Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach

Salager‐Meyer, Françoise; Ariza, Marı́a Ángeles Alcaraz; Berbesí, Maryelis Pabón

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.06.003

Cited by 34 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, criticism is of intrinsic significance to the interpersonal aspect of BBRs. Therefore, Arab reviewers should attend to the critical spirit of this genre because science would not advance 'without refutation, criticism, dissension [and] disagreement' (Salager-Meyer et al 2007, 1761.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They provide a forum for the academics of the interdisciplinary community to evaluate their peers' research (Hyland 2000). However, the BR is thought of as an 'intermediate genre with a marginal status' (Felber 2002, 68) due to its limitations as a reference text (Salager-Meyer et al 2007), especially when compared to the research article as an academic genre.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)

Al-Ali

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the rhetorical genre components and the pragmatic evaluation options used to articulate the communicative function of ArBR genre, and find out how these generic and evaluation options contrast with those reported in other languages and cultures. To this end, a corpus of 50 book reviews written by 50 Arab reviewers was collected and analyzed within the rhetorical components developed and applied by Motta-Roth (1998) to English book reviews. The present study drew on Hyland (2000), Gea Valor (2000-2001), Moreno and Suárez (2008a) and Alcaraz-Ariza (2010) in order to examine how the qualities of ArBRs are evaluated and in which terms (i.e., criticism or praise). The results indicated that the Arab reviewers employed additional sub-moves that have not been used by other researchers. Unlike English book reviewers, Arab reviewers try to avoid criticism. Instead, they usually devote most of their book reviews to describe and summarize uncritically although critical appraisal is supposed to be the backbone of this genre. These purposive generic component preferences and evaluation tendencies can be explained with reference to the goal of the academic community and the writing culture that constrain Arab reviewers' academic behavior. I hope that the results of this study will provide graduate students and novice researchers with further awareness of the acceptable generic strategies, the linguistic choices and pragmatic evaluative options that can be used to write an evaluation of a piece of research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)

Al-Ali

2022

PRAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Myers () described and analyzed the use of politeness strategies in published articles and discussed the face threats raised when interactions between scientists are visible to the research community (e.g., citing and praising or criticizing previous work). Salager‐Meyer, Alcaraz Ariza, and Pabón Berbesí () analyzed hedging in book reviews and found that hedged criticisms are more frequent than unhedged criticisms.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review

Nobarany

Booth

2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly peer review is a complex collaborative activity that is increasingly supported by web-based systems. Yet little is known about how reviewers and authors interact in such environments, how criticisms are conveyed, or how the systems may affect the interactions and use of language of reviewers and authors. We looked at one aspect of the interactions between reviewers and authors, the use of politeness in reviewers' comments. Drawing on Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, we analyzed how politeness strategies were employed by reviewers to mitigate their criticisms in an open peer review process of a special track of a Human-Computer Interaction conference. We found evidence of frequent use of politeness strategies and that open peer review processes hold unique challenges and opportunities for using politeness strategies. Our findings revealed that less experienced researchers tended to express unmitigated criticism more often than did experienced researchers, and that reviewers tended to use more positive politeness strategies (e.g., compliments) toward less experienced authors. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for research communities, and the design of peer reviewing processes and the information systems that support them.

show abstract

“… 7 There is some reason to suspect these patterns may be peculiar to academic English (see Salager-Meyer et al 2007 ; Salager-Meyer et al 2003 , and Hyland and Salager-Meyer 2008 ). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intuition-Talk: Virus or Virtue?

Andow

2017

Philosophia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The word ‘intuition’ is used frequently both in philosophy and in discussions about philosophical methods. It has been argued that this intuition-talk makes no (clear) semantic contribution and that intuition-talk is thus a bad habit that ought to be abandoned. I urge caution in making this inference. There are many pragmatic roles intuition-talk might play. Moreover, according to one plausible story (for which there is some empirical support), there is reason to think intuition-talk is actually a good habit for philosophers to have.

show abstract

Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation in medical book reviews: A diachronic approach

Cited by 34 publications

References 16 publications

A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)

A genre-pragmatic analysis of Arabic academic book reviews (ArBRs)

Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review

Intuition-Talk: Virus or Virtue?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About