We agree completely with the reviewer, but … ”: Stance in author rebuttal letters for journal manuscript reviews

IF 3.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Yuting Lin
{"title":"We agree completely with the reviewer, but … ”: Stance in author rebuttal letters for journal manuscript reviews","authors":"Yuting Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.esp.2023.10.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Authors’ rebuttal letters (ARLs) in response to journal reviewers critically affect whether a paper is accepted or rejected. However, the genre is traditionally “occluded” from the public view, and its linguistic or rhetorical features are seldom examined in the literature. Using Hyland’s (2005) model, this study analyzes stance markers, i.e., expressions of the speaker’s attitudes towards or commitment concerning a proposition, in 50 ARLs from five high-impact Nature Portfolio journals, which started publishing ARLs as supplements to manuscripts in 2020. The analysis shows that authors’ stance deployment differs markedly between different sections of the ARL, i.e., Opening Statement, Point-by-Point Response, Additional Changes, and Closing Remarks. Attitude markers, boosters, and self-mentions are more frequent in ARLs than in research articles, serving to advocate the paper, highlight improvements, and show gratitude towards reviewers. Only 6 % ARLs fully accommodate all reviewer suggestions. When rejecting a criticism, authors rarely express total disagreement with reviewers, choosing instead to hedge the No Revision claims, use expressions of agreement and gratitude as buffers, and boost positive aspects of the paper. Findings of this study may be of interest to those who seek a better understanding of the language of ARLs, including ESP teachers and novice researchers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47809,"journal":{"name":"English for Specific Purposes","volume":"73 ","pages":"Pages 159-171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490623000728/pdfft?md5=182d0fe1966fc23e245d2bfe8f6d0a1b&pid=1-s2.0-S0889490623000728-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English for Specific Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490623000728","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Authors’ rebuttal letters (ARLs) in response to journal reviewers critically affect whether a paper is accepted or rejected. However, the genre is traditionally “occluded” from the public view, and its linguistic or rhetorical features are seldom examined in the literature. Using Hyland’s (2005) model, this study analyzes stance markers, i.e., expressions of the speaker’s attitudes towards or commitment concerning a proposition, in 50 ARLs from five high-impact Nature Portfolio journals, which started publishing ARLs as supplements to manuscripts in 2020. The analysis shows that authors’ stance deployment differs markedly between different sections of the ARL, i.e., Opening Statement, Point-by-Point Response, Additional Changes, and Closing Remarks. Attitude markers, boosters, and self-mentions are more frequent in ARLs than in research articles, serving to advocate the paper, highlight improvements, and show gratitude towards reviewers. Only 6 % ARLs fully accommodate all reviewer suggestions. When rejecting a criticism, authors rarely express total disagreement with reviewers, choosing instead to hedge the No Revision claims, use expressions of agreement and gratitude as buffers, and boost positive aspects of the paper. Findings of this study may be of interest to those who seek a better understanding of the language of ARLs, including ESP teachers and novice researchers.

我们完全同意审稿人的意见,但是……”:期刊稿件审稿作者反驳信中的立场
作者对期刊审稿人的反驳信(ARLs)对论文被接受或被拒绝有着重要的影响。然而,这种体裁传统上被公众所“屏蔽”,其语言或修辞特征在文献中很少被研究。使用Hyland(2005)的模型,本研究分析了来自五家高影响力自然组合期刊的50篇arl中的立场标记,即说话人对命题的态度或承诺的表达。该期刊于2020年开始出版arl,作为手稿的补充。分析表明,作者的立场部署在ARL的不同部分(即开场白、逐点回应、附加变化和结束语)之间存在显著差异。态度标记、助推器和自我提及在arl中比在研究文章中更常见,用于宣传论文,突出改进,并对审稿人表示感谢。只有6%的arl完全采纳了所有审稿人的建议。当拒绝批评时,作者很少表达完全不同意审稿人的意见,而是选择对冲No Revision声明,使用同意和感激的表达作为缓冲,并促进论文的积极方面。这项研究的发现可能会对那些寻求更好地理解arl语言的人感兴趣,包括ESP教师和新手研究人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: English For Specific Purposes is an international peer-reviewed journal that welcomes submissions from across the world. Authors are encouraged to submit articles and research/discussion notes on topics relevant to the teaching and learning of discourse for specific communities: academic, occupational, or otherwise specialized. Topics such as the following may be treated from the perspective of English for specific purposes: second language acquisition in specialized contexts, needs assessment, curriculum development and evaluation, materials preparation, discourse analysis, descriptions of specialized varieties of English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信