“The authors have wasted their time...”: Genre features and language of anonymous peer reviews

Ahmed, H. S., Gasparyan, A. Y. 2013. Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it. European Science Editing, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 8-10.Search in Google Scholar

Ball, Ch., 2014. Adapting editorial peer review of webtexts for classroom use. Writing & Pedagogy, vol. 5, pp. 301-316.10.1558/wap.v5i2.301Search in Google Scholar

Belcher, D. 2007. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 16, pp. 1-22.10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Benamara, F., Taboada, M., Mathieu, Y. 2017. Evaluative language beyond bags of words: Linguistic insights and computational applications. Computational Linguistics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 201-264.10.1162/COLI_a_00278Search in Google Scholar

Bocanegra-Valle, A., 2015. Peer reviewers’ recommendations for language improvement in research writing. In: R. Plo-Alastrué, C. Pérez-Llantada, eds. English as a scientific and research language. Debates and discourses: English in Europe, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 207-232.10.1515/9781614516378-012Search in Google Scholar

Burrough-Boenisch, J. 2003. Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, no. 12, pp. 223–243.10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Darics, E. 2010. Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Journal of Politeness Research, no. 6, pp. 129-150.10.1515/jplr.2010.007Search in Google Scholar

Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. 2013. Authorial presence in academic discourse: functions of author-reference pronouns. Linguistica Pragensia, no. 1, pp. 9-30.Search in Google Scholar

Englander, K., López-Bonilla, G. 2011. Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, vol. 13, no.4, pp. 395–416.10.1177/1461445611403261Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Fortanet, I., 2008. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, pp. 27-37.10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004Search in Google Scholar

Fortanet-Gómez, I. 2008. Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In: S. Burgess, P. Martín-Martín, eds. English as an additional language in research publication and communication. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 19-38.Search in Google Scholar

Gosden, H., 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, vol. 3, pp. 3-17.Search in 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 Academic Purposes, vol. 2, pp. 87-101.10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1Search in Google Scholar

Harwood, N. 2005. ‘We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory … The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap’: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 343-375.10.1093/applin/ami012Open DOISearch in 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, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 247-274.10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247Search in Google Scholar

Hill S., Provost F., 2003. The myth of the double-blind review?: Author identification using only citations. SIGKDD Explorations, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.179-184.10.1145/980972.981001Search in Google Scholar

Hoop, H. de, Hogeweg, L. 2014. The use of second person pronouns in a literary work. Journal of Literary Semantics, 43 (2), http://helendehoop.ruhosting.nl/Ditisvanmij_JoLS_2014.pdf.10.1515/jls-2014-0008Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, D. M., Roen, D. H., 1992. Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 27-57.10.1017/S0047404500015025Search in Google Scholar

Kourilova, M., 1998. Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, vol. 32, pp. 107-114.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, S. R., Zhang, G. and Cronin B., 2013. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 2-17.10.1002/asi.22784Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Matsuda, P. K., Tardy, C. M. 2007. Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26, pp. 235–249.10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Moreno, A., Swales, J. M., 2018. Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 50, pp. 40-63.10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.006Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Mungra, Ph., Webber P., 2010. Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 29, pp. 43-53.10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Paltridge, B., 2015. Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: when is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 106–122.10.1080/03075079.2013.818641Search in Google Scholar

Paltridge, B., 2017. The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Parfitt, E., 2012. Establishing the genre of peer review to create new rhetorical knowledge. Compendium2, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-8.Search in Google Scholar

Samraj, B. 2016. Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorisation. English for Specific Purposes, no. 42, pp. 76–88.10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Shashok, K. 2008. Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 3. [Accessed 29 April 2018]. Available at: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-3/open-peer-review.10.1186/1471-2288-8-3Search in Google Scholar

Smith R., 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 178‒182.10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178Search in Google Scholar

Swales, J. M., 2019. The futures of EAP genre studies: A personal viewpoint. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, no. 38, pp. 75-82.10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.003Search in Google Scholar

Swales, J. M., 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, J. M., 1996. Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In: E. Ventola, A. Mauranen, eds. Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. Benjamins: Amsterdam, pp. 45-58.10.1075/pbns.41.06swaSearch in Google Scholar

Tardy, C. 2008. De-mystifying the publication process. [Accessed 21 January 2012]. Available at: purdue.edu/~eslgo/pdf/TardyPublicationGuide.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Tharirian, M. H., Sadri, E., 2013. Peer reviewers’ comments on research articles submitted by Iranian researchers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 107-123.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, G., Hunston, S. 2003. Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston, G. Thompson, eds. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-27.Search in Google Scholar

Uusiautti, S., 2016. Scientific publishing as the arena of power and caring. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75-86.10.5861/ijrse.2015.1119Search in Google Scholar

Wales, K., 2001. A dictionary of stylistics, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Warren B. 2006. Prolegomena to a study of evaluative words. English Studies, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 210-229.10.1080/00138380600609136Search in Google Scholar

Yakhontova, T., 2002. ‘Selling or telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In: J. Flowerdew, ed. Academic discourse. Harlow: Longman, pp. 216-232.Search in Google Scholar

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University. Press.Search in Google Scholar