Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization

English for Specific Purposes

Volumn 42, Issue , 2016, Pages 76-88

  Samraj, Betty ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Communicative purpose; Genre sub categories; Manuscript reviews; Occluded genre; Referee reports

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955294618     PISSN: 08894906     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Askehave I., Swales J.M. Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics 2001, 22:195-212.
2. Barton E. Inductive discourse analysis: Discovering rich features. Discourse studies in composition 2002, 19-42. Hampton. E. Barton, G. Stygall (Eds.).
3. Belcher D. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing 2007, 16:1-22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001.
4. Connor U., Mauranen A. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes 1999, 18:47-62. 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4.
5. Englander K., Lopez-Bonilla G. Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers' response to non-anglophone scientists' manuscripts. Discourse Studies 2011, 13:395-416. 10.1177/1461445611403261.
6. Fortanet I. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008, 7:27-37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004.
7. Giannoni D. The disciplined scholar: Deontic modality in editors' instruction to contributors. Modality in specialized texts 2001, 311-340. Peter Lang, Bern. M. Gotti, M. Dossena (Eds.).
8. Giltrow J. Modern conscience: Modalities of obligation in research genres. TEXT 2005, 25:171-199. 10.1515/text.2005.25.2.171.
9. Gosden H. 'Why not give us the full story?': Functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2003, 2:87-101. 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1.
10. Hewings M. An 'important contribution' or 'tiresome reading'?: A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics 2004, 1:247-274. 10.1558/japl.v1.i3.247.
11. Hyland K. Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 2002, 23:215-239. 10.1093/applin/23.2.215.
12. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction 2005, Continuum, London.
13. Hyland K., Hyland F. Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. Feedback in second language writing 2006, 206-224. Cambridge University Press. K. Hyland, F. Hyland (Eds.).
14. Hyon S. Evaluation in tenure and promotion letters: Constructing faculty as communicators, stars, and workers. Applied Linguistics 2011, 32:389-407. 10.1093/applin/amr003.
15. Kourilova M. Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations 1998, 32:107-114.
16. Koutsantoni D. "I felt that the proposal had some promise, but was hampered by lack of specificity [...]": Personal reference and mitigation in grant proposals peer review reports. Crossed words: Criticism in scholarly writing 2011, 99-126. Peter Lang. F. Salager-Meyer, B. Lewin (Eds.).
17. Matsuda P.K., Tardy C.M. Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes 2007, 26:235-249. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001.
18. Navarro F. The critical act as a pragmatic unit for studying academic conflict: A methodological framework. Crossed words: Criticism in scholarly writing 2011, 23-52. Peter Lang. F. Salager-Meyer, B. Lewin (Eds.).
19. Paltridge B. Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it?. International Journal for Researcher Development 2013, 4:6-18. 10.1108/IJRD-07-2013-0011.
20. Paltridge B. Referees' comments on submission to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion?. Studies in Higher Education 2015, 40(1):106-122.
21. Polanyi L., Zaenen A. Contextual valence shifters. Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications 2006, 1-10. Springer, Netherlands.
22. Rowley-Jolivet E., Carter-Thomas S. The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2005, 15(1):45-70.
23. Samraj B. Evaluation and recommendations in manuscript reviews 2010, Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference. Altanta, Georgia. March 2010.
24. Samraj B., Monk L. The statement of purpose in graduate program applications: Genre structure and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 2008, 27(2):193-211. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.001.
25. Swales J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings 1990, Cambridge University Press.
26. Swales J. Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues 1996, 45-58. John Benjamins. E. Ventola, A. Mauranen (Eds.).
27. Tardy C., Matsuda P.K. The construction of voice by editorial board members. Written Communication 2009, 26:32-52. 10.1177/0741088308327269.
28. Thompson S. Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analysing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes 1994, 13(2):171-186. 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90014-0.