into appropriate language use and receive guidance on overcoming these linguistic hurdles.

In the interviews, doctoral student Zhuang highlighted the support provided by a peer with advanced English proficiency, who assists fellow lab members with language editing. Similarly, doctoral student Kai relied on his senior lab colleague for paper revisions, both before submission and during the revision process. This strategy leverages individuals with advanced language skills who are capable of understanding both content and linguistic demands, making peer support a widely adopted practice among students. Luo & Hyland [17] also acknowledged the value of such collegial support. Alfehaid [92] also noted that the interplay between cultural identity and language proficiency can significantly influence the writing process for non-native authors. This shared cultural context can make it easier for authors to express their ideas and receive constructive feedback.For doctoral and master’s students, obtaining assistance from peers is often more accessible, and in some cases, even more convenient than seeking help from advisors.

Additionally,some Chinese academics seek assistance from non-colleague text mediators, such as English language instructors. For instance, Professor Chen, whose wife was a former college English teacher, often engaged in face-to-face consultations for paper revisions. By combining his subject-matter expertise with her language proficiency, they established an effective partnership for improving the quality of his manuscripts. This collaboration underscores the benefits of working with proficient English speakers who not only possess strong language skills but also understand the academic context of the manuscript. Luo & Hyland [36] similarly concluded that many Chinese academics seek support from English language colleagues rather than relying on professional editing services, which are often costly, of inconsistent quality, and sometimes raise ethical concerns. One particular advantage they identified is the effective communication facilitated by the shared native language between English teachers and authors.

However, not all scholars are as fortunate as Professor Chen. Many university teachers and researchers either lack access to such English language support or feel reluctant to seek repeated assistance from English teachers [36].

Assistance from advisors.

All student interviewees admit that they will send papers to advisors for revisions before they submit to the journals. Some admit that advisors provide invaluable support, guidance, and feedback, enhancing their writing skills, the quality of their work, and their ability to navigate the scholarly publication process successfully.

“ When we publish articles, our advisor, who also serves as a co-author or corresponding author, must check the structure, logic, and language of the paper.” (Interviewee 11: Doctoral student Fang)

“My advisor oversees the writing, submission, and revision of the paper. He also receives feedback from the reviewers and provides me with suggestions based on their comments. Before I submit the revised manuscript, he reviews it again. From my personal perspective, I rely on my advisor for his guidance.” (Intrtviewee 12: master's student Chang)

The advantages from this strategy are obvious and consistent with previous scholars. For example, advisor' support help students form more coherent and well-structured drafts [93,94]. Advisor-student collaboration helps students develop their writing skills, learn effective revision strategies, and communicate complex ideas clearly, boosting their confidence and competence in in academic writing [95].

However, there are different voices during interviews. Some students admitted that though advisors will read their papers before submission, they tend to provide some feedback on paper content and limited support on language.

“My advisor is very busy and generally does not have time to help with detailed revisions. He mainly checks whether my paper is innovative and whether the overall logic is sound. For problematic expressions, he does not directly correct them but marks them and suggests that I use some tools or editing services to make the necessary corrections. “(Interviewee 7: Doctoral student Mi)

This is confirmed by professor Chen who shared the following points,

“ I supervise many doctoral and master's students, so it is impractical for me to thoroughly revise each of their papers. Instead, I provide suggestions from my professional perspective, such as evaluating the logical flow from experiment to manuscript and ensuring the content arrangement aligns with academic standards. Regarding language issues, I offer general advice, but they primarily rely on translation tools and editing services for detailed corrections.” (Interviewee 2: Professor Chen)

While seeking assistance from advisors is a common strategy among doctoral and master’s students in the field of science and engineering in China, this practice is less prevalent among university teachers and researchers. Several interrelated factors contribute to this phenomenon, including differences in academic maturity, professional expectations, the nature of research collaboration, and the established independence of faculty members.

University teachers and researchers typically possess a higher level of academic maturity and experience than their doctoral and master's student counterparts. This experience often translates into greater confidence in their writing and research abilities, reducing the perceived need for assistance from advisors. As noted by Pinheiro et al. [96], established faculty members are often expected to demonstrate a level of expertise and independence in their research endeavors, which can diminish their inclination to seek guidance.

The nature of research collaboration in academia also plays a role in this dynamic. Research by Kivlighan et al. [97] shows university teachers and researchers often engage in collaborative projects with peers, which can provide them with the necessary support and feedback without the need to seek assistance from advisors. Finally, as faculty progress in their careers, they often develop their own research agendas and writing styles, which may lead them to feel less reliant on the guidance of their advisors. This independence is supported by the findings of Sauermann & Roach [98], who note that faculty members often have established networks and resources that they can draw upon for support, further diminishing the need for advisor assistance.

Assistance from native English speakers.

In the interview with researcher Wu, she noted that her boss relies on a friend proficient in both native English and their field for proofreading, with expenses reimbursed. Professor Meng mentioned collaborations with experts from Europe or America, which ensure high language quality and alleviate concerns. Such opportunities, however, are rare and valuable. Lillis and Curry [4] reported that European authors preferred highly experienced native English-speaking specialists over local language teachers. Yet, “such individuals are typically not available to most scholars working in Chinese universities” [17]. For most students, encountering native English speakers with professional knowledge is rare. Even if such opportunities arise, students are unlikely to seek their help for editing without a connection through their supervisors. Consequently, there is no deliberate intention to seek native English speakers as proofreaders, leading to fewer individuals opting for this method.

Assistance from editing companies.

Most interviewees, except two master's students, admitted to using these services but infrequently. The use of professional editing services among students is not so widespread due to high costs. Editing services are often categorized into general, advanced, and premium levels, with higher levels being more expensive. Companies like PaperTrue, Scribbr, Enago, and Editage offer such services, with basic costs around $30 per 1,000 words. This makes it a less preferred option for students who must pay out-of-pocket. Professor Chen noted that the decision to use proofreading services depends on the target journal's prestige, suggesting it is worthwhile for high-quality journals.

Proofreading can be expensive, sometimes up to $3000, especially when figures and charts are included. Liu’s former advisor used to reimburse students for these costs, which was beneficial. According to Lim et al. [99] and interviewees in our study, authors are generally satisfied with professional editing services, though effectiveness can vary. Researcher Zhan expressed dissatisfaction, noting that edits often focus on grammar and spelling rather than coherence and logical consistency.

Other strategies proposed by participants.

Participants in both the open-ended questionnaire responses and interviews highlighted another effective method for improving language in writing: closely exam vocabulary, sentence structures, and expressions while reading foreign literature. During proofreading, using well-written articles as models can help identify strengths and learn from them. This approach is also recommended by previous studies, including Luo & Hyland [17] and Lin & Morison [32]. Similarly, in Cai’s study [100] on an “International Journal Paper Writing and Publication” course, students were asked to identify sentence templates in each section of published papers and build their own corpora, which proved useful for their writing.

Beyond these strategies, participants provided broader suggestions for improving English academic writing. One crucial aspect is curriculum design. Among 732 questionnaire participants, 413 had taken academic English writing courses, either as required or elective courses, or as part of a Specialized English Course; 73.61% agreed that these courses benefited their writing skills. However, interviewed students felt these courses were less helpful than expected. Most students took these courses to fulfill requirements and earn credits rather than to build skills. Additionally, these courses are typically offered during the first year of graduate studies when writing needs are not immediate, leading to a lack of motivation. By the time writing becomes crucial in later years, much of the knowledge has faded. The effectiveness of these courses is also influenced by course content, teaching methods, and student engagement. Thus, more detailed and systematic research is needed.

Participants provided valuable suggestions for curriculum implementation. For example, Professor Chen recommended specialized workshops targeting paper publication. Although the impact may not be immediate, systematic training can improve writing techniques, which is highly beneficial. Other teachers and researchers, like Liu and Wu, expressed willingness to participate in such workshops if available.

Students also suggested that universities provide online academic writing courses, allowing access to materials as needed. Additionally, sharing and discussing writing experiences in weekly seminars with advisors and fellow students can aid in writing papers for publication.

Implications for practice and policy.

1. Enhanced academic writing training:

Universities should establish comprehensive academic writing courses tailored to address the specific needs of non-native English speakers.

Workshops on leveraging advanced tools like AI-based grammar checkers and translation software can empower authors to refine their work independently.

2. Institutional support systems:

Universities and research institutions should subsidize professional editing services or provide access to native English-speaking editors for early-career researchers and students.

Peer mentoring programs where experienced academics guide younger scholars through the publication process could significantly improve writing quality and confidence.

3. Cross-disciplinary collaboration:

Promoting collaborations with international researchers can enhance language proficiency through exposure to best practices in academic writing and foster greater global visibility for Chinese scholars.

4. Integration of technological tools:

Encouraging the use of AI-powered writing tools like Grammarly, ChatGPT, and other advanced platforms could assist non-native authors in overcoming basic linguistic barriers.

5. Policy Recommendations:

National funding bodies should consider supporting editing and language refinement initiatives, particularly for young researchers aiming to publish in high-impact international journals.

Contribution of the study.

This study specifically investigates the linguistic challenges faced by Chinese academics in science and engineering, which provides a comparative analysis across academic ranks (university teachers and researchers, doctoral students, and master's students), offering nuanced insights into varying perceptions and coping strategies.By integrating quantitative data from 732 questionnaire responses with qualitative insights from 13 interviewees, the study ensures a robust and triangulated understanding of the issues. The mixed-methods approach highlights both the common and unique challenges faced by different academic groups, adding depth to the analysis.

The study provides actionable suggestions for individuals, institutions, and policymakers, making its findings directly applicable to improving the academic writing process and publication success rates. It also emphasizes the role of online platforms, translation tools, and professional editing services, offering insights into how technology can complement traditional writing practices.

Limitations.

Despite the strengths of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study has some limitations. First, while it systematically identified the challenges faced by academics and incorporated insights from writing instructors and journal reviewers, it did not directly compare these reported challenges with actual manuscripts written by the participants. Therefore, Future research could conduct comparative analyses between author's perceptions and their written work to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Second, though challenges and strategies were identified and summarized, more detailed and separate research on coping strategies can be conducted. For example, the study did not separately examine coping strategies for mastering lengthy scientific and engineering terminology. Future studies could explore discipline-specific lexical challenges in greater depth, which would offer more targeted recommendations for academic writing support.

Third, the focus on Chinese academics in science and engineering may limit the generalizability of the findings to other disciplines or cultural contexts. Expanding future research to include a broader range of fields and academic backgrounds would enhance the applicability of the results.

Finally, this study provides a cross-sectional view without tracking participants’ development over time. Longitudinal studies would be valuable to capture the evolution of writing skills and the long-term effectiveness of coping strategies.