“I am now satisfied with all changes ...”: a corpus analysis of self-mentions in transparent peer review reports across review rounds

Abstract

This study explored how interpersonal communication is established between parties involved in transparent peer review reports (TPR). Although traditional peer review is a long-standing practice, TPR is considered an emerging genre because the recent institutional practice of making reports publicly accessible alters the rhetorical context and the reviewer’s authorial visibility compared to traditional ‘hidden’ reviews. In this study, we investigated how reviewers construct their authorial identity in the TPR genre through self-mentions. To this end, we used corpus tools to examine 150 TPRs on the same published articles across three consecutive rounds. The findings show that reviewers employed self-mentions to fulfill a range of rhetorical functions, from highlighting flaws and requesting clarifications to suggesting structural changes, expressing approval, and offering praise. Additionally, the data suggest that reviewers tend to be more critical in the initial review rounds, gradually adopting a more appreciative tone in subsequent rounds. Based on the results of the study, we offer pedagogical implications for reviewer training sessions, exploring how transparency and constructive criticism are conveyed through language, thereby contributing to a healthier discourse in the scientific community. We suggest that analyzing these changes through the lens of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) offers valuable insights into the specialized language and discourse patterns emerging within these contexts.