Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Many science journals have begun either to provide authors with the opportunity to publish peer review reports alongside their published article or to use a form of interactive open access peer review, which means that the review process is made public from the start. However, because of the traditionally occluded nature of peer reviewing, much applied linguistics research on the topic has focused on corpora of individual reviews rather than the negotiation process between the author(s), reviewers, and editors that peer reviewing essentially entails. In this paper, the focus is on this negotiation process. The data are drawn from an open access journal in geosciences. They consist of review histories of three research papers with clusters of peer review reports, short comments, author replies, and editor decision letters. These clusters have been analysed chronologically in relation to one another, considering their impact and the evaluating authorities evoked in the process. The findings show that the brokers paid attention to both study- and text-related aspects in their evaluations, thus highlighting brokering as an activity related to both knowledge and text. Reviewer authority was recognised by the authors and editors alike, but the authors were also found to negotiate their divergent positions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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. (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. (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. (2010) Academic writing in a global context. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (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. (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. (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. (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]

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