Balancing caution and conviction in author response letters

Abstract Responding to reviewer feedback often poses a rhetorical challenge for authors, who must balance advocating for their work with preserving collegiality and openness to critique. These responses, typically crafted as author response letters (ARLs), play a crucial role in this negotiation, yet little is known about how authors from different disciplines use hedges and boosters in these texts, particularly in double-blind review contexts. This study analyzes hedging and boosting in 100 ARLs from applied linguistics and engineering, focusing on how authors balance caution and conviction when responding to reviewer comments. By examining both lexical realizations (e.g., might, clearly) and their rhetorical functions (e.g., cautious acceptance or claim reinforcement), the study reveals clear disciplinary distinctions. Applied linguistics authors tend to hedge more frequently, reflecting the interpretive nature of their field, whereas engineering authors favor boosters to assert claims and counter criticism. These findings underscore the role of disciplinary conventions in shaping rebuttal practices and offer practical implications for researchers and academic writing instructors seeking to support effective and context-sensitive engagement in peer review. Raising awareness of such rhetorical practices can help authors craft more effective and discipline-sensitive responses to reviewer feedback.