Linguistic Comments on Iranian Medical Researchers' Manuscripts: Exploring the Reasons for Linguistic Errors

Document Type : Original Article


1 Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Razi University of Kermanshah, Kermanshah, Iran



The articles submitted to ISI-Indexed journals receive various comments from peer reviewers. This study analyzes the text histories as well as peer reviewers' comments on 20 articles written by Iranian medical researchers published in ISI-indexed journals. Using Mungra and Webber's (2010) categorization of linguistic comments, this study aimed to investigate the amount and types of linguistic comments made by peer reviewers on these manuscripts. There was also an attempt to understand the reasons behind their linguistic problems through semi-structured interviews. The results revealed that fewer linguistic comments as compared to content comments are made on these manuscripts. Moreover, Mungra and Webber's (2010) categorization of linguistic comments was not found to cover all linguistic comments in our corpus and an additional category was used to make better categorization of linguistic issues. Personal attempts to improve the knowledge of English, attendance in various English classes, participation in academic research networks and, above all, extended use of English in researchers' university curricula are among the basic reasons for the researchers to develop their knowledge of English. Implications for holding English for Academic Purposes courses for medical researchers are also discussed.


Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge.
Bedeian, A. (2003). The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and        editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4). 331-338.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). Nondiscursive requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435-472.
Clavero, M. (2010). Awkward wording. Rephrase: linguistic injustice in ecological journals. Trends in ecology & evolution25(10), 552-553.
Coates, R., Sturgeon, B., Bohannan, J., & Pasini, E. (2002). Language and publication in cardiovascular research articles. Cardiovascular Research. 53, 279-285
Curry, M., & Lillis, T. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-edium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 281-295.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social science. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16.
Ganji, M., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Developing a checklist for evaluating research articles in applied linguistics. Teaching English Language, 14(2), 239-268.
Glass, D. (2020). The best worst reviewer comments. Retrieved from
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructivist perspective, Ehglish for Specific Purposes, 14(1),37-57.
Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story? functions of referees' comments in peer                             review of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87-                   101.
Harrison, C. (2004). Peer review, politics and pluralism. Environmental Science & Policy ,7, 357-368.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing31, 58-69.
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney F.S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for    improving the       quality of the reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18(2), MR000016. 
Kearney, M. H., Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M. C. & Freda, M. C. (2008).   Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviews. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40, 395-400.
Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A socio-politically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25,456-478.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars:  Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium journals. Written Communication, 23(3), 3-35.
Lipworht, W., Kerridge, I., Carter, S., & Little, M. (2011). Journal peer review in context: A           qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine,72(7), 1056-1063.
Maftoon, P., Rabii, M. (2007). Responding to students' writing: EFL students' reaction to teachers' written/oral response in one-draft only composition classrooms. Teaching English Language, 1(2), 57-101.
MisakA., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2005). Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic    writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing,14, 122-131.
Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publication: Language and content Comments. English for Specific Purposes,29, 43-53.
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fact of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Science, 5, 187-255.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: challenges for the future, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121-132.
Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers' perception of the peer review process for a medical education Journal.  Medical Education, 39, 90-97.
Strabuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemon into lemonade: where is the value in peer reviews? Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 344-351.
Swalws, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic Writing (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tan, W.C. (2021). Reviewers’ comments in academic journal peer review reports: A speech act theory perspective. International Journal of English linguistics,11(6),40.
Thomas, S. (2011). Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly Journals. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27 (3), 168-173.
Weller, A. C. (1996). Editorial peer review: A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. Bulletin of the Medical library Association,84, 359-366.
Whang, Y. (2020). Reviewing a journal article with clarity and politeness: Key language tips for non-native English-speaking reviewers. Science Editing, 7(2), 204-208.