‘Why not give us the full story?’: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers

By H. Gosden. 2003

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/34dbe77746730d17f62faab58be65e23369cecec

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Lutz Bornmann
2. Yongyan Li
3. J. Flowerdew
4. David Hanauer
5. Karen Englander
6. A. Paran

In Language and Linguistics

1. Yongyan Li
2. J. Flowerdew
3. Lutz Bornmann
4. David Hanauer
5. Karen Englander
6. A. Paran
7. B. Kwan

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. J. Flowerdew
2. Yongyan Li
3. David Hanauer
4. Karen Englander
5. Lutz Bornmann
6. B. Kwan
7. A. Paran

Citations in the corpus

• Shaping Chinese novice scientists' manuscripts for publication (2007, background): “…language of a manuscript is, for reviewers and editors in the field of science, much less of a concern than commenting on its scientific content (Gosden, 2003; Wood, 2001), a high rejection rate of authors from a non-English-L1 background has been ascribed in at least one set of cases to the…”
• Quantifying the Burden of Writing Research Articles in a Second Language (2011, background): “These differences sometimes render nonnative English speakers’ manuscripts to be considered “poor” or “awkward” when they are reviewed by journal editors (Clavero, 2011; Englander, 2006; Gosden, 2003).”
• Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman's ''Stigma'' tell us? (2008, background): “One might speculate, therefore, that language might be a greater problem for those submitting to non-English-specialist journals (see the following for various perspectives: Benfield & Feak, 2006; Benfield & Howard, 2000; Coates, Sturgeon, Bohannan, & Pasini, 2002; Gosden, 2003).”
• A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: do the editors of a high profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? (2011, background): “When selecting manuscripts for publication in a scientific journal, the referees’ central aims are to help editors to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal and to improve the quality of manuscripts that are accepted for publication (Gosden, 2003).”
• The Non-Anglophone Scholar on the Periphery of Scholarly Publication. (2007, background): “The critical approach, on the other hand, would be to demand more equality of opportunity for EAL writers, by, for example, alerting EAL writers to the difficulties and disadvantage of their community (Ammon 2001; Flowerdew in press; Hayter 2004; Kirkman 1996) and the overall hegemony of English (Ca”