Academic Publishing and the Referees' Reports: A Genre-Based Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol1.Iss40.1564Keywords:
Academia, Genre analysis, International journals, Peer review reports, Moves and strategies.Abstract
Peer review (RP) process as an academic genre is a pivotal step to certify the research quality to be published by enhancing peer perspectives and imparting credibility. The aim of this paper is to scrutinise the formal, cognitive structuring, the significant evaluative features and pragmatic value. To address this aim, a framework based on Bhatia’s (1993) cognitive structuring model and Fortanet's (2008) model of moves is adopted to analyse two referees' reports from two various disciplines namely Social Sciences and Veterinary Medicine solicited from Iraqi academicians. The findings unravel that there is a special format that followed by referees in their reports concerning the balanced use of positive/ negative comments along with the structural organization adopted. The generic structuring of the two analysed reports includes four paramount moves that are similar despite they are from two different disciplines. In addition, the most notably comments assigned by referees' reports are content related defects which are amalgamated with the use of language written.
Downloads
References
REFERENCES
Bawarshi, A. S., Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Candlin, C. (Ed.). 1st.ed. London: Routledge.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Iberica, 4, 3-19.
Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer reviews. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Culture, 12 (1), 11-45.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic Writing and Genre: A Systematic Analysis. London: Continuum.
Davies, A. (2005). A Glossary of Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.
Dhammi, I., K., & Kumar, S. (2013). Process of peer review continues, Indian Journal of Orthopedics, 47, 537-9.
Eggins, S. & Martine, J. R. (1997). "Genre and Registers of Discourse". Van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol.1 London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 236-53.
Flowerdew, j. & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics 22(4), 463-89.
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1), 27-37.
Gosden, H. (2001). "Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions": Compliance and conflict in authors' replies to referee's comments in peer reviews of scientific research paper. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Scientific Purposes, 3, 3-17.
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, 2(2), 87-101. G
Hauser, S. (2012). "Genre Matters: Theoretical and Methodological Issues of a Genre-Based Approach to Contrastive Media Analysis". Hauser, S & Luginbuhl, M. (eds.). Contrastive Media Analysis: Approaches to Linguistic and Cultural Aspects of Mass Media Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 219-20.
Hyland, K. (1992). Genre analysis: just another fad? English Teaching Forum 30 (2), 14-18.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.
Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effect of editorial peer review: A Systematic review. JAMA 287, 2784-2786.
Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227‐243. Published 2014 Oct 24.
Kwan, B. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 207-225.
Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43-53.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167. Reprinted in A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-24). London: Taylor & Francis.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Journals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Swales, J., M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The Case of submission letters. Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. E. Ventola & A. Mauranen. (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45-58.
Swales, J., M. (2004). Research genre: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wager, E., Godlee, F. & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to survive peer review? BMJ Books.
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Appendix 1
Professor Max Taylor
Editor
Terrorism and Political Violence
Department of Security and Crime Sciences
UCL
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Sawsan Kareem Zghayyir Al-Saaidi, Abdul-Ameer Hassan Al-Ubaidi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
