The referee report according to publication recommendation and reviewers’ academic productivity
Abstract
The referee report of research articles is a discursive genre in which a part of the collective process of building knowledge is crystalized. Given its confidentiality, there is little empirical work on this genre. Among these few contributions, a series of limitations can be identified, such as the lack of definition of the unit of analysis or the lack of integration between discursive and sociometric data. In this article, we present a model that contributes to overcoming these limitations. The model was applied with the purpose of analyzing the variation of referee reports according to two extralinguistic variables, i.e., publication recommendation (accepted, conditioned, rejected) and referee’s number of published articles. The results showed that both extralinguistic attributes were associated with specific discourse variations, of which publication recommendation was more decisive than referee’s academic productivity.Keywords
Peer review process, Referee report of scientific articles, Scientific writing, Discourse analysisReferences
Ardakan, Mohammad Abooyee; Mirzaie, Seyyed Ayatollah & Sheikhshoaei, Fatemeh (2011). The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 243-261. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.243
Astudillo, César (2015). Aplicación de un modelo discursivo para el análisis de los Informes de Evaluación de Artículos Rechazados (IEAR) en el Proceso de Evaluación por Pares (PEP) de tres revistas chilenas. Tesis de Magíster sin publicar, Universidad de La Serena.
Astudillo, César; Squadrito, Karem; Varas, Germán; González, Carlos & Sabaj, Omar (2016). Polaridad de los comentarios y consistencia interna en los informes de arbitraje de artículos de investigación. Acta Bioethica, 22(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2016000100013
Berenson, Mark; Levine, David & Krehbiel, Timothy (2001). Estadística para administración. Pearson Education.
Bolívar, Adriana (2008). El informe de arbitraje como género discursivo en la dinámica de la investigación. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso, 8(1), 41-64.
Bolívar, Adriana (2011). Funciones discursivas de la evaluación negativa en informes de arbitraje de artículos de investigación en educación. Núcleo 28, 59-89.
Bornmann, Lutz (2011). Scientific Peer Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
Campanario, Juan Miguel (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today. Part 1. Science Communication, 19(3), 181-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019003002
Campanario, Juan Miguel (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today. Part 2. Science Communication, 19(4), 277- 306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547098019004002
Evans, Michael & Rosenthal, Jeffrey (2005). Probabilidad y estadística. Barcelona: Reverté.
Fleiss, John (1971). Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among many Rater. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
Fortanet, Inmaculada (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004
Garfield, Eugene (1986). Refereeing and Peer Review, Part 2: The Research on Refereeing and Alternatives to the Present System. Essays of an Information Scientist, 9(32), 3–12.
Garfield, Eugene (1987). Refereeing and Peer Review, Part 4: Research on the Peer Review of Grant Proposals and Suggestions for Improvement. Essays of an Information Scientist, 10(5), 27–33.
Gosden, Hugh (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, 2, 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1
Lamont, Michèle (2009). How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England: Harvard University press.
Latour, Bruno (1992). Ciencia en acción: Cómo seguir a los científicos e ingenieros a través de la sociedad. Barcelona: Editorial Labor.
Lazega, Emmanuel (1992). Micropolitics of Knowledge: Comunication and indirect control in workgroups. New York: Aldine-de-Gruyter.
Mungra, Philippa & Webber, Pauline (2010). Peer Review Process in medical research publication: Language and content comment. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002
Paltridge, Brian (1996). Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.3.288
Paltridge, Brian (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: when is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818641
Sabaj, Omar; Valderrama, José Omar; González, Carlos & Pina-Stranger, Álvaro (2015). Relationship between the Duration of Peer- Review, Publication Decision, and Agreement among Reviewers in three Chilean Journals. European Science Editing, 41(4), 87-90.
Sabaj, Omar; González, Carlos & Pina-Stranger, Álvaro (2016). What we Still don’t Know about Peer Review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47(2), 180-212. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.2.180
Samraj, Betty (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript review. Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.003
Strauss, Anselm & Corbin, Juliet (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Londres: Sage.
Stossel, Thomas (1985). Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 312(10), 658-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198503073121024
Swales, John (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.06swa
Swales, John (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Tharirian, Mohammad Hassan & Sadri, Elham (2013). Peer Reviewers’ Comments on Research Articles Submitted by Iranian Researchers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 5(3), 107-123.
Varas, Germán (2015). El informe de arbitraje en el proceso de revisión por pares de artículos de investigación: Niveles de retroalimentación según el tipo de evaluador (Tesis de Magíster). Universidad de La Serena. La Serena, Chile.
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2018 Omar Sabaj Meruane, Carlos González Vergara, César Astudillo Zepeda, Germán Varas Espinoza, Miguel Fuentes Cortés, Paula Cabezas del Fierro, Karem Squadrito Díaz, Álvaro Pina-Stranger
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
