It would be reasonable to assume that comparing NNS to NS academic writing would provide new insights into the areas of discourse that an NNS needs to learn; however, not all NS writers are experts and some NNS writers may indeed provide excellent models for novice NS writers. In fact, what is often identified as non-English in a text is merely a sign of non-skilled writing (Mohan & Lo, 1985). Looking at it this way, a novice NS writer may also be an outsider to a particular discourse community and be mistaken for an NNS as a result of not being aware of its norms. As novice writers from any background tend to have similar difficulties to NNS writers, it is no surprise that editors of international journals interviewed in Flowerdew’s (2001) study prefer the term “language expertise” (Flowerdew, 2001, 128) to the NS-NNS distinction. Swales (2004) also suggests that, in the world of research at least, it is time to “dispense with our inherited notions [...] about the privileged native speaker (of English) and his or her less privileged counterpart” (Swales, 2004, 53). He argues that there is no methodological justification for pre-selecting for the discourse analysis of academic texts only those that were written by NSs of English. As Swales (2004) argues, a successful publication in an English language journal is in itself “sufficient ratification of inclusion in any analysis” (Swales, 2004, 54), the more so, as it was probably proofread and edited by a competent native speaker (Flowerdew, 2001). Overall, not only NNS, but also NS novice writers need to be familiarized with aspects of academic writing skills (e.g., developing content, summarizing, paraphrasing and synthesizing information), but with the additional issue for NNS students to use the appropriate language devices to deliver their intended content efficiently (Csizér & Tankó, 2017).