An 'important contribution' or 'tiresome reading'?: A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions

Journal of Applied Linguistics

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 247-274

  Hewings, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adjectives; Corpus; Evaluation; Peer review; Publication process

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249190559     PISSN: 14797887     EISSN: 17431743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2. Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3. Benfield, J. R. and Howard, K. M. (2000) The language of science. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 18: 642-8.
4. Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Bordage, G. and Caelleigh, A. S. (2001) A tool for reviewers: review criteria for research manuscripts. Academic Medicine 76: 904-8.
6. Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003) Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 223-43.
7. Canagarajah, A. S. (1996) 'Non-discursive' requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication 13(4): 435-72.
8. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002) A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9. Canagarajah, A. S. (2003) A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In C. P. Casanave and S. Vandrick (eds) Writing for Scholarly Publication: behind the scenes in language education 197-210. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Casanave, C. P. and Vandrick, S. (2003a) Introduction: Issues in writing for publication. In C. P. Casanave and S. Vandrick (eds) Writing for Scholarly Publication: behind the scenes in language education 1-13. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Casanave, C. P. and Vandrick, S. (2003b) Writing for Scholarly Publication: behind the scenes in language education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Chilton, S. (1999) The good reviewer. Academe 85 (6): 54-5. Accessed at http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/Articles/Reviewer.html on 21st December 2004.
13. Cronin, B. (1984) The Citation Process. London: Taylor Graham.
14. Curry, M. J. and Lillis, T. (2005) Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly 38: 663-88.
15. Ernst, E. and Resch, K. L. (1994) Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 124: 178-82.
16. Flowerdew, J. (1999a) Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3): 243-64.
17. Flowerdew, J. (1999b) Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2): 123-145.
18. Flowerdew, J. (2000) Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the non-native English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly 34(1): 127-50.
19. Flowerdew, J. (2001) Attitudes of journal editors to non-native-speaker contributions: an interview study. TESOL Quarterly 35(1): 121-50.
20. Fox, R. (2003) Centre and periphery revisited. The structures of European science, 1750-1914. Introduction. Revue de la Maison Française d' Oxford 1, 2. Accessed at http://www.mfo.ac.uk/Publications/Revue%20Fox/introduction.htm on 18th March 2005.
21. Gilbert, G. N. (1976) The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge. Social Studies of Science 6: 281-306.
22. Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. (1982) Warranting scientific belief. Social Studies of Science 12: 383-408.
23. Godlee, F., Gale, C. and 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): 237-40.
24. Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1998) What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? British Medical Journal 316: 86.
25. 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.
26. Gosden, H. (2002) Thematic content in peer reviews of scientific papers. Seminários de Linguística 5.
27. 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): 87-102.
28. Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English? London: British Council.
29. Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
30. Hunston, S. (1993) Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (ed.) Register Analysis: theory and practice 57-73. London: Pinter.
31. Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. (2002) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(21): 2786-90.
32. Kourilová, M. (1998) Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific paper written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations 32: 107-14.
33. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Second edition) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: the social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
35. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. McNutt, R. A., Evans, A. T., Fletcher, R. H., et al. (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1371-6.
37. Myers, G. (1990) Writing Biology: texts in the construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
38. Nylenna, M., Riis, P. and Karlsson, Y. (1994) Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effect of referee characteristics and publication language. Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2): 149-51.
39. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.
40. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Rowland, F. (2002) The Peer Review Process. A report to the JISC Scholarly Communication Group. Accessed at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf on 14th December 2004.
42. Scott, M. (1996) Wordsmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Searle, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
44. Swales, J. (1981) Aspects of Article Introductions. (Aston ESP Research Reports 1.) Birmingham: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston.
45. Swales, J. (1996) Occluded genres in the academy: the case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds) Academic Writing: intercultural and textual issues 45-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46. Thetela, P. (1997) Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes 16: 101-18.
47. Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2000) Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse 1-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N. and Smith, R. (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal 318: 23-7.
49. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L. and Wilkinson, G. (2000) Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 176: 47-51.
50. Wood, D. and Hurst, P. (2000) Online peer review: perceptions in the biological sciences. Learned Publishing 13(2): 95-100.