CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Writing and Publishing

“This work is antithetical to the spirit of research”: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews

Open access
Hyland, Ken, Jiang, Feng (Kevin)·2020·Journal of English for Academic Purposes
DOI 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unprofessional reviews can impact productivity and cause emotional distress, particularly for early-career researchers and those from underrepresented groups.

    “Furthermore, unprofessional reviews can impact productivity and cause emotional distress, particularly for early-career researchers and those from underrepresented groups (Silbiger and Stubler, 2019; Hyland and Jiang, 2020).”

    From The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors (2025) · cites this paper as Hyland and Jiang, 2020

    In “Comment and criticism in peer reviews” (pp. 4–5), the paper says harsh reviews can be demoralizing, exacerbate negative feelings, and discourage first-time writers from revising and resubmitting. This supports emotional distress and a possible effect on publication activity, especially for novices. It does not establish an effect on productivity more broadly or identify researchers from underrepresented groups as particularly affected. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). 'Tough love and tears': learning doctoral writing in the sciences, Higher Education Research & Development , 31 (4), 435-447.
  2. APA (2017) Summary report of journal operations . https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/2016-statistics.pdf
  3. Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 , 1-22.
  4. Cameron, J., Nairn, K., & Higgins, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing: reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education , 33 (2), 269-284.
  5. Coniam, D. (2012). Exploring reviewer reactions to manuscripts submitted to academic journals. System , 40 (4), 544-553.
  6. Dong, J., & Jiang, F. (2019). Construing Evaluation Through Patterns: Registerspecific Variations of the Introductory it Pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics , 39 (1), 32-56.
  7. Falkenberg, L. J., & Soranno, P. A. (2018). Reviewing Reviews: An Evaluation of Peer Reviews of Journal Article Submissions. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin , 27 (1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.10217 · DOI
  8. Fortanet, I. (2008), Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. English for Academic purposes , 7(1), 27-37.
  9. 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.
  10. Habibie, P., & Hyland, K. (2019). Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers . Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (Fourth Edition). London: Routledge.
  12. Hanauer, D., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language. Data From Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28 (4), 403-416.
  13. 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 (3), 247-274.
  14. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies , 7 (2), 173-192.
  15. Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge . Oxford applied linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Hyland, K., & Giuliana, D. (Eds.). (2009). Academic Evaluation: Review genres in university settings . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and issues . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Hwang, K. (2005) The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production. A case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication , 26 (4), 390-427.
  19. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S. and Davidoff, F. (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews. Issue 2 .
  20. Jiang, F. K., & Wang, F. (2018). 'This is because … ': Authorial practice of (un)attending this in academic prose across disciplines. Australian Journal of Linguistics , 38 (2), 162-182.
  21. Kourilova, M. (1996). Interactive function of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by NN users of English. UNESCO-ALSED LSP Newsletter , 19 (1): 4-21.
  22. Mertkan, S. (2016). From a doctoral dissertation to journal articles. In C. Sugrue & S. Mertkan (Eds.), Publishing in the academic world: Passion, purpose and possible futures (pp. 136-149). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  23. Merton, R. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R. Merton (ed.) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Mungra, P. &Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes . 29, 43-53.
  25. Nature (2018). Editorial criteria and processes . https://www.nature.com/nature/forauthors/editorial-criteria-and-processes
  26. Noble WS (2017) Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLoS Computer Biology 13 (10): e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730 · DOI
  27. Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. C. (2011). Writing for publication in nursing . (2nd ed.). New York: Springer
  28. O'keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use (1 st ed.). London, New York: Routledge.
  29. Paltridge, B. (2015). Referees' comments on submissions to peer-reviewed journals: when is a suggestion not a suggestion? Studies in Higher Education , 40 (1), 106-122.
  30. Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  31. Prechelt, L., Graziotin, D. & Méndez Fernández, D. (2017) A Community's Perspective on the Status and Future of Peer Review in Software Engineering. Information and Software Technology https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07196.pdf · arXiv
  32. Publishing Research Consortium (2016) Peer review survey 2015 . Mark Ware Consulting
  33. Reller, T. (2016). Elsevier publishing - a look at the numbers, and more. Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-publishing-a-look-at-the-numbers-andmore
  34. Rigby,J., D. Cox, K. Julian (2018) Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper's revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation. Scientometrics. Volume 114, 3, pp 1087-1105
  35. Ross, J.S., Gross, C.P., Desai, M.M., Hong, Y., Grant, A.O., Daniels, S.R. (2006) . Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295, 1675 -1680 .
  36. Sciullo, N. & Duncan, M. (2019). Professionalizing Peer Review Suggestions for a More Ethical and Pedagogical Review Process. Journal of Scholarly Publishing . 50 (4).
  37. Shirey, M. (2013). Building scholarly writing capacity in the doctor of nursing practice program. Journal of Professional Nursing , 29 (3): 137-147.
  38. Smith R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 99 (4), 178-182.
  39. Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic Writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  40. Tardy, C. (2019). We are all reviewer 2: a window into the secret world of peer review. In Habibe, P. & Hyland, K. (eds). Novice writers and scholarly publication. London: Palgrave. pp 271-290
  41. Taylor & Francis (2015). Peer review in 2015: A global view. A white paper . London: Taylor & Francis
  42. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory™ (57th edition) 2019. Proquest.
  43. Wallwork, A. (2016). English for Writing Research Papers . Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  44. Wilcox, C. (2019). Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful. Science , 366 (6472): 1433.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Jiang, Feng (Kevin)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
46
Pages
100867
ISSN
1475-1585 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100867
OpenAlex
W3012487136
Cited by
66
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
FWCI
86.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of English for Academic Purposes (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
peer review, scholarly publishing, author experience, stance markers, formative feedback, high-impact journals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review