Referees' comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: when is a suggestion not a suggestion?

Abstract

This paper examines the ways in which reviewers ask for changes to be made to submissions to peer-reviewed journal articles. Ninety-five reviewers' reports were examined. Forty-five of the reviewers also completed a questionnaire which asked about their experience in carrying out peer reviews, how they learnt to write reviews and the challenges they faced in reviewing submissions to peer-reviewed journals. The study found that requests for changes were largely made as directions, suggestions, clarification requests and recommendations. While a good number of these changes were requested directly, a large number of them were not. For authors who are new to the peer-review process, indirect requests of the kind revealed in the study can be difficult to decode. Very often these indirect requests are directions to make very specific changes to a submission and need, it is argued, to be read as such. The findings are especially relevant to beginning researchers as they provide insights into how they can respond to reviewers' reports and, thereby, increase their chances of publication.

Keywords:

• editorial peer review
• academic publishing
• academic writing
• discourse analysis
• English for specific purposes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to the reviewers who agreed to be part of this study and to Betty Samraj who collected the data for the study. Thank you also to Lindy Woodrow, Sue Starfield and Lynne Flowerdew for their advice on earlier drafts of my paper.