Opening up the peer review process

References

1. Blanchet, C. L., Tjallingii, R., Schleicher, A. M., Schouten, S., Frank, M., & Brauer, A.
   (2021) Deoxygenation dynamics on the western Nile deep-sea fan during sapropel S1 from seasonal to millennial timescales. Climate of the Past, 17(3), 1025–1050. 10.5194/cp‑17‑1025‑2021
   https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1025-2021 [Google Scholar]
2. Pawlak, J.
   (2021) The speleothem oxygen record as a proxy for thermal or moisture changes: A case study of multiproxy records from MIS 5–MIS 6 speleothems from the Demänová Cave system. Climate of the Past, 17(3), 1051–1064. 10.5194/cp‑17‑1051‑2021
   https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1051-2021 [Google Scholar]
3. Velasquez, P., Kaplan, J. O., Messmer, M., Ludwig, P., & Raible, C. C.
   (2021) The role of land cover in the climate of glacial Europe. Climate of the Past, 17(3), 1161–1180, 10.5194/cp‑17‑1161‑2021
   https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1161-2021 [Google Scholar]
4. Belcher, D.
   (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 1–22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
5. Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., Mans, R., Mayhew, D., McGowan, S., Polter, A., Qadri, Y., Sarfare, S., Schultz, K., Splittgerber, K., Stephenson, J., Tower, C., Walton, R. G., & Zotov, A.
   (2007) The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 145–152. 10.1152/advan.00104.2006
   https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006 [Google Scholar]
6. BioMedCentral
   BioMedCentral (2021) Advancing peer review at BMC. Retrieved on1 July 2021fromhttps://www.biomedcentral.com/about/advancing-peer-review
7. Blommaert, J.
   (2010) The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845307
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845307 [Google Scholar]
8. Blommaert, J., Westinen, E., & Leppänen, S.
   (2015) Further notes on sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 119–127. 10.1515/ip‑2015‑0005
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
9. Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H., & Daniel, H.-D.
   (2012) In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do RCs differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics, 931, 915–929. 10.1007/s11192‑012‑0731‑8
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0731-8 [Google Scholar]
10. Bornmann, L., Weymuth, C., & Daniel, H.-D.
    (2010) A content analysis of referees’ comments: How do comments on manuscripts rejected by a high-impact journal and later published in either a low- or high-impact journal differ?Scientometrics, 831, 493–506. 10.1007/s11192‑009‑0011‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0011-4 [Google Scholar]
11. Canagarajah, S., & De Costa, P. I.
    (2016) Introduction: Scales analysis, and its uses and prospects in educational linguistics. Linguistics and Education, 341, 1–19. 10.1016/j.linged.2015.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.09.001 [Google Scholar]
12. Coniam, D.
    (2012) Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System, 401, 544–553. 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002 [Google Scholar]
13. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InR. Englebretson (Ed.) Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.139–182). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
14. Englander, K.
    (2009) Transformation of the identities of nonnative English-speaking scientists as a consequence of the social construction of revision. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(1), 35–53. 10.1080/15348450802619979
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450802619979 [Google Scholar]
15. 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]
16. Flowerdew, J.
    (2001) Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–150. 10.2307/3587862
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862 [Google Scholar]
17. Fortanet-Gómez, 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]
18. 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, 31, 3–17.
    [Google Scholar]
19. 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, 21, 87–101. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(02)00037‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1 [Google Scholar]
20. 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]
21. Hyland, K.
    (2020) Peer review. Objective screening or wishful thinking?Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 1(1), 51–65. 10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19010.hyl [Google Scholar]
22. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (K.)
    (2020) ‘This work is antithetical to the spirit of research’: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 461, 1–13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867 [Google Scholar]
23. Hynninen, N.
    (2020) Moments and mechanisms of intervention along textual trajectories: Norm negotiations in English-medium research writing. Text & Talk. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0303 [Google Scholar]
24. Hynninen, N.
    (2021) Polycentricity and scaling in analysing textual trajectories of writing for publication. InL.-M. Muresan & C. Orna-Montesinos (Eds.), Academic literacy development: Perspectives on multilingual scholars’ approaches to writing (pp.19–37). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑62877‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62877-2_2 [Google Scholar]
25. Kourilova, M.
    (1998) Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations, 321, 107–114.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J.
    (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 231, 3–35. 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
27. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J.
    (2010) Academic writing in a global context. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J.
    (2015) The politics of English, language and uptake. The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 281, 127–150. 10.1075/aila.28.06lil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil [Google Scholar]
29. Mungra, P., & Webber, P.
    (2010) Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 291, 43–53. 10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002 [Google Scholar]
30. Mur Dueñas, P.
    (2012) Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Ibérica, 241, 139–156.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Mur Dueñas, P.
    (2013) Spanish scholars’ research article publishing process in English-medium journals: English used as a lingua franca?Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), 315–340. 10.1515/jelf‑2013‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0017 [Google Scholar]
32. Nature
    Nature (2020) Nature will publish peer review reports as a trial. Nature, 5781, 8. 10.1038/d41586‑020‑00309‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00309-9 [Google Scholar]
33. Paltridge, B.
    (2017) The discourse of peer review. Reviewing submissions to academic journals. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑48736‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0 [Google Scholar]
34. Paltridge, B.
    (2020) Engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals. Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes, 1(1), 4–27. 10.1075/jerpp.19007.pal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.19007.pal [Google Scholar]
35. Pienimäki, H.-M.
    (2021) Language professionals as regulators of academic discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki. Retrieved on16 February 2022fromhttps://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/335110
36. Pöschl, U.
    (2004) Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 171, 105–113. 10.1087/095315104322958481
    https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104322958481 [Google Scholar]
37. Pöschl, U.
    (2010) Interactive open access publishing and public peer review: The effectiveness of transparency and self-regulation in scientific quality assurance. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 36(1), 40–46. 10.1177/0340035209359573
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209359573 [Google Scholar]
38. Shaw, O., & Voss, S.
    (2017) The delicate art of commenting: Exploring different approaches to editing and their implications for the author–editor relationship. InM. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research in English as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp.71–86). University of Adelaide Press. 10.20851/english‑pathways‑04
    https://doi.org/10.20851/english-pathways-04 [Google Scholar]
39. Solin, A. & Hynninen, N.
    (2018) Regulating the language of research writing: Disciplinary and institutional mechanisms. Language and Education, 32(6), 494–510. 10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727 [Google Scholar]
40. Swales, J. M.
    (1996) Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. InE. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp.45–58). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.41.06swa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.06swa [Google Scholar]
41. Van Edig, X.
    (2016) Interactive Public Peer ReviewTM: An innovative approach to scientific quality assurance. InF. Loizides & B. Schmidt (Eds.), Positioning and power in academic publishing: Players, agents and agendas. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp.28–33). IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]