Chapter published in:
Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres
Edited by María-José Luzón and Carmen Pérez-Llantada
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 308] 2019
► pp. 107129
References

References

Airey, John
2011 “Talking about Teaching in English. Swedish University Lecturers’ Experiences of Changing their Teaching Language.” Ibérica. Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 22: 35–54.Google Scholar
Belcher, Diane
2007 “Seeking Acceptance in an English-only Research World.” Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (1): 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeCoursey, Tom
2006 “Perspective: The Pros and Cons of Peer Review.” Peer to Peer. Last accessed June 14, 2019. http://​blogs​.nature​.com​/peer​-to​-peer​/2006​/06​/perspective​_the​_pros​_and​_cons​.html
eLife
2016 “Increasing Transparency in eLife’s review process.” eLife. September 2016.Google Scholar
Ford, Emily
2013 “Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: a Review of the Literature.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44 (4): 311–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Open Peer Review at Four STEM Journals: An Observational Overview.” F1000Research 4:6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada
2008 “Evaluative Language in Peer Review Referee Reports.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (1): 27–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada, and Miguel Ruiz-Garrido
2010 “Interacting with the Research Article Author: Metadiscourse in Referee Reports.” In Constructing Interpersonality. Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres, ed. by Rosa Lorés-Sanz, Pilar Mur-Dueñas, and Enrique Lafuente-Millán, 243–254. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Godlee, Fiona
2002 “Making Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability and Credit.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (21): 2762–2765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gosden, Hugh
2001 “ ‘Thank You for Your Critical Comments and Helpful Suggestions’: Compliance and Conflict in Authors’ Replies to Referees’ Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers.” Ibérica. Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 3: 3–17.Google Scholar
2003 “ ‘Why not Give the Full Story?’: Functions of Referees’ Comments in Peer Reviews of Scientific Research Papers.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 87–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groves, Trish
2010 “Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? Yes.” British Medical Journal 341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horton, Richard
2000 “Genetically Modified Food: Consternation, Confusion and Crack-up.” Medical Journal of Australia 172 (4): 148–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2000Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interaction in Academic Writing. London: Longman/Pearson.Google Scholar
2003 “Genre Based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 17–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Donna
1992 “Compliments and Politeness in Peer Review Texts.” Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 51–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Khan, Karim
2010 “Is Open Peer Review the Fairest System? No.” British Medical Journal 341: 6425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kourilová, Magda
1996 “Interactive Functions of Language in Peer Reviews of Medical Papers Written by Non-Native Users of English.” UNESCO ALSED LSP Newsletter 19 (41): 4–21.Google Scholar
Lee, Carole J., Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin
2013 “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1): 2–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Richard Watts
2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” In Impoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam Locher, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Stuart
2014 “Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth.” Journal of Management Inquiry 24 (3): 264–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mungra, Philippa, and Pauline Webber
2010 “Peer Review Process in Medical Research Publications: Language and Content Comments.” English for Specific Purposes 29: 43–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen
2012Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization. The Impact of Culture and Language. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Peter
2017 “Peer Review: Decisions, Decisions.” eLife. September 2017 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, Tony
2017 “What is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review.” F1000 Research 6: 588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Arvid Deppe, and Birgit Schmidt
2017 “Survey on Open Peer Review: Attitudes and Experience among Editors, Authors and Reviewers.” Plos ONE, December 2017: 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shekman, Randy, Fiona Watt, and Detlef Weigel
2013 “Scientific Publishing. The eLife Approach to Peer Review.” eLife 13 (2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spier, Ray
2002 “The History of the Peer-Review Process.” Trends in Biotechnology 20 (8): 357–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M.
1996 “Occluded Genres in the Academy: The Case of the Submission Letter.” In Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues, ed. by Eija Ventola, and Anna Mauranen, 45–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoffrey, and Yiyun Ye
1991 “Evaluation in the Reporting Verbs used in Academic Papers.” Applied Linguistics 12: 365–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooyen, Susan, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Nick Black, and Richard Smith
1999 “Effect of Open Peer Review on Quality of Reviews and on Reviewers’ Recommendations: A Randomised Trial.” British Medical Journal 318: 23–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wold, Agnes, and Christine Wennerås
1997 “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review.” Nature 387 (6631): 341–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zare, Javad, Vahid Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, Saeed Ketabi, and Zahra Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki
2016 “English for Research Publication Purposes: The Case of Scholarly Peer Review Comments.” Ibérica. Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 32: 153–177.Google Scholar