Abstract
Reviewers play a key role in scholarly publishing, with the image of the peer reviewer often looming large in the process. For newer scholars, the anonymous peer reviewer can be a somewhat mysterious and intimidating figure. This chapter aims to demystify this figure by examining the gatekeeping process through the reviewer’s perspective. I share an overview of the publication process and the reviewer’s role in it, and then delve into issues that junior scholars commonly encounter as they become socialized into publication norms and practices. The chapter includes discussion of common pitfalls in this process for newer writers and offers recommendations, drawing on existing research as well as my personal experiences as a reviewer and journal editor.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing,16, 1–22.
Coniam, D. (2012). Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System, 40, 544–553.
Corbyn, Z. (2008). Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 1847, 17.
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7, 27–37.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing,31, 58–69.
Leki, I. (2003). Tangled webs: Complexities of professional writing. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 103–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2015). The politics of English, language and uptake. The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review,28, 127–150.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London: Springer.
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting published in academic journals: Navigating the publication process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3), 305–310.
Samraj, B. (2016). Discourse structure and variation in manuscript reviews: Implications for genre categorization. English for Specific Purposes,42, 76–88.
Smith, R. (2015). The peer review drugs don’t work. The Times Educational Supplement, May 28. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work.
Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: “Lingua franca” or “Tyrannosaurus rex”? Journal of English for Academic Purposes,3, 247–269.
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,7, 250–263.
Van Lier, L. (2010). Merits and metrics in journal publishing. The Modern Language Journal,94, 657–660.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tardy, C.M. (2019). We Are All Reviewer #2: A Window into the Secret World of Peer Review. In: Habibie, P., Hyland, K. (eds) Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95332-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95333-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)