Peer Reviewing in Applied Linguistics: Reviewers’ Perceptions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate professor, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

2 Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 M.A. in TEFL, Imam Khomeini International University, Ghazvin, Iran

Abstract

Peer review is carried out in academic journal boards in somewhat different ways to serve the purposes of a particular journal. Through the peer review process, reviewers in academic journals scrutinize and deeply analyze the quality of academic works before the publication. As an ‘occluded’ genre (Swales, 1996), getting access to the content of peer reviews in journals is too difficult. To shed light on the process of peer review, we investigated the reviewers’ perceptions and understandings of peer review in Applied Linguistics journals published in Iran. To this end, we developed an open-ended questionnaire and sent out it to the editorial board reviewers of Iranian certified journals active in publishing on different aspects of applied linguistics. Sixteen reviewers participated in the study by filling in the questionnaire and returning it back. The collected data were analyzed through thematic qualitative data. The results of the study indicate that the reviewers are all active agents in reviewing the manuscript and consider both conceptual, methodological, and mechanics of writing. The implications and recommendations are discussed in light of the findings.
 

Keywords

References

Atjonen, P. (2018). Ethics in peer review of academic journal articles as perceived by authors in the educational sciences. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3
Boggs, S. (2009). Paper, peer review, and vested interests [Guest editorial]. IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine, 25(6). https://doi.org/10.1109/MEI.2009.5313703
Bornmann, L., & Mungra, P. (2011). Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing, 37(2), 41-43.
Bunner, C., & Larson, L. E. (2012). Assessing the quality of the peer review process: Author and editorial board member perspectives. American Journal of Infection Control, 40(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.05.012.
Bush, T. (2016). Understanding the peer-review process: Reject, revise, resubmit. In C. Sugrue & S. Mertkan (Eds.), Publishing in the academic world: Passion, purpose and possible futures (pp. 90–99). Routledge.
Chowdhry, A. (2015). Gatekeepers of the academic world: A recipe for good peer review. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 6, 329-330. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S83887.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2014). Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/
Frow, J. (2015). Genre (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Guthrie, J., Parker, L. D., & Dumay, J. (2015). Academic performance, publishing and peer review: Peering into the twilight zone. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2014-1871
Hadi, M. A. (2016). Fake peer-review in research publication: Revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 24(5), 309–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12307
Hames, I. (2012). Peer review in a rapidly changing landscape. In R. Campbell, E. Pentz, & I. Borthwick (Eds.), Academic and professional publishing (pp. 15–52). Chandos Publishing.
Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & Judson, K. C. (2010). Final report: Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
Herbert, W., Marsh, & Ball, S. (1989). The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1989.10806503.
Human Resource Development Quarterly. (2013). Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21176
Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues in the challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Kumar, P., Rafiq, I., & Imam, B. (2011). Negotiation on the assessment of research articles with academic reviewers: Application of peer-review approach of teaching. Higher Education, 62(9), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9390-y
Leopold, S. S. (2014). Editorial: Peer review and the editorial process – A look behind the curtain. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(1-3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x
Mandal, J., Giri, S., & Parija, S. C. (2012). Ethics of editorial and peer review. Trop Parasitol, 2(1), 4-5. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.97231
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(8), 132–161.
Nature. (2006). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535
Nygaard, L. P. (2015). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Qing, F., Lifang, X., & Xiaochuan, L. (2008). Peer-review practice and research for academic journals in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.39.4.417.
Trevino, L. K. (2008). Editor’s comments: Why review? Because reviewing is a professional responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 8–10.
Sarker, S. (2015). Publishing in leading journals: An overview for aspirant authors early in their career. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), A guide to publishing for academics: Inside the publish or perish phenomenon (pp. 191–202). CRC Press.
Samraj, B. (2016b). Research articles. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 403–415). Routledge.
Schuhmann, R. (2008). Editorial: Peer review per physical review. Physical Review Letters, 100(5). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.050001
Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2009). The peer-review and editorial system: Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01106.x.
Sciortino, J. E., & Siemens, D. R. (2013). The editorial process: Peer review. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(7-8). https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1589
Seth, S., & Leopold, M. D. (2014). Editorial peer review and the editorial process – A look behind the curtain. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(8), 178–182.
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(7), 357–358.
Sposato, L. A., Ovbiagele, B., Johnston, S. C., Fisher, M., & Saposnik, G. (2014). Peek behind the curtain: Peer review and editorial decision making at stroke. Annals of Neurology, 76(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24218.
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–58). John Benjamins.
Tan, Z. Y., Cai, N., Zhou, N., & Zhang, S. (2019). On performance of peer review for academic journals: Analysis based on distributed parallel system. IEEE Access, 7. https://doi.org/10.1109/2896978
Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 November 2022
  • Revise Date: 16 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 15 March 2023
  • First Publish Date: 15 March 2023
  • Publish Date: 03 April 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics