Advertisement

Learning to Do Peer Review

  • Brian Paltridge
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws on an analysis of the survey data and follow-up interviews to explore how the reviewers learned to write their reports. The analysis is based on the questionnaire responses and follow-up interviews which asked about the reviewers’ experience in doing peer reviews, how they had learnt to do them, and the issues they faced in doing the reviews. These issues are also considered in relation to the experience of the reviewers and the language background of the reviewers.

Keywords

Training Mentoring Experience Language background Challenges 

References

  1. Adamson, J. (2012). Mentoring academic journal reviewers: Brokering reviewing knowledge. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamson, J., & Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2015). “I was in their shoes”: Shifting perceptions of editorial roles and responsibilities. Journal of ESBB (English Scholars beyond Borders), 1, 109–142.Google Scholar
  3. Adamson, J., & Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2016). Sustaining reviewing quality: Induction, mentoring, and community. Journal of ESBB (English Scholars Beyond Borders), 2, 29–57.Google Scholar
  4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birner, B. (2013). Introduction to pragmatics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer reviews: Who’s responsible? BMJ, 328, 658–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hewings, M. (2006). English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 47–62.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, B. (2008). Writing a helpful referee’s report. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McPeek, M. A., DeAngelis, D. L., Shaw, R. G., Moore, A. J., Rausher, M. D., Strong, D. R., et al. (2009). The golden rule of reviewing. The American Naturalist, 173(5), E155–E158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paltridge, B. (2013b). Genre and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 347–366). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schneiderhan, E. (2013). Why you gotta be so mean? The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 22. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-You-Gotta-Be-So-Mean-/140469/
  20. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328, 328–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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/
  22. Walbot, V. (2009). Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? Journal of Biology, 8, 24. doi: 10.1186/jbiol25.
  23. 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
  24. Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking, 16, 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Paltridge
    • 1
  1. 1.Sydney School of Education & Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations