Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation and Reviewers’ Reports

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Discourse of Peer Review

  • 900 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines evaluative language used by the reviewers as they made comments on the papers they were asked to review. It first, however, provides an overview of previous studies that have examined evaluative language in reviewers’ reports. It then outlines the approaches to analysis that will be employed in the chapter, that is, a corpus-informed discourse analysis which focuses on the stance taken by reviewers in their reports. The chapter also examines through an analysis of transitivity patterns in the texts what reviewers value in the reports and the roles they assume as they do this.

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

  • Aull, L. (2015). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Biber, D. (2006). University language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (Eds.). (2007). Discourse on the move. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, P. (2016). EFL doctoral students’ conceptions of authorial stance in academic research writing: An exploratory study. RELC Journal, 47, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, L. (2011). Corpus-based discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 174–187). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortanet Gomez, I. (2008). Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In S. Burgess & P. M. Martin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 19–38). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortanet-Gomez, I., & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2010). Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. In R. 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 

  • 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 

  • Gross, N., & Chesley, P. (2012). Hedging, stance and voice on medical research articles. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 85–100). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handford, M. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about specialist genres? In M. McCarthy & A. O’Keeffe (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 255–269). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, N. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory … the theory I present here attempts to full this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as Appraisal: Persuading the positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 51–68). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (2000a). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunston, S., & Thomson, G. (Eds.). (2000b). Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2009a). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2009b). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 110–128). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27, 159–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2011a). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 21, 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2011b). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2012a). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2012b). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134–150). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanić, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kandil, M., & Belcher, D. (2011). ESP and corpus-informed critical discourse analysis: Understanding the power of genres of power. In D. Belcher, A. M. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 252–270). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khamkhien, A. (2014). Linguistic features of evaluative stance: Findings from research article discussions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 54–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsantoni, D. (2004). Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsantoni, D. (2007). Developing academic literacies: Understanding disciplinary communities’ culture and rhetoric. Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-level student writing in political theory and economics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, USA. Retrieved from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/93976

  • Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31, 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. Y. E. (2008). Corpora and discourse analysis: New ways of doing old things. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 86–128). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. 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, 211–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (2003). Tangled webs: Complexities of professional writing. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 103–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, T. M. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”. Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25, 353–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thomson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practice. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across disciplines. Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (2015). Language, identity and communities of practice. In D. Djenar, A. Mahboob, & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication (pp. 15–25). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.

    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., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pho, P. D. (2013). Authorial stance in research articles: Examples from applied linguistics and educational technology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samraj, B. (2016b). Research articles. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 403–415). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starfield, S., Paltridge, B. & McMurtrie, R. (2014). Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: Roles and functions. Paper presentation, AILA congress, Brisbane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., et al. (2015). Understanding the language of evaluation in examiners’ reports on doctoral theses: An APPRAISAL analysis. Linguistics and Education, 31, 130–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 34–48). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 131–149). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, P. (2012). Stance in academic bios. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 69–84). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  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 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 38–53). London: Continuum.

    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). Evaluation and Reviewers’ Reports. In: The Discourse of Peer Review. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_5

  • 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