Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:17:14.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Reviewers’ Feedback on Second-Language Writers’ Submissions to Academic Journals

from Section 3: - Negotiating Feedback: Interpersonal and Interactional Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2019

By
Brian Paltridge
Edited by
Ken Hyland  and
Fiona Hyland
Ken Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Fiona Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Feedback in Second Language Writing
Contexts and Issues
 , pp. 226 - 244
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2018). A Guide to Supervising Non-Native Writers of Theses and Dissertations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2015). Peer reviewers: Recommendations for language improvement in research writing. In Alastrué, R. P. & Pérez-Llantada, C. (Eds.), English as a Scientific and Research Language (pp. 207–30). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 223–43.Google Scholar
Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer reviews: Who’s responsible? BMJ, 328, 658–9.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. (2004). Writing Genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Esarey, J. (2017). Does peer review identity the best papers? A simulation study of editors, reviewers, and the scientific publication process. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50, 963–9.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 39–52.Google Scholar
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27–37.Google Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2008). Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In Burgess, S. & Martin, P. M. (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 Lorez-Sanz, R., Mur-Duenas, P. & Latuente-Millan, E. (Eds.), Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Academic Genres (pp. 243–54). Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R. & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2010–30.Google Scholar
Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NSSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 123–39.Google Scholar
Groves, T. (2013). Peer reviewer training part I: What do we know about peer review? BMJ training materials. Available at: www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials [Accessed 8 August 2017].Google Scholar
Guerin, C. (2018). Feedback from journal reviewers: Writing a thesis by publication. In Carter, S. & Laurs, D. (Eds.), Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors (pp. 137–9). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Habibie, P. (2018). To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In Habibie, P. & Hyland, K. (Eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication: Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers (pp. 35–52). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hames, I. (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hames, I. (2012). Peer review in a rapidly changing landscape. In Campbell, R., Pentz, E. & Borthwick, I. (Eds.), Academic and Professional Publishing (pp. 15–52). Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology. London: Bloomsbury.Google 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, 247–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M. (2006). English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 47–62.Google Scholar
Huang, J. S. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 33–44.Google Scholar
Huisman, J. & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–51.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27, 159–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2011). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 21, 9–30.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic prejudice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016b). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanić, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M. Folse, D. B. & Davdioff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Art no MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64. 2–17.Google Scholar
Lillis, T. M. & Curry, M. J. (2015). The politics of English, language and uptake. The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 28, 127–50.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–59.Google Scholar
Mulligan, A., Hall, L. & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 132–61.Google Scholar
Mungra, P. & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neaderhiser, S. E. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: Occlusion in pedagogical genres. Composition Forum, 33. Available at: http://compositionforum.com/issue/33/hidden.php [accessed 8 August 2017].Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4( 1), 6–18Google 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), 106–22.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting Published in Academic Journals: Navigating the Publication Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolama, T., Spychalska, M. & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 308.Google Scholar
Rozycki, W. & Johnson, N. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 157–69.Google Scholar
Sense about Science (2009). Peer review survey 2009: Full report. Available at: www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/peer-review-survey-2009-preliminary-findings [Accessed 9 August 2017].Google Scholar
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–82.Google Scholar
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Kiley, M. & Fairbairn, H. (2017). Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 42, 53–64.Google Scholar
Subtirelu, N. (2016). Denying language privilege in academic publishing. Linguistic pulse, Available at: https://linguisticpulse.com/2016/03/28/denying-language-privilege-in-academic-publishing/#more-2148 [28 March 2016]Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20, 7–36.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In Hyland, K. & Guinda, C. Sancho (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 34–48). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor & Francis Group (2018). What to expect during peer review. Available at: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/what-to-expect-during-peer-review/ [accessed 3 May 2018].Google Scholar
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community. Results from an international study. Information Services and Use, 28, 109–12.Google Scholar
Ware, M. & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community: An International Study. London: Publishing Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×