English for research publication purposes: The case of scholarly peer review comments
This study was an attempt to investigate the English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) needs of Iranian non-native speakers of English (NNSE) researchers. To this end, a questionnaire, semi-structured interview, and a corpus of the referees’ comments were used. The corpus comprised 621 comments drawn from 78 reviews on 45 full-length manuscripts from three broad disciplinary groups, i.e. engineering, science, and humanities. The results of corpus analysis suggest that, regardless of discipline, Iranian NNSE researchers, as off-network researchers, seem to have more problems with the use of language than with technical contents when writing a scientific manuscript. Moreover, the results of corpus analysis show that coping with syntactic and lexical use of English was much more problematic than discourse and rhetoric. Whereas science researchers believed in the primacy of lexis and syntax over discourse and rhetoric due to the existence of some definite moves in their papers, humanities researchers stressed the significance of knowing the moves of different sections of an article. The paper ends with some pedagogical implications for different disciplinary groups.
Este artículo analiza las necesidades linguísticas de investigadores iraníes que utilizan la lengua inglesa para la publicación de los resultados de su investigación. El análisis está fundamentado en datos recogidos mediante un cuestionario, entrevistas semi-estructuradas y un corpus de comentarios de revisores. El corpus utilizado está formado por 621 comentarios extraidos de 78 revisiones de 45 manuscritos de tres grandes áreas disciplinares (i.e. ingeniería, ciencias y humanidades). Los resultados del análisis del corpus sugieren que, independientemente de la disciplina a la que pertenecen, los investigadores iraníes tienen a tener problemas relacionados con el uso de la lengua y no tanto con los contenidos que plasman en sus manuscritos. Asimismo, los resultados del análisis del corpus muestran que la sintaxis y el léxico son más problemáticos para ellos que los aspectos de discurso y la retórica. Mientras que los investigadores de las disciplinas científicas creen que la sintaxis y el léxico son más importantes que el discurso y la retórica de los textos, ya que existen patrones discursivos estandarizados. Los investigadores en las disciplinas de humanidades destacan la importancia de conocer los patrones discursivos estandarizados en las dsitntas secciones de los artículos para revistas. A la luz de los resultados, el artículo valoras varias implicaciones pedagógicas para los distintos grupos disciplinares.
Bibliographic data
Translated title: | El inglés y la publicación de resultados científicos: un estudio de caso de los comentarios de los revisores |
---|---|
Journal Title: | Ibérica |
First author: | Javad Zare |
Other Authors: | Vahid Mahmoudi-Gahrouei; Saeed Ketabi; Zahra Keivanloo-Shahrestanaki |
Palabras clave: | |
Traslated Keywords: | |
Language: | English |
Get full text: | http://aelfe.org/documents/32_07_IBERICA.pdf |
Resource type: | Journal Article |
Source: | Ibérica; Vol 32, (Year 2016). |
Publisher: | Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos |
Usage rights: | Reconocimiento - NoComercial (by-nc) |
Knowledge areas / Categories: | Social Sciences/Humanities --> Linguistics Social Sciences/Humanities --> Language --AMP-- Linguistics |
Statistical data
- Views
- Consultations
- Citation style
- Share
- Export record
- Favourites
Bibliometric data
WOS
Bibliography: | Ammon, U. (2007). “Global scientific communication: Open questions and policy suggestions” in U. Ammon & A.Carli (eds.), Linguistic Inequality in Scientific Communication Today. AILA Review 20, 123-133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belcher, D. D. (2007). “Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world”. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 1-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 Creswell, J. W. & V. L. Plano Clark (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Flowerdew, J. (2001). “Attitudes of journal editors toward nonnative speaker contributions”. TESOL Quarterly 35: 121-150. Flowerdew, J. (2013). “Some thoughts on English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) and related issues”. Language Teaching 46: 1-13. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000523 Fortanet, I. (2008). “Evaluative language in peer review referee reports”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.004 Gosden, H. (1995). “Success in research article writing: A social-constructionist perspective”. English for Specific Purposes 14: 37-57. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)00022-6. Gosden, H. (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”. Ibérica 3: 3-17. Gosden, H. (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: 87-101. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00037-1. Gupta, P., G. Kaur, B. Sharma, D. Shah & P. Choudhury (2006). “What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: Analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection”. Indian Pediatrics 43: 479-489. Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Kourilová, M. (1996). “Interactive functions of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by non-native users of English”. UNESCO ALSED-LSP Newsletter 19: 4-21. Lillis, T. & M. J. Curry (2006). “Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts”. Written Communication 23: 3-35. doi: 10.1177/0741088305283754 Lillis, T. & M. J. Curry (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. New York: Routledge. Lillis, T. & M. J. Curry (2015). “The politics of English, language and uptake. The case of international academic journal article reviews”. AILA Review 28: 127-150. doi: 10.1075/aila.28.06lil McKay, S. L. (2003). “Reflections on being a gatekeeper” in C.P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (eds.), Writing for Scholarly Publication: Behind the Scenes in Language Education, 91-102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mišak, A., M. Marušić & A. Marušić (2005). “Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: Experience from a small scientific journal”. Journal of Second Language Writing 14: 122-131. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.001 Mungra, P. & P. Webber (2010). “Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments”. English for Specific Purposes 29: 43-53. Sionis, C. (1995). “Communication strategies in the writing of scientific research articles by non-native users of English”. English for Specific Purposes 14: 99-113. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002 Swales, J. M. (1987). “Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper”. TESOL Quarterly 21: 41-68. doi: 10.2307/3586354 Swales, J. (1996). “Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter” in E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues, 45-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tahririan, M. H. & E. Sadri (2013). “Peer reviewers’ comments on research articles submitted by Iranian researchers”. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 5: 107-123. Van Dalen, H. P. & K. Henkens (2012). “Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63: 1282-1293. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1983205 van Parijs, P. (2007). “Tackling the Anglophones’ free ride: Fair linguistic cooperation with a global lingua franca” in A. Carli & U. Ammon (eds.), Linguistic Inequality in Scientific Communication Today. AILA Review 20, 72-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. |
---|