We analysed the editorial process of the four articles authored by junior researchers published in the special issue The peer review process as an opportunity for learning. Our aims were to study the unfolding of the main critiques and suggestions made by reviewers in the different review rounds, as well as to explore how both authors and reviewers experienced and valued the review process. Data sources include all review reports and letters where the authors explained the changes made, and questionnaires completed by all the authors and some reviewers. The most commonly identified critiques in the reports were related to content selection and elaboration (coherence and relevance), the own author's voice (critical positioning and caution) and attention to the reader (precision and consistency in terms and concepts, methodological clarity, writing style, legibility and formal adequacy). All four authors stated that being part of this process was rewarding and educational, highlighting the development of academic writing skills. Some reviewers emphasized the importance of reading other reviewers' reports. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of providing junior researchers with resources that support them in communicating their research to the academic community.Resumen: Analizamos el proceso editorial de los cuatro artículos de investigadoras noveles del número especial La evaluación por pares como oportunidad para el aprendizaje. Nuestros objetivos eran estudiar la evolución de las principales críticas y sugerencias de los revisores en las sucesivas rondas y explorar cómo vivieron y valoraron el proceso de revisión autoras y revisores. El corpus se compone de todos los informes de evaluación y relatorios de cambio y de cuestionarios respondidos por todas las autoras y algunos revisores. Las objeciones recurrentes en los informes versaron sobre la selección y articulación del English version: pp. 851-875 / Versión en español: pp. 876-900 References / Referencias: pp. 900-901 Translated from Spanish / Traducción del español: Jennifer Martin contenido (coherencia y relevancia), la voz del autor (posicionamiento crítico y cautela) y la atención al lector (precisión y consistencia terminológica y conceptual, explicitación metodológica, redacción, legibilidad y adecuación formal). Todas las autoras valoraron la experiencia como muy satisfactoria y formativa, destacando el aprendizaje de códigos de la escritura científica. Varios revisores apreciaron la oportunidad de leer los informes de otros revisores. Concluimos abriendo el debate sobre la conveniencia de proveer recursos que auxilien al investigador novel a difundir sus investigaciones en la comunidad científica.
Developmental studies on humor have historically approached a limited age range – from birth until early adolescence – and have mostly considered humor interpretation and the production of situational and verbal humor. Focusing on cartooning, a highly demanding cognitive and communication activity, in this paper we aim to provide empirical data drawn from a larger age span than usual – 10 to 18 years old – to better understand what adolescents find humorous and how they create humor. Our corpus comes from nine workshops of cartoon production and interpretation conducted between 2015 and 2018, in which a total of 63 girls and 72 boys participated. Based on a fine-grained cognitive and communication analysis, we distinguished six different profiles of texts depending on: whether and how a fictional situation (i.e. a humorous incongruity) was built, its relation to the referenced situation addressed (topic), and the author’s motivation. Simple Correspondence Analyses enabled us to identify that these texts varied according to the adolescents’ age and the cartoon’s format (single panel or strip). Greater cognitive sophistication was evidenced in single panel cartoons and among middle and late adolescents, who also showed a concern for social issues. Some gender variations were found.
The present study provides a systematic analysis of 119 satirical cartoons on Brexit, published by European and non-European artists between 23 May and 30 June 2016. Particular attention is paid to the cartoonists’ use of ‘metaphor scenarios’ (Musolff, 2017) and their role in framing the causes and consequences of Brexit. Our analysis yielded the following key findings: (1) Most cartoons take a generic stance against or in favour of Brexit, without directly engaging with specific arguments. (2) Several Remain and Leave cartoons engage with the same scenarios, turning them against each other through the rhetorical strategy known as trumping. (3) Personification is far more frequently used to depict the UK than the EU; this may be due to the greater difficulty of representing the EU through one single character. (4) In most Remain cartoons, metaphor scenarios point towards extreme and irreversible outcomes for the UK, thus mirroring the hyperbolic rhetoric used by Leave supporters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.