The Discourse of Peer Review

The Discourse of Peer Review

Brian Paltridge

The Discourse of Peer Review Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals

Brian Paltridge Sydney School of Education & Social Work University of Sydney Sydney, Australia

ISBN 978-1-137-48735-3    ISBN 978-1-137-48736-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932103 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Westend61 GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom

Acknowledgements

This book would not have been possible without the English for Specific Purposes reviewers agreeing to allow their reports to be part of this study. I am especially thankful for this. I am also grateful to the reviewers that completed the survey and agreed to follow-up interviews. Without all this, there would have been no book. Thank you also to Betty Samraj for her help in collecting the data for the book. As I was an editor of English for Specific Purposes at the time the data were collected, Betty approached people in the first instance and then worked with me to put together the set of reviews that form the basis of the study. I am also grateful for the very supportive reviews I received on the proposal for this book and the very kind and constructive comments they contained. My thanks also to Sally Humphrey for reading draft sections of the book and for the invaluable feedback she provided me with. Permission is gratefully acknowledged to reprint or adapt the following material in the book: English for Specific Purposes for Fig.  1.1 reproduced from Hyon, S. (2008). Convention and inventiveness in an occluded academic genre: A case study of retention-promotion-tenure reports. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 175–192. Copyright © Elsevier; TESOL Quarterly for Tables 7.1 and 7.3 reproduced from Mahboob, A., Paltridge. B. Phakiti, A., Wagner, E., Starfield, S., Burns, A., Jones, R. & v

vi  Acknowledgements

De Costa, P. (2016). TESOL Quarterly research guidelines. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 130–153, Copyright © Wiley; Cambridge University Press for Fig. 1.2 reproduced © courtesy of Cambridge University Press from Swales J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Studies in Higher Education for extracts from B.  Paltridge (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1, 106–122, copyright © Society for Research into Higher Education, reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, www.tandfonline.com on behalf of Society for Research into Higher Education; International Journal for Researcher Development for extracts from B.  Paltridge (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4, 1. 6–18, Copyright © Emerald. My thanks also to Nicole Mockler for allowing me to reproduce the handout from her workshop on conducting good peer reviews held at the University of Sydney on 10 May 2016.

Contents

1 Peer Review in Academic Settings  1 Peer Review in Academic Settings   1 Reviews of Research Grant Applications   2 Reviews of Promotion and Tenure Track Applications   8 Peer Review of Academic Books  12 Book Reviews  12 Book Blurbs  13 Peer Review of Book Proposals  15 Reviews for Book Proposals  16 Reviews for a Second Edition of a Book  18 Proposals for Edited Collections  20 Peer Review of Journal Articles  21 The History of Editorial Peer Review  22 The Process of Editorial Peer Review  23 Overview of the Study  25 The Reviewers’ Reports  27 Overview of the Book  28 2 The Genre of Reviewers’ Reports  31 The Context of Reviewers’ Reports   35 The Discourse Structure of Reviewers’ Reports   38 vii

viii  Contents

The Accept Reviews  41 The Minor Revisions Reviews  42 The Major Revisions Reviews  45 The Reject Reviews  47 The Content of Reviewers’ Reports  49 The Accept Reviews  52 The Minor Revisions Reviews  54 The Major Revisions Reviews  56 The Reject Reviews  61 Positive and Negative Comments in All the Reviews  63 Conclusions 64 3 Pragmatics and Reviewers’ Reports  67 Pragmatics and Discourse  68 Speech Acts and the Interpretation of Texts   69 The Language of Reviewers’ Reports   72 Speech Acts and the Reviewers’ Reports   74 Experience of the Reviewers  81 Language Background of the Reviewers  83 Discussion 84 Conclusions 87 4 Politeness and Reviewers’ Reports  91 Politeness and Face  92 Politeness and Gender  95 Face-Threatening Acts  96 Politeness and Reviewers’ Reports   98 The Accept Reviews  100 The Minor Revisions Reviews  102 The Major Revisions Reviews  105 The Reject Reviews  107 Conclusions 111

 Contents    

ix

5 Evaluation and Reviewers’ Reports  115 Corpus Studies of Academic Discourse   120 Stance and Academic Writing  122 Evaluative Language in the Reports  124 The Accept Reviews  124 The Minor Revisions Reviews  126 The Major Revisions Reviews  127 The Reject Reviews  129 Reviewer Roles in the Reports  132 The Accept Reviews  135 The Minor Revisions Reviews  136 The Major Revisions Reviews  138 The Reject Reviews  140 Conclusions 142 6 Learning to Do Peer Review  145 Training and Mentoring in Peer Review   145 Learning to Do Peer Review   148 How They Learnt to Write Reviews   148 Language Background of the Reviewers   150 The Most Challenging Aspects of Writing Reviews   151 The Most Straightforward Aspects of Writing Reviews   152 Discussion  153 Implications for Reviewer Training  154 Conclusion 155 7 Implications for Reviewer Training157 Workshop: Understanding the Peer Review Process 159 Tasks: Understanding the Peer Review Process 162 The Peer Review Process 162 The Initial Culling of Submissions 163 Review Criteria and Types of Journal 166 Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals 168

x  Contents

From Reviewers’ Reports to the Final Version of an  Academic Article 172 Implications for Successful Academic Publishing 174 Tasks: Understanding Reviewers’ Reports 174 The Genre of Reviewers’ Reports 174 The Content of Reviewers’ Reports 175 Pragmatics and Reviewers’ Reports 175 Politeness and Reviewers’ Reports 177 Evaluation in Reviewers’ Reports 177 Conclusion177 8 Conclusions  183 Appendix: Questionnaire for the Reviewers  195 References  197 Index

223

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 The retention–promotion–tenure genre chain (Hyon, 2008, p. 180) © courtesy Elsevier Fig. 1.2 Genre chains and genre sets for the writing of Swales’s (1998) Other Floors, Other Voices (Swales, 2004, p. 24) © courtesy Cambridge University Press Fig. 2.1 Event sequence of written genres in the peer review process Fig. 7.1 Task: pros and cons of types of peer review Fig. 7.2 Task: in-house reviews of submissions Fig. 7.3 Task: types of journals and areas they publish in Fig. 7.4 Task: discussing and comparing reviews Fig. 7.5 Task: reviewing reviews  Fig. 7.6 Task: the genre of reviewers’ reports Fig. 7.7 Task: the content of reviewers’ reports Fig. 7.8 Task: pragmatics and reviewers’ reports Fig. 7.9 Task: politeness and reviewers’ reports Fig. 7.10 Task: evaluation in reviewers’ reports

11 16 34 162 166 168 168 169 175 176 178 179 180

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Summary of moves in the accept reviews (n = 9)41 Table 2.2 Accept reviews: three moves in a single paragraph 42 Table 2.3 Accept reviews: three moves in a single sentence 43 Table 2.4 Summary of moves in the minor revisions reviews (n = 22)43 Table 2.5 Minor revision reviews: two moves in a single paragraph 44 Table 2.6 Minor revision reviews: three moves in a single paragraph44 Table 2.7 Summary of moves in the major revisions reviews (n = 39) 45 Table 2.8 Major revisions reviews: two moves in a single sentence 46 Table 2.9 Summary of moves in the reject reviews (n = 27)47 Table 2.10 Reject reviews: two moves in a single paragraph 48 Table 2.11 Positive and negative comments in the accept reviews (n = 9)54 Table 2.12 Positive and negative comments in the minor revisions reviews (n = 22)56 Table 2.13 Positive and negative comments in the major revisions reviews (n = 39)58 Table 2.14 Positive and negative comments in the reject reviews (n = 27)62 Table 2.15 Positive and negative comments in all the reviews (N = 97)64 xiii

xiv 

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Examples of stance and engagement markers in academic writing (based on Hyland, 2005b) 117 Table 5.2 Stance markers in the accept reviews (n = 9)125 Table 5.3 Stance markers in the minor revisions reviews (n = 22)126 Table 5.4 Stance markers in the major revisions reviews (n = 39)127 Table 5.5 Stance markers in the reject reviews (n = 27)129 Table 7.1 Typical reviewer guidelines (adapted from Mahboob et al., 2016, p. 44) © courtesy Wiley160 Table 7.2 Overview of the workshop 161 Table 7.3 A checklist for the initial in-house review of submissions (adapted from Mahboob et al., 2016, p. 43) © courtesy Wiley164 Table 7.4 Editors’ messages on desk rejections 165