The Discourse of Peer Review

Transcription

1 The Discourse of Peer Review

2 Brian Paltridge The Discourse of Peer Review Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals

3 Brian Paltridge Sydney School of Education & Social Work University of Sydney Sydney, Australia ISBN DOI / ISBN (ebook) Library of Congress Control Number: 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 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

4 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, 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

5 vi Acknowledgements De Costa, P. (2016). TESOL Quarterly research guidelines. TESOL Quarterly, 50, , 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, , copyright Society for Research into Higher Education, reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, 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, , 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.

6 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

7 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

8 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 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 Implications for Reviewer Training 157 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

9 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 Conclusion Conclusions 183 Appendix: Questionnaire for the Reviewers 195 References 197 Index 223

10 List of Figures Fig. 1.1 The retention promotion tenure genre chain (Hyon, 2008, p. 180) courtesy Elsevier 11 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 16 Fig. 2.1 Event sequence of written genres in the peer review process 34 Fig. 7.1 Task: pros and cons of types of peer review 162 Fig. 7.2 Task: in-house reviews of submissions 166 Fig. 7.3 Task: types of journals and areas they publish in 168 Fig. 7.4 Task: discussing and comparing reviews 168 Fig. 7.5 Task: reviewing reviews 169 Fig. 7.6 Task: the genre of reviewers reports 175 Fig. 7.7 Task: the content of reviewers reports 176 Fig. 7.8 Task: pragmatics and reviewers reports 178 Fig. 7.9 Task: politeness and reviewers reports 179 Fig Task: evaluation in reviewers reports 180 xi

11 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 paragraph 44 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

12 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 Wiley 160 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 Wiley 164 Table 7.4 Editors messages on desk rejections 165