Book contents
- Feedback in Second Language Writing
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Feedback in Second Language Writing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributor Bios
- Acknowledgments
- Author's Preface
- Series Editors’ Preface
- 1 Contexts and Issues in Feedback on L2 Writing
- Section 1: Situating Feedback: Sociocultural Dimensions
- Section 2: Shaping Feedback: Delivery and Focus Dimensions
- Section 3: Negotiating Feedback: Interpersonal and Interactional Dimensions
- Section 4: Engaging with Feedback: Student Participation Dimensions
- Index
- References
Section 3: - Negotiating Feedback: Interpersonal and Interactional Dimensions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2019
Book contents
- Feedback in Second Language Writing
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Feedback in Second Language Writing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributor Bios
- Acknowledgments
- Author's Preface
- Series Editors’ Preface
- 1 Contexts and Issues in Feedback on L2 Writing
- Section 1: Situating Feedback: Sociocultural Dimensions
- Section 2: Shaping Feedback: Delivery and Focus Dimensions
- Section 3: Negotiating Feedback: Interpersonal and Interactional Dimensions
- Section 4: Engaging with Feedback: Student Participation Dimensions
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feedback in Second Language WritingContexts and Issues, pp. 163 - 244Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Allwright, R. (2014). Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloxham, S. & Campbell, L. (2010). Generating dialogue in assessment feedback: Exploring the use of interactive cover sheets. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(3), 291–300.Google Scholar
Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (2012) Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. (2001). Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language classroom. In Candlin, C. & Mercer, N. (Eds.), English Language Teaching in its Social Context. London: Routledge, 122–44.Google Scholar
Bruno, I. & Santos, L. (2010). Written comments as a form of feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(3), 111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzipanagos, S. & Warburton, S. (2009). Feedback as dialogue: Exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 1, 45–59.Google Scholar
Hyland, F & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2019) Second Language Writing (2nd e). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (Ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning. London: Longman, 172–82.Google Scholar
Lee, H. H, Ping, A., & Song, G. (2017). Investigating teacher perceptions of feedback. ELT Journal, 71(1), 60–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyazoe, T. & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185–99.Google Scholar
Nicol, David J. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, E. & Norton, L. (2017). ‘Now that‘s the feedback I want!’: Students’ reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–69Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.) Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
References
Attar, D., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Monaghan, F., Rhys, M., & Sinka, I. (2015). The Effectiveness of Interventions to Support Greater Participation in and More Purposeful Use of Online Forums on Undergraduate English Language Studies Modules. Open University: Scholarship Report Exchange Report.Google Scholar
Belcher, D. (2001). Cyberdiscourse, evolving notions of authorship, and the teaching of writing. In Hewings, M. (Ed.), Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, Papers in Honour of Tony Dudley-Evans. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. & Hewings, A. (2005). Engaging Electronically: Using CMC to develop students’ argumentation skills in Higher Education. Language in Education, 19(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 38–51.Google Scholar
Deeley, S. J. & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463–77.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: An analysis of undergraduate geography essays. In Ravelli, L. and Ellis, R. (Eds.) Academic Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lea, M. R. (2001). Computer conferencing and assessment: New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 163–81.Google Scholar
Light, V., Nesbitt, E., Light, P., & Burns, J. R. (2000) ‘Let’s you and me have a little discussion’: Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29(2), 127–53.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2017). Enhancing feedback in higher education: Students’ attitudes towards online and in-class formative assessment feedback models. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. D. & Pessoa, S. (2017). Scaffolding the writing development of the Argument genre in history: The case of two novice writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, C., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing: A case study. Distance Education, 4(2), 159–74.Google Scholar
Perrotta, C. & Whitlock, D. (2017). Assessment for learning. In: Duval, E., Sharples, M. and Sutherland, R., (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Themes. Cham: Springer, pp. 127–35.Google Scholar
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Martinez Aleman, A. M., Gin, K., Blakeley, B. Gismondi, A., Lewis, J. McCready, A., Zepp, D., and Knight, S. (2016). Social Media in Higher Education, ASHE High. Edu. Rept., 42, 7–128.Google Scholar
Ryan-Atkin, H. (2015). The use of an on-line discussion forum to support collaborative studying practices and argumentation amongst trainee teachers. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (TEAN), 7(1), 25–37.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used By Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sitter, K. C. & Curnew, A. H. (2016). The application of social media in social work community practice. Social Work Education, 35(3), 271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagg, C., Seargeant, P., & Brown, A. (2017). Taking Offence on Social Media: Conviviality and Communication on Facebook. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thorpe, M. (2002). Rethinking learner support: The challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning, 17(2), 105–19.Google Scholar
Tolmie, A. & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers and Education, 34(2), 119–40.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 45–58.Google Scholar
Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability In Practice-Based Learning. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Commentary – computer mediation, PBL, and dialogicality. Distance Education, 23(1), 105–8.Google Scholar
References
Ajjawi, R. & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 252–65.Google Scholar
Austin, A. E. (2009) Cognitive apprenticeship theory and its implications for doctoral education: A case example from a doctoral program in higher and adult education. International Journal for Academic Development, 14, 173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H., East, M. & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 432–45.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H. & East, M. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 79–97.Google Scholar
Blakeslee, A. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 125–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Can, G. & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508–36.Google Scholar
Cargill, M. (2000). Intercultural postgraduate supervision meetings: An exploratory discourse study. Prospect, 15(2), 28–38.Google Scholar
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (2000). The Doctoral Experience: Success and Failure in Graduate School. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2018). Feedback on research writing: New Zealand supervisors’ priorities with an L2 focus. In Carter, S. & Laurs, D. (Eds.), Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors (pp. 102–7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
East, M., Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. (2012). What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9(2). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol9/iss2/7Google Scholar
Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 151–63.Google Scholar
Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 557–70.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212.Google Scholar
Inouye, K. S. & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3Google Scholar
Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 461–70.Google Scholar
Lei, J. & Hu, G. (2015). Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors’ roles. Publications, 3, 27–42.Google Scholar
Li, S. & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in PhD supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 461–70.Google Scholar
Litalien, D. & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 218–31.Google Scholar
Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: ‘Turning the light on a private space’. International Journal of Academic Development, 10, 17–30.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Storch, N. & Thompson, C. (2014). Feedback on writing in the supervision of postgraduate students: Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8, A24–A36.Google Scholar
Odena, O. & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 572–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ombudsman, NSW (2017). Complaints about the Supervision of Post-Graduate Students: A Discussion Paper. Available at: www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/49684/Complaints-about-the-supervision-of-postgraduate-students-Discussion-paper-October-17.pdfGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paré, A. (2010). Making sense of supervision: Deciphering feedback. In Thomson, P. & Walker, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion (pp. 107–15). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paré, A. (2011). Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation. In McAlpine, L. & Amundsen, C. (Eds.), Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators (pp. 59–74). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Starke-Meyering, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences. In McAlpine, L. & Amundsen, C. (Eds.), Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators (pp. 75–95). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stillman-Webb, N. (2015). Writing beliefs and mentoring practices: Advisor perspectives on post/graduate writing in the sciences. In Badenhorst, C. & Guerin, C. (Eds.), Research Literacies and Writing Pedagogies for Masters and Doctoral Writers (pp. 257–76). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Stracke, E. & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 11, 19–32.Google Scholar
Taylor, S., Kiley, M. & Humphrey, R. (2018). A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 239–55.Google Scholar
Wang, T. & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 101–12.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
References
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2018). A Guide to Supervising Non-Native Writers of Theses and Dissertations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2015). Peer reviewers: Recommendations for language improvement in research writing. In Alastrué, R. P. & Pérez-Llantada, C. (Eds.), English as a Scientific and Research Language (pp. 207–30). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 223–43.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. (2004). Writing Genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Esarey, J. (2017). Does peer review identity the best papers? A simulation study of editors, reviewers, and the scientific publication process. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50, 963–9.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 39–52.Google Scholar
Fortanet, I. (2008). Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 27–37.Google Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2008). Strategies for teaching and learning an occluded genre: The RA referee report. In Burgess, S. & Martin, P. M. (Eds.), English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication (pp. 19–38). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fortanet-Gomez, I. & Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. (2010). Interacting with the research article author: Metadiscourse in referee reports. In Lorez-Sanz, R., Mur-Duenas, P. & Latuente-Millan, E. (Eds.), Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Academic Genres (pp. 243–54). Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R. & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2015). Bias and effort in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66, 2010–30.Google Scholar
Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NSSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 123–39.Google Scholar
Groves, T. (2013). Peer reviewer training part I: What do we know about peer review? BMJ training materials. Available at: www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/training-materials [Accessed 8 August 2017].Google Scholar
Guerin, C. (2018). Feedback from journal reviewers: Writing a thesis by publication. In Carter, S. & Laurs, D. (Eds.), Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors (pp. 137–9). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Habibie, P. (2018). To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In Habibie, P. & Hyland, K. (Eds.), Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication: Authors, Mentors, Gatekeepers (pp. 35–52). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hames, I. (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hames, I. (2012). Peer review in a rapidly changing landscape. In Campbell, R., Pentz, E. & Borthwick, I. (Eds.), Academic and Professional Publishing (pp. 15–52). Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M. (2004). An ‘important contribution’ or ‘tiresome reading’? A study of evaluation in peer reviews of journal article submissions. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 247–74.Google Scholar
Hewings, M. (2006). English language standards in academic articles: Attitudes of peer reviewers. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 47–62.Google Scholar
Huang, J. S. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 33–44.Google Scholar
Huisman, J. & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–51.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–92.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27, 159–88.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2011). Projecting an academic identity in some reflective genres. Iberica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 21, 9–30.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic prejudice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016b). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–77.Google Scholar
Ivanić, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M. Folse, D. B. & Davdioff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Art no MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64. 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 127–50.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–59.Google Scholar
Mulligan, A., Hall, L. & Raphael, E. (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, 132–61.Google Scholar
Mungra, P. & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 43–53.Google Scholar
Neaderhiser, S. E. (2016). Hidden in plain sight: Occlusion in pedagogical genres. Composition Forum, 33. Available at: http://compositionforum.com/issue/33/hidden.php [accessed 8 August 2017].Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4( 1), 6–18Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2015). Referees’ comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: When is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 106–22.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2017). The Discourse of Peer Review: Reviewing Submissions to Academic Journals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (2016). Getting Published in Academic Journals: Navigating the Publication Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolama, T., Spychalska, M. & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 308.Google Scholar
Rozycki, W. & Johnson, N. (2013). Non-canonical grammar in Best Paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 157–69.Google Scholar
Sense about Science (2009). Peer review survey 2009: Full report. Available at: www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/peer-review-survey-2009-preliminary-findings [Accessed 9 August 2017].Google Scholar
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–82.Google Scholar
Starfield, S., Paltridge, B., McMurtrie, R., Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Kiley, M. & Fairbairn, H. (2017). Evaluation and instruction in PhD examiners’ reports: How grammatical choices construe examiner roles. Linguistics and Education, 42, 53–64.Google Scholar
Subtirelu, N. (2016). Denying language privilege in academic publishing. Linguistic pulse, Available at: https://linguisticpulse.com/2016/03/28/denying-language-privilege-in-academic-publishing/#more-2148 [28 March 2016]Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20, 7–36.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In Hyland, K. & Guinda, C. Sancho (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres (pp. 34–48). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor & Francis Group (2018). What to expect during peer review. Available at: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/what-to-expect-during-peer-review/ [accessed 3 May 2018].Google Scholar
Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community. Results from an international study. Information Services and Use, 28, 109–12.Google Scholar
Ware, M. & Monkman, M. (2008). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community: An International Study. London: Publishing Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar