Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Articles

Engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals

 | University of Sydney
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19007.pal
Abstract
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.
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
References (59)
References
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 131, 145–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englander, K. & López-Bonilla, G. (2011). Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 395–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farley, P. C. (2016). Genre analysis of decision letters from editors of scientific journals. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 896–905.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Arnold. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–134. Google Scholar logo with link to 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(3), 247–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 531, 47–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, 211, 9–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2016a). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 241, 29–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Academic discourse and global publishing. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers. Language Teaching, 52(3), 331–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2018). Editorial -Transitioning publications to open peer review. Publications, 6(2), 28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samraj, B. (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorisation. English for Specific Purposes, 421, 76–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sbisà, M. (2009). Speech act theory. In J. Verschueren & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp. 229–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneiderhan, E. (2013). Peer reviewers: Why you gotta be so mean? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 July 2013. Available from <[URL]> (2 June, 2019).
Scollon, R., Wong-Scollon, S. & Jones, R. H. (2011). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 421, 53–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Liu, Luda & Feng (Kevin) Jiang
2025. Negotiating the path to publication: Functional units and lexical bundles in author responses to peer review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 76 ► pp. 101537 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Luda & Yue Yuan
2025. Negotiating revision: Engagement markers in author responses to peer review. Linguistics and Education 88 ► pp. 101447 ff. DOI logo
Kashiha, Hadi
2023. Beyond words in evaluation: Formulaic language in critical reviews of research articles across disciplines. Russian Journal of Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Kashiha, Hadi
2024. Stance-taking in peer reviewer and thesis examiner feedback on Iranian scholarly contributions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 68 ► pp. 101364 ff. DOI logo
Kashiha, Hadi
2025. Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering. Text & Talk 45:2 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Andy Jiahao
2023. Book review. Journal of Second Language Writing 60 ► pp. 101005 ff. DOI logo
Habibie, Pejman & Anna Kristina Hultgren
2022. Different Faces of Gatekeeping and Gatekeepers. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Hynninen, Niina
2022. Opening up the peer review process. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes 3:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue