“This work is antithetical to the spirit of research”: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews

Aitchison, 2012, ‘Tough love and tears’: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences, Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 435, 10.1080/07294360.2011.559195

Anthony, 2018

Badenhorst, 2015, Beyond deficit: Graduate student research-writing pedagogies, Teaching in Higher Education, 20, 1, 10.1080/13562517.2014.945160

Belcher, 2007, Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1, 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001

Cameron, 2009, Demystifying academic writing: Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33, 269, 10.1080/03098260902734943

Clarivate Analytics

Coniam, 2012, Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals, System, 40, 544, 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.002

Davidoff, 2004, Improving peer reviews: Who’s responsible?, BMJ, 328, 658, 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.657

Dong, 2019, Construing evaluation through patterns: Register-specific variations of the introductory it pattern, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39, 32, 10.1080/07268602.2019.1542932

Falkenberg, 2018, Reviewing reviews: An evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions, Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 27, 1, 10.1002/lob.10217

Ferguson, 2011, English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes, World Englishes, 30, 41, 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01656.x

Fortanet, 2008, Evaluative language in peer review referee reports, English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27, 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004

Gosden, 2003, Why not give us the full story? Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87, 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1

Grabowski, 2015, Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven description, English for Specific Purposes, 38, 23, 10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.004

Habibie, 2019

Halliday, 2014

Hanauer, 2011, Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language. Data from Mexican scientists, Written Communication, 28, 403, 10.1177/0741088311420056

Hewings, 2004, An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 247, 10.1558/japl.2004.1.3.247

Hwang, 2005, The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production. A case study of Korean science and technology, Science Communication, 26, 390, 10.1177/1075547005275428

Hyland, 2005

Hyland, 2005, Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse, Discourse Studies, 7, 173, 10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, 2015

2009

2019

Hyland, 2016, Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance, Written Communication, 33, 251, 10.1177/0741088316650399

Jefferson, 2007, Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews

Jiang, 2018, ‘This is because … ’: Authorial practice of (un)attending this in academic prose across disciplines, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38, 162, 10.1080/07268602.2018.1400499

Kourilova, 1996, Interactive function of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by NN users of English, Unesco ALSED-LSP Newsletter, 19, 4

Kumar, 2011

Kwan, 2013, Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond, Studies in Higher Education, 38, 207, 10.1080/03075079.2011.576755

Leech, 2001

Martin, 2005

Mertkan, 2016, From a doctoral dissertation to journal articles, 136

Merton, 1973, The normative structure of science

Mulligan, 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, 10.1002/asi.22798

Mungra, 2010, Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments, English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43, 10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002

Mur Dueñas, 2012, Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles, Iberica, 24, 139

Nature

Noble, 2017, Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers, PLoS Computational Biology, 13, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730

Oermann, 2011

O’keeffe, 2011

Paltridge, 2015, Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion?, Studies in Higher Education, 40, 106, 10.1080/03075079.2013.818641

Paltridge, 2017

Prechelt, 2017

2016

Reller, 2016

Rigby, 2018, Journal peer review: A bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation, Scientometrics, 114, 1087, 10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5

Sciullo, 2019, Professionalizing peer review suggestions for a more ethical and pedagogical review process, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50, 10.3138/jsp.50.4.02

Scott, 2006

Shirey, 2013, Building scholarly writing capacity in the doctor of nursing practice program, Journal of Professional Nursing, 29, 137, 10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.04.019

Smith, 2006, Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178, 10.1177/014107680609900414

Swales, 1996, Occluded genres in the academy, 45

Tardy, 2019, We are all reviewer 2: A window into the secret world of peer review, 271

Taylor, 2015

2019

Wallwork, 2016

Wilcox, 2019, Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, Science, 366, 1433, 10.1126/science.366.6472.1433