Article published in:
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp. 4–27
Articles

Engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals

| University of Sydney
This paper examines the use of engagement strategies in reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals. The data examined are reviewers’ reports on submissions to the journal English for Specific Purposes. The study found that the reviewers used directives as their main engagement strategy. These directives, however, were often indirect or hedged, making it difficult for writers who are new to the peer review process to know how to respond to them. A further engagement strategy that reviewers employed was the use of reader pronouns through which they established an interpersonal relationship with authors at the same time as they delivered ‘bad news’ to them. These matters are important to highlight in the teaching of writing for research publication purposes so that beginning authors can better understand reviewers’ reports, learn how to respond to them and, as a result, increase their chances of getting published.
Keywords: reviewers’ reports, peer review, engagement, research articles, English for research publication purposes, academic writing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Self-representation in academic writing
  • 3.Engagement and reviewers’ reports
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1The accept reviews
    • 4.2The minor revisions reviews
    • 4.3The major revisions reviews
    • 4.4The reject reviews
    • 4.5Reviewer roles
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 20 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19007.pal
References

References

Belcher, D. D.
(2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A.
(1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 131, 145–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J.
(2005) Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A.
(2015) Peer reviewers’ recommendations for language improvement in research writing. In R. P. Alastrué & C. Pérez-Llantada (Eds.), English as a scientific and research language: Debates and discourses (Vol. 21), (pp. 207–230). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B. & Squazzoni, F.
(2019) The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 101, 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K.
(2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Englander, K. & López-Bonilla, G.
(2011) Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 395–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farley, P. C.
(2016) Genre analysis of decision letters from editors of scientific journals. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 896–905.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans, T.
(2002) Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet, I.
(2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, I.
(2008) Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In S. Burgess & P. M. Martin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 19–38). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, I., & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F.
(2010) Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. In R. Lorez-Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas & E. Latuente-Millan (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on academic genres (pp. 243–254). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Fries, P.
(1994) On Theme, Rheme and discourse goals. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 229-249). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gosden, H.
(2003) ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 2(2), 87–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2014) An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Arnold. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hames, I.
(2007) Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M.
(2012) Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M.
(2004) An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 247–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 531, 47–62.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.
(2014) Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. M. F. & Tracy, K.
(2015) Indexicality. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–6). Malden, MA: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, K.
(1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report, No 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2005b) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005c) Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2011) Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, 211, 9–30.Google Scholar
(2015) Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Foreword: Bringing in the reader. In C. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure (pp. xi–xiv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K.
(2016a) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 241, 29–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Academic discourse and global publishing. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iida, A.
(2016) Scholarly publication: A multilingual perspective. In C. Macmaster & C. Murphy (Eds.), Graduate study in the USA: Succeeding and surviving (pp. 41–50). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ivanič, R.
(1998) Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, K. & Ma, X.
(2018) ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 351, 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Positioning and proximity of reader engagement: Authorial identity in professional and apprentice academic genres. In C. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kourilova, M.
(1998) Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, 32(2), 107–114.Google Scholar
Lee, J. & Deakin, L.
(2016) Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 331, 21–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, L. & Kuteeva, M.
(2012) Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.
(1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2015) Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge
(2017) The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019a) Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers. Language Teaching, 52(3), 331–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B.
(2019b) Reviewers’ feedback on second language writers’ submissions to academic journals. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd edition) (pp. 226–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S.
(2016) Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, T.
(2018) Editorial -Transitioning publications to open peer review. Publications, 6(2), 28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, B.
(2016) Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorisation. English for Specific Purposes, 421, 76–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sancho Guinda, C.
(Ed.) (2019) Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, M.
(2009) Speech act theory. In J. Verschueren & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 229–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneiderhan, E.
(2013) Peer reviewers: Why you gotta be so mean? The Chronicle of Higher Education 22 July 2013 Available from http://​chronicle​.com​/article​/Why​-You​-Gotta​-Be​-So​-Mean-​/140469/> (2 June 2019).
Scollon, R., Wong-Scollon, S. & Jones, R. H.
(2011) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Kiley, M., & Fairbairn, H.
(2015) Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses: An APPRAISAL analysis. Linguistics and Education, 311, 130–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 421, 53–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. M.
(2019) We are all reviewer #2: A window into the secret world of peer review. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals