Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Review in Academic Settings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Discourse of Peer Review

Abstract

There is a wide body of research on academic genres such as the research article and doctoral thesis. These studies have increased our understanding of the nature of these genres as well as how people become members of different disciplinary communities as they engage in the writing of them. Researchers have also discussed what Swales (Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. John Benjamins, 1996) terms ‘occluded’ genres, that is, genres which are ‘closed’ and not public in nature. These genres are often high stakes yet difficult to obtain examples of. Reviews of research grant applications, reviews of promotion and tenure track applications, reviews of book proposals, and reviewers’ reports on submissions to peer-reviewed journals are examples of occluded genres. These are all examples of peer review and are discussed in this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Association for Applied Linguistics. (2015). AAAL promotion & tenure (P&T) guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.aaal.org/?page=PT

  • Basturkman, H. (2009). Back cover blurbs: Puff pieces and windows on cultural values. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 68–83). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, D. D., Casanave, C. P., Hirvela, A., Sippell, K. & Vandrick, S. (2010). Compiling and publishing an edited TESOL collection. Panel presentation, TESOL 2010, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benda, W. G. G., & Engels, T. C. E. (2011). The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 166–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomsbury Publishing. (2015). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Retrieved from http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/discourse-analysis-9781441167620/

  • Bondi, M. (2009). Historians at work: Reporting frameworks in English and Italian book review articles. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 179–197). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2004). Peer review and the acceptance of scientific ideas. Discussion paper from a Working Party on equipping the public with an understanding of peer review. Sense about Science, London. Retrieved May 3, 2016, from http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf

  • Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263, 1323–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137–154). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., & Hyon, S. (2005). Faculty evaluation as a genre system: Negotiating intertextuality and interpersonality. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 153–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U. (2000). Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists and scientists. Text, 20, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U. (2012). Getting grants. In R. Kubota & Y. Sun (Eds.), Demystifying career paths after graduate school (pp. 141–150). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2004). The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions (pp. 235–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer reviews: Who’s responsible? BMJ, 328, 658–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diani, G. (2009). Reporting and evaluation in English book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87–104). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Englander, K. (2014). Writing and publishing science research papers in English: A global perspective. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, H., & Shi, L. (2004). Genre analysis of grant proposals. LSP & Professional Communication, 4(1), 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. (2013a). English for research publication purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 301–321). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. (2013b). Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching, 48, 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, L. (2016). A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2010–2030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gea-Valor, M. L. (2005). Advertising books: A linguistic analysis of blurbs. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 10, 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews. A corpus driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 122–141). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, T. (2013). Peer reviewer training part I: What do we know about peer review? BMJ training materials. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials

  • Haines, K. (2013). Review of Discourse analysis: An introduction. TESOLANZ Journal, 21, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hames, I. (2012). Peer review in a rapidly changing landscape. In R. Campbell, E. Pentz, & I. Borthwick (Eds.), Academic and professional publishing (pp. 15–52). Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hewings, M. (2002). The history of ESP through English for Specific Purposes. English for Specific Purposes World: A Web-based Journal, 1(3). Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_3/Hewings_paper.htm

  • 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, 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., & Dally, K. (2004). Investigating PhD thesis examination reports. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 98–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2011). Peer review in scientific communications. Eighth Report of Session 2010–12. The Stationary Office Limited, London. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf

  • Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyon, S. (2008). Convention and inventiveness in an occluded academic genre: A case study of retention-promotion-tenure reports. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyon, S. (2011). Evaluation in tenure and promotion letters: Constructing faculty as communicators, stars and workers. Applied Linguistics, 32, 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2015). Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. Retrieved July 22, 2015, from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html

  • Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Folse, D. B., & Davdioff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Art no MR000016. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.

  • Johns, A. M. (2013). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 6–30). Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, A., & Suárez, L. (2009). Academic book reviews in English and Spanish: Comments and rhetorical structure. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 161–178). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Motta Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and book reviews: A study of text and disciplinary cultures. In I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J. C. Palmer, & J. F. Coll (Eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes (pp. 29–58). Castelló de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 132–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology. Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (n.d.). NSF proposal and award process. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/116169/public/nsf_proposal_and_award_process.pdf

  • Nature. (2006, December). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

  • Nodoushan, M. A. S., & Montazeran, H. (2012). The book review genre: A structural move analysis. International Journal of Language Studies, 6, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nygaard, L. P. (2015b). Writing for scholars. A practical guide to making sense & being heard (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palgrave Macmillan. (n.d.). Reviewer guidelines. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of English for specific purposes. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Ravelli, L., & Tuckwell, K. (2012a). Change and stability: Examining the macrostructures of doctoral theses in the visual and performing arts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 332–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Ravelli, L., Nicholson, S., & Tuckwell, K. (2012b). Doctoral writing in the visual and performing arts: Two ends of a continuum. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 989–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., Ravelli, L., Tuckwell, K., & Nicholson, S. (2014). Genre in the creative-practice doctoral thesis: Diversity and unity. In G. Garzone & C. Ilie (Eds.), Evolving genres and genre theory: Specialised communication across contexts and media (pp. 89–106). Boca Raton, FA: Brown Walker Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravelli, L., Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2014). Doctoral writing in the creative and performing arts. Faringdon, UK: Libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravelli, L., Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tuckwell, K. (2013). Extending the notion of text: The creative arts doctoral thesis. Visual Communication, 12, 395–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (2003). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1–13). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Councils UK. (2014). Peer review framework. Retrieved from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/peerreview/

  • Rottier, B., Ripmeester, N., & Bush, A. (2011). Separated by a common translation? How the British and the Dutch communicate. Pediatric Pulmonology, 46, 409–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samraj, B. (2016a). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorisation. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sense about Science. (2009). Peer review survey 2009: Full report. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/peer-review-survey-2009-preliminary-findings

  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20, 357–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starfield, S. (2016). A life in review: Writing tasks that academics do that we don’t talk about. Doctoral Writing SIG, August 3. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from https://doctoralwriting.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/a-life-in-review-writing-tasks-that-academics-do-that-we-dont-talk-about/

  • Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., & Ravelli, L. (2012). “Why do we have to write?” Practice-based theses in the visual and performing arts and the place of writing. In V. K. Bhatia, C. Berkenkotter, & M. Gotti (Eds.), Insights into academic genres (pp. 169–190). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tardy, C. M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20, 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tardy, C. M. (2011). Genre analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis (pp. 54–68). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2013). Thesis and dissertation writing. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 283–300). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2016). Genre approaches to theses and dissertations. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 379–391). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals. Strategies for getting published. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timofeeva, E. (2008). Review of discourse analysis: An introduction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 265–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book reviews. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 87–104). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, M.-Y. (2011). The genre of grant proposals: Towards a cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2254–2268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twale, D. J. (2013). A faculty guide to succeeding in academe. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universiteit van Amsterdam. (2010). Doctorate regulations of the University of Amsterdam 2010. Amsterdam: Doctorate Board, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varghese, M. (2012). Getting tenure. In R. Kubota & Y. Sun (Eds.), Demystifying career paths after graduate school (pp. 127–139). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community. Results from an international study. Information Services and Use, 28, 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodrow, L. (2014). Writing about quantitative research in applied linguistics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social development of science. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney School of Education & Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Brian Paltridge

Authors
  1. Brian Paltridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paltridge, B. (2017). Peer Review in Academic Settings. In: The Discourse of Peer Review. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-48735-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-48736-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation