Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
-
Hadi Kashiha
Hadi Kashiha is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Sohar University in Oman and a former postdoctoral researcher at Alzahra University in Iran. His research interests focus on Corpus Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, with particular emphasis on Discourse Analysis, Genre studies, English for Academic Purposes, and Pragmatics. He has authored several research articles published in prestigious international journals, including
Journal of English for Academic Purposes ,Journal of Pragmatics ,Australian Journal of Linguistics ,European Journal of Applied Linguistics ,Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies .
Abstract
Critical comments have shown to figure prominently in determining the fate of manuscripts submitted to reputable journals. While various studies have explored different facets of this evaluative genre, there has been limited examination in the context of second language and disciplinary writing. Using a discourse analytic approach, this study analyzed a corpus of 160 reviewers’ reports on submissions by Iranian nonnative writers in applied linguistics (AL) and engineering. The aim was to compare how reviewers employ different categories of critical comments to prompt writers to revise their submissions. The findings revealed that reviewers, regardless of discipline, more frequently commented on language-use issues than content-related issues. Among language-use comments, issues pertaining to lexical and syntactical usage of English were more prominent than concerns about discourse and rhetoric. The analysis also indicated consistent patterns in the reviewers’ reports regarding discourse organization and the balance between positive and negative feedback. These findings are discussed in terms of their practical implications for novice and nonnative researchers in the examined fields, offering insights into the rhetorical and disciplinary norms governing peer reviews and the linguistic choices made by reviewers to guide authors throughout the review process. Increased awareness of these issues can facilitate more effective responses to reviewers’ feedback.
About the author
Hadi Kashiha is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Sohar University in Oman and a former postdoctoral researcher at Alzahra University in Iran. His research interests focus on Corpus Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, with particular emphasis on Discourse Analysis, Genre studies, English for Academic Purposes, and Pragmatics. He has authored several research articles published in prestigious international journals, including Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Journal of Pragmatics, Australian Journal of Linguistics, European Journal of Applied Linguistics, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.
| AL journals | No. of reviews |
|---|---|
| Journal of English for Academic Purposes | 7 |
| English for Specific Purposes | 6 |
| Applied Linguistics | 3 |
| Discourse and Interaction | 6 |
| European Journal of Applied Linguistics | 4 |
| International Review of Applied Linguistics | 5 |
| Discourse Studies | 3 |
| International Journal of Applied Linguistics | 4 |
| Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies | 6 |
| Discourse Processes | 2 |
| Australian Journal of Linguistics | 3 |
| Classroom Discourse | 5 |
| Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics | 1 |
| Journal of Pragmatics | 9 |
| Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory | 2 |
| Lodz Papers in Pragmatics | 4 |
| Argumentation | 3 |
| Functions of Language | 3 |
| Australian Review of Applied Linguistics | 4 |
|
|
|
| Engineering journals | No. of reviews |
|
|
|
| International Journal of Hydrogen Energy | 6 |
| International Journal of Building Performance Simulation | 4 |
| International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology | 7 |
| Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering | 8 |
| Journal of Construct Management | 6 |
| Nature Biomedical Engineering | 5 |
| Polymer Engineering and Science | 3 |
| Environmental Chemical Engineering | 6 |
| Journal of Manufacturing Systems | 6 |
| Progress in Quantum Electronics | 4 |
| Journal of Industrial Information Integration | 6 |
| International Journal of Plasticity | 5 |
| Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering | 4 |
| International Journal of Engineering Science | 5 |
| Current Biochemical Engineering | 5 |
References
Belcher, Diane D. 2007. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001.Search in Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s004740450001037x.Search in Google Scholar
Diener, Ed. 2006. Being a good reviewer. Dialogue 21(23). 12–25.Search in Google Scholar
Falk Delgado, Alberto, Gregory Garretson & Anna Falk Delgado. 2019. The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014–2017: An observational study. Scientometrics 120. 1225–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03160-6.Search in Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John. 2001. Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly 35(1). 121–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862.Search in Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John. 2015. Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching 48(2). 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000523.Search in Google Scholar
Fortanet, Inmaculada. 2008. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1). 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004.Search in Google Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, Inmaculada & Miguel F. Ruiz-Garrido. 2010. Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. In Rosa Lorez-Sanz, Pilar Mur-Duenas & Enrique Latuente-Millan (eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on academic genres, 243–254. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Search in Google Scholar
Gosden, Hugh. 2003. ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(2). 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(02)00037-1.Search in Google Scholar
Gupta, Piyush, Geetinder Kaur, Bhawna Sharma, Dheeraj Shah & Panna Choudhury. 2006. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatrics 43. 479–489.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hewings, Martin. 2004. An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 1(3). 247–274. https://doi.org/10.1558/jal.v1i3.247.Search in Google Scholar
Hewings, Martin. 2006. English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 53. 47–62.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.Search in Google Scholar
Kashiha, Hadi. 2024. Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 68. 101364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101364.Search in Google 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(1). 4–21.Search in Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry. 2015. The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review 28(1). 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil.Search in Google Scholar
McKay, Sandra Lee. 2003. Reflections on being a gatekeeper. In Christine Pears Casanave & Stephanie Vandrick (eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education, 91–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Misak, Aleksandra, Matko Marusic & Ana Marusic. 2005. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing 14. 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Mungra, Philippa & Pauline Webber. 2010. Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes 29(1). 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2017. The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2019. Reviewers’ feedback on second language writers’ submissions to academic journals. In Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2nd edn., 226–243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108635547.014Search in Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2020. Engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 1(1). 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19007.pal.Search in Google Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2016. Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes 42. 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003.Search in Google Scholar
Sionis, Claude. 1995. Communication strategies in the writing of scientific research articles by nonnative users of English. English for Specific Purposes 14(2). 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(95)00005-c.Search in Google Scholar
Spigt, Mark & Ilja C. W. Arts. 2010. How to review a manuscript. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63(12). 1385–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.001.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1987. Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESOL Quarterly 21(1). 41–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586354.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1996. Occluded genres in the academy. In Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing, 45–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.41.06swaSearch in Google Scholar
Thelwall, Mike. 2022. Journal and disciplinary variations in academic open peer review anonymity, outcomes, and length. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 55(2). 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221079345.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dalen, Hendrik P. & Kene Henkens. 2012. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(7). 1282–1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22636.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- English research articles versus MA theses in applied linguistics: comparing the move structure and metadiscourse features in the results and discussion sections
- Formulations in Chinese criminal courtroom interaction
- Disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and media practices: a critical discourse analysis of sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) and the motivational deficiency disorder (MoDeD) spoof
- Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
- Fictional characterization through repair, membership categorization, and attribute ascription
- Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- English research articles versus MA theses in applied linguistics: comparing the move structure and metadiscourse features in the results and discussion sections
- Formulations in Chinese criminal courtroom interaction
- Disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and media practices: a critical discourse analysis of sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) and the motivational deficiency disorder (MoDeD) spoof
- Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
- Fictional characterization through repair, membership categorization, and attribute ascription
- Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements
