Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Text & Talk Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1515/text-2023-0055
Hadi Kashiha
{"title":"Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering","authors":"Hadi Kashiha","doi":"10.1515/text-2023-0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critical comments have shown to figure prominently in determining the fate of manuscripts submitted to reputable journals. While various studies have explored different facets of this evaluative genre, there has been limited examination in the context of second language and disciplinary writing. Using a discourse analytic approach, this study analyzed a corpus of 160 reviewers’ reports on submissions by Iranian nonnative writers in applied linguistics (AL) and engineering. The aim was to compare how reviewers employ different categories of critical comments to prompt writers to revise their submissions. The findings revealed that reviewers, regardless of discipline, more frequently commented on language-use issues than content-related issues. Among language-use comments, issues pertaining to lexical and syntactical usage of English were more prominent than concerns about discourse and rhetoric. The analysis also indicated consistent patterns in the reviewers’ reports regarding discourse organization and the balance between positive and negative feedback. These findings are discussed in terms of their practical implications for novice and nonnative researchers in the examined fields, offering insights into the rhetorical and disciplinary norms governing peer reviews and the linguistic choices made by reviewers to guide authors throughout the review process. Increased awareness of these issues can facilitate more effective responses to reviewers’ feedback.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Critical comments have shown to figure prominently in determining the fate of manuscripts submitted to reputable journals. While various studies have explored different facets of this evaluative genre, there has been limited examination in the context of second language and disciplinary writing. Using a discourse analytic approach, this study analyzed a corpus of 160 reviewers’ reports on submissions by Iranian nonnative writers in applied linguistics (AL) and engineering. The aim was to compare how reviewers employ different categories of critical comments to prompt writers to revise their submissions. The findings revealed that reviewers, regardless of discipline, more frequently commented on language-use issues than content-related issues. Among language-use comments, issues pertaining to lexical and syntactical usage of English were more prominent than concerns about discourse and rhetoric. The analysis also indicated consistent patterns in the reviewers’ reports regarding discourse organization and the balance between positive and negative feedback. These findings are discussed in terms of their practical implications for novice and nonnative researchers in the examined fields, offering insights into the rhetorical and disciplinary norms governing peer reviews and the linguistic choices made by reviewers to guide authors throughout the review process. Increased awareness of these issues can facilitate more effective responses to reviewers’ feedback.
学科批判性评论:应用语言学和工程学同行评审报告的比较研究
批评性评论在决定投稿给知名期刊的稿件命运方面发挥着重要作用。虽然各种研究都对这种评价体裁的不同方面进行了探讨,但在第二语言和学科写作方面的研究却很有限。本研究采用语篇分析方法,分析了伊朗应用语言学(AL)和工程学领域非母语写作者的 160 份审稿人报告语料库。目的是比较审稿人如何使用不同类别的批评性意见来促使作者修改他们的论文。研究结果表明,无论学科如何,审稿人对语言使用问题的评论多于对内容相关问题的评论。在语言使用方面的评论中,与英语词汇和句法用法有关的问题比话语和修辞方面的问题更为突出。分析还表明,审稿人报告中有关语篇组织以及积极和消极反馈之间平衡的模式是一致的。我们讨论了这些发现对所研究领域的新手和非母语研究人员的实际意义,深入探讨了同行评审的修辞和学科规范,以及评审人在整个评审过程中指导作者的语言选择。提高对这些问题的认识有助于更有效地回应审稿人的反馈意见。
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
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.
×
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