Anatomy of an Article: The Peer‐Review Process as Method

Vora, Neha; Boellstorff, Tom

doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01490.x

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have focused on anthropological ethnographies (famously Geertz, 1988;also Wulff, 2016); others document the 'weaving' of theory, field note extracts, reference to previous literature and author presence in texts (e.g. Author, Vora & Boellstorff, 2012). Informed by this research and to enable comparison among our participants' texts, we analysed each text on three levels.…”

Section: Textual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences

Kaufhold

McGrath

2019

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of discipline in shaping writing for publication has been widely acknowledged in EAP research, and a wealth of studies that seek to characterise and differentiate disciplinary writing have been published. However, a conceptualisation of disciplines as clearly demarcated territories may be outdated given the "constantly changing and dynamic […] contemporary university" (Manathunga & Brew, 2014, p.45). In light of these changes, our article interrogates the centrality of discipline in research-based writing, from the academics' perspective. To do so, we adopt Trowler's (2014a) reconceptualization of discipline as an analytical framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven scholars in two social sciences. Interview data was supplemented by an analysis of the participants' researchbased outputs. The results highlight the contested nature of disciplinary affiliation and reveal the range of factors that participants perceive to be "shapers" of writing for publication, beyond discipline: epistemological/methodological, structural and individual. Based on the results, we argue that Trowler's new metaphor of discipline enables us to account for our findings, and conclude with recommendations for EAP writing for publication interventions.

show abstract

Section: Textual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences

Kaufhold

McGrath

2019

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim of the main session was to bring together textual analysis and the insights into the process and 'socio-rhetorical context' (Tardy 2009, 133) that the PhD interviews had provided, together with the MA students' prior experiences of reading and writing. To situate the workshop within the disciplinary and local context we drew on the story metaphor invoked by anthropologists when talking about their writing (Vora and Boellstorff 2012).We began by eliciting students' knowledge of generic features of an MA thesis in anthropology in order to 'sensitis[e] students to […] rhetorical structures that tend to recur in genre-specific texts' (Swales 1990, 213) and to develop a meta-language through which observations could be discussed. Thus, our starting point was the genre knowledge students brought to the workshop (Lea 2004).…”

Section: The Full-day Workhopmentioning

confidence: 99%

English for Specific Purposes and Academic Literacies: eclecticism in academic writing pedagogy

McGrath

Kaufhold

2016

Teaching in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic Literacies and English for Specific Purposes perspectives on the teaching of academic writing tend to be positioned as dichotomous and ideologically incompatible. Nonetheless, recent studies have called for the integration of these two perspectives in the design of writing programmes in order to meet the needs of students in the increasingly diverse and shifting landscape of academia. The aim of the present paper is to reflect on how this theoretical integration could be put into practice. Drawing on the design of a researchbased writing workshop for postgraduate anthropology students, we argue that rather than a 'hybrid' model of writing pedagogy, a theoretically-grounded but eclectic approach is needed in order to respond to students' personal, local, and disciplinary contexts.

show abstract

“…We propose that editorship, in close allegiance with authorship, should pursue value through dialogue. In practice, this should take the shape of a conversation, a practice in which value is constructed in a manuscript through a series of open interactions in which editorial decisions are less unidirectional decisions and more collective obligatory passage points on the route to publication (and reward) (Vora and Boellstorff 2012). A label we all know, for instance Bmajor revisions required^, would become the collective decision of authors, reviewers and editors, only to be followed by the next obligatory passage point Bminor revisions required^, etc.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gatekeepers of Reward: a Pilot Study on the Ethics of Editing and Competing Evaluations of Value

Shaw

Penders

2018

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reward infrastructure in science centres on publication, in which journal editors play a key role. Reward distribution hinges on value assessments performed by editors, who draw from plural value systems to judge manuscripts. This conceptual paper examines the numerous biases and other factors that affect editorial decisions. Hybrid and often conflicting value systems contribute to an infrastructure in which editors manage reward through editorial review, commissioned commentaries and reviews and weighing of peer review judgments. Taken together, these systems and processes push the editor into a role resembling censorship. Editors and authors both experience this phenomenon as an unintended side-effect of the reward infrastructure in science. To work towards a more constructive editor-author relationship, we propose a conversation, an exchange between editor and author in which value is collectively assessed (or constructed) as obligatory passage points in the publishing process are traversed. This paper contributes to the discourse on editorial practices by problematising editorial paradigms in a new way and suggesting solutions to entrenched problems.

show abstract

Anatomy of an Article: The Peer‐Review Process as Method

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences

Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences

English for Specific Purposes and Academic Literacies: eclecticism in academic writing pedagogy

Gatekeepers of Reward: a Pilot Study on the Ethics of Editing and Competing Evaluations of Value

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About