Disciplinary faculty's curriculum‐embedded writing‐for‐publication instruction for graduate students: A systematic review

Graduate students across the world are increasingly required or expected to publish in English‐medium academic journals, yet their capacity to do so often depends on the nature of pedagogical support available within their programs. While English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) instruction by language specialists has gained a growing amount of attention, much less is known about how disciplinary faculty embed writing‐for‐publication (WfP) support into graduate curricula. This article presents a systematic review of 39 pedagogical reports, published between 2000 and 2024, which document curriculum‐embedded WfP interventions led by disciplinary faculty across a range of fields and national contexts. The review draws on a qualitative content analytic approach and identifies key instructional features related to formats, genre focus, peer review practices and instructors' ongoing commitment, and also, it reveals diversity in pedagogical configurations, an emphasis on structuring writing and limited attention to linguistic support. By foregrounding how WfP instruction is conceptualised and reported by disciplinary faculty, this review provides new insight into an underexamined aspect of graduate education and invites dialogue about sustainable models of graduate writing support. Context and implications Rationale for this study: Graduate students are increasingly expected to publish during their training, yet research on curriculum‐embedded writing‐for‐publication (WfP) instruction has focused mainly on language‐specialist provision. This review examines how disciplinary faculty conceptualise and enact WfP pedagogy within graduate curricula. Why the new findings matter: The findings matter because they show how WfP pedagogy is framed when articulated from disciplinary faculty perspectives. They reveal recurring emphases on genre structure, process management and assessment aligned with publication, alongside comparatively limited attention to language, thereby illuminating an underexamined dimension of graduate writing instruction. Implications for practitioners and researchers: For practitioners and curriculum designers, the findings suggest the value of collaborative models that combine disciplinary expertise with applied‐linguistic support to address complementary dimensions of WfP instruction. For researchers, the review highlights the need for further empirical work on disciplinary‐led and collaborative WfP pedagogies, including how publication ethics and quality are addressed in instructional practice. For policy‐makers and institutional leaders, the study underscores the importance of recognising WfP instruction as a shared educational responsibility requiring coordinated support across disciplinary and academic literacy units.