
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.6439402
Recent developments in scholarly publishing have led to increasing adoption of open peer review (OPR), a set of practices intended to enhance transparency and participation in the peer review process. Despite the centrality of peer review to academic writing and its acknowledged relevance within English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) and EAP, reviewers’ comments remain a largely occluded genre. This study examines published peer review reports from the BMJ Open, a widely recognised journal in the medical field and one of the earliest adopters of fully open peer review. Drawing on a corpus of 109 research articles and their review histories from a full 2024 issue, the analysis focuses on the frequency and nature of language-related comments in reviewers’ reports. Results show that reviewers frequently comment on text organization, word choice, clarity and compliance with ”academic style” norms. These findings support EAP and ERPP research emphasising the linguistic demands placed on authors from different disciplinary backgrounds, and suggest implications for academic writing pedagogy and interdisciplinary collaboration.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
