The increasing pressure on Ph.D. students to publish in high-ranking, English-medium journals has created significant challenges. These challenges include a lack of structured mentoring, unfamiliarity with publishing protocols, inadequate institutional support, and language barriers, particularly for non-native English speakers. Existing support mechanisms, such as short-term courses, writing groups, and mentorship programs, often fall short in addressing the multifaceted needs of doctoral candidates. This study aims to address this gap by developing and implementing a PLE-WfP platform to scaffold Ph.D. students' writing for publication. The research questions are: (1) How can Personal Learning Environments be developed and implemented to scaffold Ph.D. students' Writing for Publication? and (2) What are students' perceptions of the PLE-WfP platform? The study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining platform development, intervention, and feedback analysis through reflective diaries. The study draws upon scaffolding theory and Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), aiming to provide a comprehensive and personalized support system.

The literature review examines three key areas: challenges in English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP), interventions to enhance writing for publication, and the rise of collaborative writing in academic research. ERPP presents complex linguistic and academic socialization challenges, particularly for non-native English speakers. Interventions range from individual skills-based training to group-based support and external resource provision, each with its own limitations. Collaborative writing is increasingly prevalent, offering benefits in productivity and mentorship but also introducing challenges related to group dynamics and equitable workload distribution. The literature also highlights the growing importance of PLEs in personalized learning, but research on their application to scaffolding Ph.D. writing for publication is limited. The study further explores the interplay between scaffolding and the ZPD, emphasizing the need for comprehensive support that addresses cognitive, social, and emotional aspects of academic writing.

This study employed a mixed-methods design, incorporating platform development, intervention, and feedback analysis. Thirteen first-year Ph.D. students from a Thai university participated. The PLE-WfP platform was structured into three phases: individual service, group service, and submission service. The intervention involved a two-month online writing course, followed by collaborative manuscript drafting using the platform's tools. Data was collected through reflective diaries, analyzed using thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke's (2006) method. The five targeted questions in the reflective diaries focused on comparing personalized guidance to traditional lectures, identifying support and problems in lecture-based courses, assessing the advantages and areas for improvement in personalized guidance, evaluating the helpfulness of an academic community, and identifying necessary services, plugins, and resources for an online personalized academic guidance platform. The supervisory team comprised three scholars from diverse academic backgrounds, providing guidance throughout the research and publication process. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and confidentiality, were strictly adhered to.

Analysis of the reflective diaries revealed a strong preference for personalized writing guidance over lecture-based instruction. Key themes identified were the relevance, customization, timeliness, stress reduction, and comprehensiveness of the personalized support provided by the PLE-WfP platform. Participants highlighted the platform's ability to provide tailored support, addressing specific research problems and offering prompt feedback. The platform's supportive environment was also found to reduce stress and anxiety. Participants recognized the limitations of lecture-based instruction, noting a lack of practical application and individual attention. The study also highlighted the significant impact of the platform on enhancing writing skills and confidence, as well as the value of the academic community in providing emotional support, facilitating collaborative writing, and enabling resource sharing. Participants suggested improvements for the PLE-WfP platform, including enhanced technical support, community-building features, and a more comprehensive scaffolding system. Through the PLE-WfP platform, 11 manuscripts were submitted to international peer-reviewed journals, with four accepted and published in Scopus-indexed journals.

The findings support the importance of personalized, timely, and comprehensive support for Ph.D. students engaged in academic writing and publication. The strong preference for personalized guidance over lectures reinforces the need for tailored interventions that address individual needs and challenges. The emphasis on emotional support highlights the often-overlooked psychological aspects of academic writing. The success in manuscript submissions and publications demonstrates the practical effectiveness of the PLE-WfP platform in facilitating scholarly output. The study's findings align with previous research highlighting the benefits of personalized learning environments and collaborative writing. However, the study's limitations, such as its focus on a specific demographic and reliance on reflective diaries, should be considered when interpreting the results.

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the PLE-WfP platform in supporting Ph.D. students' writing for publication. The platform's comprehensive approach, addressing cognitive, emotional, and financial aspects of academic writing, offers a valuable model for future academic support systems. Future research should explore the platform's effectiveness across diverse contexts and incorporate alternative methodologies to gain further insights into its impact.

The study's focus on a specific group of first-year Ph.D. students from a single university may limit the generalizability of the findings. The reliance on reflective diaries as the primary data source may also introduce bias. Further research should investigate the platform's effectiveness in different contexts and employ alternative data collection methods.