The paper titled "Analysis of the Language Used in the Reports of Peer-Review Journals" by Fadi Maher Saleh Al-Khasawneh focuses on examining the discourse structure and language employed in peer-review reports across three disciplines: Applied Linguistics, Accounting, and Sociology. The primary research question centers on identifying the most frequent discourse moves and the positive and negative expressions used in peer-review reports recommending minor revisions, major revisions, or rejections.
The purpose of the study is to provide insights into the genre of peer-review reports by analyzing the discourse moves and the specific language used in these reports. The study aims to uncover patterns that might inform authors about the expectations and standards in academic peer reviews, particularly for research manuscripts submitted by Jordanian Ph.D. candidates in the aforementioned disciplines.
The methodology involves content analysis of a corpus of 43 peer-review reports, categorized by their final recommendations—minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. The corpus was drawn from submissions to international refereed journals between 2016 and 2020. The analysis focused on identifying the discourse moves within the reports and the frequency of specific positive and negative expressions.
The key findings reveal that two discourse moves, "Summarizing Judgment" and "Conclusion and Recommendation," were the most frequently observed across all categories of peer reviews. Positive expressions such as "well," "good," and "original" were commonly used in the reports, while negative expressions like "unclear," "inconsistent," and "poor" were frequently observed. The study also found that peer reviewers focused more on research objectives, questions, and methodology than on the results of the studies.
In conclusion, the study suggests that the presence of positive expressions in peer-review reports is crucial for the acceptance of manuscripts in academic journals. The findings provide valuable insights for researchers aiming to navigate the peer-review process successfully. The study's limitations include the relatively small sample size and the focus on specific academic fields, suggesting that further research with a broader scope is needed to generalize the findings. The paper also recommends exploring the effects of reviewer anonymity on the discourse and language used in peer reviews in future studies.