Beyond assessment: A corpus-based study of author engagement in peer reviews

A corpus of 268 reviewers’ reports was collected and analyzed to examine the use of engagement strategies in the feedback provided for submissions by Iranian non-native (L2) writers to 52 international journals in applied linguistics. The findings indicated that reviewers primarily employed directives as a means of engaging with authors across all recommendation categories. These directives were occasionally expressed indirectly or softened with hedges, posing challenges for writers in fully grasping the intended meaning of specific comments. Accept recommendations featured the highest number of directives, with variations in their realizations among different review categories. Additionally, certain engagement markers were infrequent or absent in particular review categories owing to the distinctive nature of the recommendations provided within each category. These findings have pedagogical implications for EAP practitioners, emphasizing the importance of incorporating engagement strategies into the instruction of writing for research and publication purposes. The results are also beneficial for novice and L2 writers in the investigated field by familiarizing them with the linguistic and rhetorical patterns employed by peer reviewers to engage with submitting authors. This familiarity enables them to better interpret reviewers’ comments, provide accurate responses, and consequently enhance their chances of successful publication.