A corpus study of the term evidence in open peer reviews to research articles in the British Medical Journal

  1. García-Ostbye, Ingrid 1
  2. Pennock-Speck, Barry 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Zeitschrift:
Research in Corpus Linguistics (RiCL)

ISSN: 2243-4712

Datum der Publikation: 2022

Ausgabe: 10

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 134-155

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.32714/RICL.10.01.07 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Research in Corpus Linguistics (RiCL)

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

The linguistic study of peer-review discourse has focused principally on pre-publication occluded referee reports. However, there are few studies on post-publication open peer reviews of research articles. To address this imbalance, we analyse a type of open peer review, Online Rapid Responses (ORRs) to articles, in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which is the leading medical e-journal. Using a corpus-based approach, we focus on the term evidence owing to its importance in scientific discourse. We compiled an ad-hoc corpus of 875 ORRs (260,651 tokens) and analysed it using Wordsmith Tools 6 to ascertain the frequency of evidence. We then compared its frequency in our corpus with the British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the COCA academic subcorpus, the Cambridge Academic English Corpus (CAEC) and the sub-corpus of reviews in the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB-C). We also performed a keyness analysis of our corpora to ascertain the position of evidence and obtained the contexts in which it appears. Our analysis reveals that evidence is more frequent in our corpus of ORRs than in general and academic corpora, which highlights its importance in the evaluation of research. Our exploration of its contexts of use show that it reflects the concern of the medical academy for evidence appraisal in state-of-the art medicine.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Astudillo, César, Karem Squadrito, Germán Varas, Carlos González and Omar Sabaj. 2016. Polarity of comments and internal consistency in peer review reports on scientific research articles. Acta Bioethica 22/1: 119–125.
  • Belcher, Diane D. 2007. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing 16/1: 1–22.
  • Berkenkotter, Carol and Thomas N. Huckin. 1999. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Bornmann, Lutz and Hans‐Dieter Daniel. 2008. Selecting manuscripts for a high‐impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59/11: 1841–1852.
  • Chen, Qi and Guang C. Ge. 2007. A corpus-based lexical study on frequency and distribution of Coxhead’s AWL word families in medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes 26/4: 502–514.
  • Coniam, David. 2012. Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System 40/1: 1–28.
  • Falk Delgado, Alberto, Gregori Garretson and Anna Falk Delgado. 2019. The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014–2017: An observational study. Scientometrics 120/3: 1225–1235.
  • Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada. 2008a. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7/1: 27–37.
  • Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada. 2008b. Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In Sally Burgess and Pedro Martín-Martín eds. English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 19–38.
  • Garcia-Ostbye, Ingrid K. 2018. Electronic Responses from the Online British Medical Journal: A Case Study in Genre Analysis. Beau Bassin: Editorial Académica Española.
  • Gosden, Hugh. 2001. ‘Thank you for your critical comments and helpful suggestions’: Compliance and conflict in authors’ replies to referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Iberica 3: 3–17.
  • Gosden, Hugh. 2002. Thematic content in peer reviews of scientific papers. Seminarios de Lingüística 5: 56–75.
  • Gosden, Hugh. 2003. ‘Why not give us the full story?’ Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. English for Specific Purposes 22/1: 87–101.
  • Hames, Irene. 2012. Peer review in a rapidly changing landscape. In Robert Campbell, Ed Pentz and Ian Borthwick eds. Academic and Professional Publishing. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing, 15–52.
  • Hewings, Martin. 2004. An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1/3: 247–274.
  • Hodonu-Wusu, James O. 2018. Open science: A review on open peer review literature. Library Philosophy and Practice: 1–19. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1874/
  • Hsu, Wenhua. 2013. Bridging the vocabulary gap for EFL medical undergraduates: The establishment of a medical word list. Language Teaching Research 17/4: 454–484.
  • Husserl, Edmund. 1982. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and a Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. The Hague: Nijoff.
  • Hyland, Ken. 2005. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16/4: 363–377.
  • Hyland, Ken. 2015. Academic Publishing: Issues in the Challenges in the Construction of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hyland, Ken and Hang Zou. 2020. Managing evaluation: Criticism in two academic review genres. English for Specific Purposes 60: 98–112.
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2015. Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-review Process. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html (9 July, 2021.)
  • Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý and Vít Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1/1: 7–36.
  • Kourilovà, Magda. 1996. Interactive functions of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by non-native users of English. UNESCO ALSED-LSP Newsletter 19/1: 4–21.
  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Martínez, Iliana A., Silvia C. Beck and Carolina B. Panza. 2009. Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes 28/3:183–198.
  • Mulligan, Adrian, Louise Hall and Ellen Raphael. 2012. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64/1: 132–161.
  • Mungra, Philippa and Pauline Webber. 2010. Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes 29/1: 43–53.
  • Nasr, Nancy. 2021. Overcoming the discourse of science mistrust: How science education can be used to develop competent consumers and communicators of science information. Cultural Studies of Science Education 16/2: 345–356.
  • Okamura, Akiko and Phillip Shaw. 2000. Lexical phrases, culture and subculture in transactional letter writing. English for Specific Purposes 19/1: 1–15.
  • Paltridge, Brian. 2017. The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Räisänen, Christine. 1999. The Conference Forum as a System of Genres. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
  • Rogers, James R., Hollis Mills, Lisa V. Grossman, Andrew Goldstein and Chunhua Weng. 2020. Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 27/3: 449–456.
  • Sackett, David L., William M. C. Rosenberg, John A. Muir Gray, R. Brian Haynes and W. Scott Richardson. 1996. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312: 71–72.
  • Salagar-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13: 149–170.
  • Samraj, Betty. 2016. Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes 42: 76–88.
  • Samraj, Betty. 2021. Variation in interpersonal relations in manuscript reviews with different recommendations. English for Specific Purposes 62: 70–83.
  • Scott, Michael. 2012. WordSmith Tools 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
  • Swales, John M. 1996. Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In EijaVentola and Anna Mauranen eds. Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–58.
  • Thurner, Stefan and Rudolf Hanel. 2010. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average. European Physical Journal 84/4: 707–711.
  • Travis, G. David and Harry M. Collins. 1991. New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16/3: 322–341.
  • Veenstra, Jay and Yoko Sato. 2018. Creating an institution-specific science and engineering academic word list for university students. Journal of Asia 15/1: 148–166.
  • Vongpumivitch, Viphavee, Ju-yu Huang and Yu-Chia Chang. 2009. Frequency analysis of the words in the Academic Word List (AWL) and non-AWL content words in applied linguistics research papers. English for Specific Purposes 28/1: 33–41.
  • Wang, Jing, Liang Shao-lan and Guan-Chun Ge. 2008. Establishment of a medical academic word list. English for Specific Purposes 27/4: 442–458.
  • Ward, Jeremy. 2009. A basic engineering English word list for less proficient foundation engineering undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes 28/3: 170–182.
  • Williams, Michael, Kevin Mullane and Michael J. Curtis. 2017. Addressing reproducibility: Peer review, impact factors, checklists, guidelines, and reproducibility initiatives. In Michael Williams, Kevin Mullane and Michael J. Curtis eds. Research in the Biomedical Sciences, Transparent and Reproducible. San Francisco: Elsevier Academic Press, 197–306.
  • Woods, Peter. 2006. Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. London: Longman.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet