'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 87-101

  Gosden, Hugh ^a  

^a TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23444433478     PISSN: 14751585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: an alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272.
3. European Science Editing. (2001). Best practice in peer review. 27(2), 34-36. European Association of Science Editors. Available: http://www.ease.org. uk.
4. Fletcher, R., & Fletcher, S. (1997). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 35-50.
5. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-150.
6. Flowerdew, J., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1999). Genre analysis of editorial correspondence to journal contributors. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Stamford, CT.
7. Godlee, F., Gale, C., & Martyn, C. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 237-240.
8. Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (1999). Peer review in the health sciences. London: BMJ Books.
9. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal, 316, 86.
10. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer-reviews: scientific quality control or smoke screen? British Medical Journal, 318, 44-45.
11. Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: a social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37-57.
12. 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, 3, 3-17.
13. Gosden, H. (2002). Thematic content in peer reviews of scientific papers. Seminários de Linguística, 5.
14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
15. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
16. Hyland, K. (2001). Book review. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 305-308.
17. Johnson, D. (1992). Compliments and politeness in peer review texts. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 51-71.
18. Kerans, M. E. (2001). Eliciting substantive revision of manuscripts for peer review through process-oriented conferences with Spanish scientists. In C. Muñoz, M. Celaya, M. Fernandez-Villanueva, T. Navés, O. Strunk, & E. Tragant (Eds.), Trabajos en lingüistica aplicada (pp. 339-347). Barcelona: Univerbook, S.L., AELSA.
19. Kirkman, J. (2001). Third person, past tense, passive voice for scientific writing. Who says? European Science Editing, 27(1), 4-5.
20. Kourilová, M. (1996). Interactive function of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by NN users of English. UNESCO-ALSED LSP Newsletter, 19(1), 4-21.
21. Nature. (1999). Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication. Editorial. Volume 401, 727.
22. Salager-Meyer, F. (2001). This book portrays the worst form of mental terrorism': critical speech acts in medical English book reviews (1940-2000). In The pragmatics of scientific discourse. Vol. 10, Metalinguistica (pp. 35-47). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
23. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. British Medical Journal 318, 4-5.
24. Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today's research world. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.