In research publications, peer review is an essential step in process of research article (RA) evaluation for publication by independent scientists. Reviewers are obligated to conduct the review objectively and provide with appropriate criticisms supported by proper evidence and adequate comments in confidence. The comments serve the purpose of informing journal editors about article content and the significance of the results. However, in the absence of a succinct and objective frameworks of reviewing and adequate training, peer reviewers are inclined to give general and, at times, non-systematic comments on the RAs under evaluation. To address this issue, a holistic framework and a specific checklist based on the RA genre and the authentic guideline of a scientific journal is proposed in this paper. The framework is expected to give a holistic structure for writing peer reviews and to especially benefit novel reviewers. The checklist mainly consists of the following genre-based moves: research purpose and/or rational in the appropriate contexts of the research fields, experimental and theoretical explanations, significance of outcome/results, and other relevant discussions and perspectives.
[1]
J. Thistlethwaite.
Peer review: purpose, process and publication
,
2012,
The clinical teacher.
[2]
Maite Taboada,et al.
Stages in an online review genre
,
2011
.
[3]
Beverly Derewianka,et al.
Trends and Issues in Genre-Based Approaches
,
2003
.
[4]
David W Grainger,et al.
Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants.
,
2007,
Biomaterials.
[5]
R. Spier.
The history of the peer-review process.
,
2002,
Trends in biotechnology.
[6]
Cornelius Jl,et al.
Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay.
,
2012
.
[7]
Inderjeet Mani,et al.
Improving Our Reviewing Processes
,
2011,
Computational Linguistics.
[8]
Peer review revisited
,
2006
.
[9]
Jeannett Martin.
DESIGN AND PRACTICE: ENACTING FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS
,
2000,
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.