Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper examines the use of engagement strategies in reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals. The data examined are reviewers’ reports on submissions to the journal . The study found that the reviewers used directives as their main engagement strategy. These directives, however, were often indirect or hedged, making it difficult for writers who are new to the peer review process to know how to respond to them. A further engagement strategy that reviewers employed was the use of reader pronouns through which they established an interpersonal relationship with authors at the same time as they delivered ‘bad news’ to them. These matters are important to highlight in the teaching of writing for research publication purposes so that beginning authors can better understand reviewers’ reports, learn how to respond to them and, as a result, increase their chances of getting published.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Belcher, D. D.
    (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, A.
    (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  3. Blommaert, J.
    (2005) Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bocanegra-Valle, A.
    (2015) Peer reviewers’ recommendations for language improvement in research writing. InR. P. Alastrué & C. Pérez-Llantada (Eds.), English as a scientific and research language: Debates and discourses (Vol.2), (pp.207–230). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614516378‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516378-012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., López-Iñesta, E., Mehmani, B. & Squazzoni, F.
    (2019) The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications, 10, 1–8. 10.1038/s41467‑018‑08250‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, G. & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K.
    (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. 10.1177/1461445605054407
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 [Google Scholar]
  8. Englander, K. & López-Bonilla, G.
    (2011) Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 395–416. 10.1177/1461445611403261
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611403261 [Google Scholar]
  9. Farley, P. C.
    (2016) Genre analysis of decision letters from editors of scientific journals. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 896–905.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Flowerdew, J. & Dudley-Evans, T.
    (2002) Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463–489. 10.1093/applin/23.4.463
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.4.463 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fortanet, I.
    (2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 27–37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fortanet-Gomez, I.
    (2008) Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. InS. Burgess & P. M. Martin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp.19–38). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fortanet-Gomez, I., & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F.
    (2010) Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. InR. Lorez-Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas & E. Latuente-Millan (Eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on academic genres (pp.243–254). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fries, P.
    (1994) On Theme, Rheme and discourse goals. InM. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp.229-249). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 Specific Purposes, 2(2), 87–101. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00037‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2014) An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London: Arnold. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hames, I.
    (2007) Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470750803
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750803 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haugh, M.
    (2012) Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–134. 10.1515/pr‑2012‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hewings, M.
    (2004) An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 247–274. 10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 47–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, Y.
    (2014) Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes, J. M. F. & Tracy, K.
    (2015) Indexicality. InK. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp.1–6). Malden, MA: Wiley. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi078
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi078 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunt, K.
    (1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report, No 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. 10.1177/0741088301018004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2002a) Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358. 10.1093/elt/56.4.351
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2002b) Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215–239. 10.1093/applin/23.2.215
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005b) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005c) Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377. 10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2009) Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2011) Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, 21, 9–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019) Foreword: Bringing in the reader. InC. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure (pp.xi–xiv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.301.00hyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.00hyl [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyland, K. & Jiang, K.
    (2016a) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. 10.1177/0741088316650399
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2016b) “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2019) Academic discourse and global publishing. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429433962
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433962 [Google Scholar]
  38. Iida, A.
    (2016) Scholarly publication: A multilingual perspective. InC. Macmaster & C. Murphy (Eds.), Graduate study in the USA: Succeeding and surviving (pp.41–50). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ivanič, R.
    (1998) Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/swll.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jiang, K. & Ma, X.
    (2018) ‘As we can see’: Reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2019) Positioning and proximity of reader engagement: Authorial identity in professional and apprentice academic genres. InC. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure (pp.29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.301.02jia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.02jia [Google Scholar]
  42. Kourilova, M.
    (1998) Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, 32(2), 107–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, J. & Deakin, L.
    (2016) Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. McGrath, L. & Kuteeva, M.
    (2012) Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161–173. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Myers, G.
    (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Paltridge, B.
    (2015) Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion?Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106–122. 10.1080/03075079.2013.818641
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818641 [Google Scholar]
  47. Paltridge
    Paltridge (2017) The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑48736‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0 [Google Scholar]
  48. Paltridge
    Paltridge (2019a) Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers. Language Teaching, 52(3), 331–342. 10.1017/S0261444818000150
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000150 [Google Scholar]
  49. Paltridge, B.
    (2019b) Reviewers’ feedback on second language writers’ submissions to academic journals. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd edition) (pp.226–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108635547.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.014 [Google Scholar]
  50. Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S.
    (2016) Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.5173299
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.5173299 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ross-Hellauer, T.
    (2018) Editorial -Transitioning publications to open peer review. Publications, 6(2), 28. 10.3390/publications6020028
    https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020028 [Google Scholar]
  52. Samraj, B.
    (2016) Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorisation. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76–88. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sancho Guinda, C.
    (Ed.) (2019) Engagement in professional genres: Deference and disclosure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.301
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sbisà, M.
    (2009) Speech act theory. InJ. Verschueren & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Key notions for pragmatics (pp.229–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.1.13sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1.13sbi [Google Scholar]
  55. Schneiderhan, E.
    (2013) Peer reviewers: Why you gotta be so mean?The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22July 2013 Available from chronicle.com/article/Why-You-Gotta-Be-So-Mean-/140469/ (2June 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Scollon, R., Wong-Scollon, S. & Jones, R. H.
    (2011) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Kiley, M., & Fairbairn, H.
    (2015) Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses: An APPRAISAL analysis. Linguistics and Education, 31, 130–144. 10.1016/j.linged.2015.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2017) Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 42, 53–64. 10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tardy, C. M.
    (2019) We are all reviewer #2: A window into the secret world of peer review. InP. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp.271–290). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_15 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error