{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,16]],"date-time":"2026-07-16T19:11:42Z","timestamp":1784229102266,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":71,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,7]],"date-time":"2021-12-07T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1638835200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["AJIM"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,16]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Purpose<\/jats:title><jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to reveal a symbol \u2013 \u201chowever\u201d that authors are very interested in, but few research studies pay attention to the existing literature. The authors aim to further insight its function.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title><jats:p>In this research, the authors selected 3,329 valid comments on articles published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) from 2015 to 2020 as the research objects. The authors showed the length distribution of reviewers' comments. In what follows, the authors analyzed the general distribution of words in comments and reviewer comments\u2019 position to understand reviewers' comments qualitatively in word dimension. Specially, the authors analyzed functions of \u201chowever\u201d and \u201cbut\u201d, words that authors are most concerned with. In addition, the authors also discussed some factors, which may be related to \u201chowever,\u201d that reflect reviewers' praise through regression analysis.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Findings<\/jats:title><jats:p>The authors found that there are marked differences in the length of reviewers' comments under different review rounds. By mapping the reviewers' comments to different sections, the authors found that reviewers are deeply concerned to methods section. Adjectives and adverbs in comments written in different sections of the manuscripts also have different characteristics. The authors tried to interpret the turning function of \u201chowever\u201d in scientific communication. Its frequency of use is related to reviewers' identities, specifically academic status. More precisely, junior researchers use \u201chowever\u201d in praise more frequently than senior researchers do.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Research limitations\/implications<\/jats:title><jats:p>The linguistic feature and function of \u201chowever\u201d and \u201cbut\u201d in the reviewers' comments of the rejected manuscripts may be different from accepted papers and also worth exploring. Regrettably, the authors cannot obtain the peer review comments of rejected manuscripts. This point may limit the conclusion of the investigation of this article.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Originality\/value<\/jats:title><jats:p>Overall, the survey results revealed some language features of reviewers' comments, which could provide a basis of future endeavors for many reviewers in open peer review (OPR) field. Specially, the authors also put forward an interesting symbol to examine the review comments, \u201chowever\u201d, for the first time.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/ajim-06-2021-0172","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,6]],"date-time":"2021-12-06T02:28:16Z","timestamp":1638757696000},"page":"399-416","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["\u201cThis article is interesting, however\u201d: exploring the language use in the peer review comment of articles published in the BMJ"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"74","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0505-1160","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Guangyao","family":"Zhang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Licheng","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Weixi","family":"Xie","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Furong","family":"Shang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Xinlu","family":"Xia","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Chunlin","family":"Jiang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7236-9267","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Xianwen","family":"Wang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"140","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,7]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"63","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-997-0017-3","article-title":"Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation","volume":"3","year":"1997","journal-title":"Science and Engineering Ethics"},{"issue":"7528","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.1038\/515467a","article-title":"Open access is tiring out peer reviewers","volume":"515","year":"2014","journal-title":"Nature"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"347","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-015-1704-5","article-title":"Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf's law","volume":"106","year":"2016","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref004","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"145","DOI":"10.1152\/advan.00104.2006","article-title":"The ups and downs of peer review","volume":"31","year":"2007","journal-title":"Advances in Physiology Education"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref005","volume-title":"Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English","year":"1999"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref006","first-page":"69","article-title":"NLTK: the natural language toolkit\u201d, Proceedings of the COLING\/ACL on Interactive Presentation Sessions, Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL","year":"2006"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1002\/aris.1440360102","article-title":"Scholarly communication and bibliometrics","volume":"36","year":"2002","journal-title":"Annual Review of Information Science and Technology"},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"262","DOI":"10.3152\/095820209X477520","article-title":"Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition","volume":"18","year":"2009","journal-title":"Research Evaluation"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"843","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-011-0569-5","article-title":"Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?","volume":"91","year":"2012","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"322","DOI":"10.1038\/s41467-018-08250-2","article-title":"The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals","volume":"10","year":"2019","journal-title":"Nature Communications"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"393","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-020-03348-1","article-title":"Arbitrariness in the peer review process","volume":"123","year":"2020","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.1016\/j.tree.2007.07.008","article-title":"Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors","volume":"23","year":"2008","journal-title":"Trends in Ecology and Evolution"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref013","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e53249","DOI":"10.7554\/eLife.53249","article-title":"Large-scale language analysis of peer review reports","volume":"9","year":"2020","journal-title":"ELife"},{"issue":"7629","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"343","DOI":"10.1038\/nature.2016.20969","article-title":"Open peer review finds more takers","volume":"539","year":"2016","journal-title":"Nature"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref015","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"181","DOI":"10.1177\/1075547098019003002","article-title":"Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 1","volume":"19","year":"1998","journal-title":"Science Communication"},{"issue":"7","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1763","DOI":"10.1002\/asi.23665","article-title":"Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: an empirical analysis","volume":"68","year":"2017","journal-title":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref017","first-page":"207","article-title":"Aspect-based sentiment analysis of scientific reviews","year":"2020"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref018","volume-title":"Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy","year":"1990"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"101052","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joi.2020.101052","article-title":"A 'Trojan Horse' in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals","volume":"14","year":"2020","journal-title":"Journal of Informetrics"},{"issue":"21","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref020","first-page":"1934","article-title":"Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial","volume":"170","year":"2010","journal-title":"Archives of Internal Medicine"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref021","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1225","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-019-03160-6","article-title":"The language of peer review reports on articles published in the BMJ, 2014-2017: an observational study","volume":"120","year":"2019","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref022","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"311","DOI":"10.3138\/jsp.44-4-001","article-title":"Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature","volume":"44","year":"2013","journal-title":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref023","first-page":"1120","article-title":"DeepSentiPeer: harnessing sentiment in review texts to recommend peer review decisions","year":"2019"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"11","DOI":"10.7326\/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003","article-title":"Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at annals of internal medicine","volume":"121","year":"1994","journal-title":"Annals of Internal Medicine"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref025","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g5394","article-title":"Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ","volume":"349","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref026","first-page":"358","article-title":"Web user profiling using data redundancy","year":"2016"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref027","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"389","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1025008802657","article-title":"Abstracts, introductions and discussions: how far do they differ in style?","volume":"57","year":"2003","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref028","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g4145","article-title":"Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study","volume":"349","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref029","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1016\/S0165-6147(00)01618-7","article-title":"Something rotten at the core of science?","volume":"22","year":"2001","journal-title":"Trends in Pharmacological Sciences"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref030","first-page":"2131","article-title":"Argument mining for understanding peer reviews","year":"2019"},{"issue":"21","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref031","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2786","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.287.21.2786","article-title":"Measuring the quality of editorial peer review","volume":"287","year":"2002","journal-title":"JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref032","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1008","article-title":"Peer review: the current landscape and future trends","volume":"29","year":"2016","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref033","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"69","DOI":"10.1097\/ACM.0000000000000442","article-title":"A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution","volume":"90","year":"2015","journal-title":"Academic Medicine"},{"issue":"6348","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref034","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"256","DOI":"10.1126\/science.aan4141","article-title":"Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data","volume":"357","year":"2017","journal-title":"Science"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref035","first-page":"1","article-title":"Analysing sentiments in peer review reports: evidence from two science funding agencies","year":"2021","journal-title":"Quantitative Science Studies"},{"issue":"5","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref036","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"560","DOI":"10.1089\/jwh.2016.6021","article-title":"Are female applicants disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers\u2019 critiques","volume":"26","year":"2017","journal-title":"Journal of Womens Health"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref037","first-page":"196","article-title":"A cultural approach to male\u2013female miscommunication","volume-title":"Language and Social Identity","year":"1983"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref038","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1290","DOI":"10.3102\/0034654309334143","article-title":"Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches","volume":"79","year":"2009","journal-title":"Review of Educational Research"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref039","volume-title":"The Language of Evaluation","year":"2007"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref040","first-page":"1519","article-title":"Building multi-level aspects of peer reviews for academic articles","year":"2021"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref041","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1002\/asi.22798","article-title":"Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers","volume":"64","year":"2013","journal-title":"Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref042","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/nature.2016.21031","article-title":"Peer-review 'heroes' do lion's share of the work","year":"2016","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref043","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.14322\/publons.GSPR2018","volume-title":"Publons' Global State of Peer Review 2018","author":"Publons","year":"2018"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref044","first-page":"1527","article-title":"Exploring the distribution regularities of referees' comments in IMRAD structure of academic articles","year":"2021"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref045","volume-title":"A University Grammar of English","year":"1973"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref046","volume-title":"A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language","year":"1985"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref047","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"317","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-013-1002-z","article-title":"On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement","volume":"97","year":"2013","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"7","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref048","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1327","DOI":"10.1108\/OIR-02-2020-0073","article-title":"Determining the informativeness of comments: a natural language study of F1000Research open peer review reports","volume":"44","year":"2020","journal-title":"Online Information Review"},{"issue":"7610","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref049","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"31","DOI":"10.1038\/535031a","article-title":"Let's make peer review scientific","volume":"535","year":"2016","journal-title":"Nature"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref050","unstructured":"Rockwell, S. (2005), \u201cEthics of peer review: a guide for manuscript reviewers\u201d, available at: https:\/\/ori.hhs.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/prethics.pdf (accessed 29 April 2021)."},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref051","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"247","DOI":"10.1087\/095315102760319206","article-title":"The peer-review process","volume":"15","year":"2002","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref052","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"55","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1011","article-title":"Process for selecting and implementing a manuscript management system: experiences of a new peer-reviewed journal","volume":"29","year":"2016","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref053","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"567","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2264-7","article-title":"Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?","volume":"113","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref054","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"360","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1418218112","article-title":"Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping","volume":"112","year":"2015","journal-title":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref055","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"99","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-002-0035-0","article-title":"Peer review and innovation","volume":"8","year":"2002","journal-title":"Science and Engineering Ethics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref056","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2518-4","article-title":"Scientometrics of peer review","volume":"113","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref057","first-page":"344","article-title":"What's in a name: a study of names, gender inference, and gender behavior in Facebook","volume-title":"Database Systems for Adanced Applications","year":"2011"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref058","volume-title":"You Just Don't Understand","year":"1992"},{"issue":"5","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref059","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1057","DOI":"10.1108\/OIR-11-2019-0347","article-title":"Automatically detecting open academic review praise and criticism","volume":"44","year":"2020","journal-title":"Online Information Review"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref060","unstructured":"Tran, D., Valtchanov, A., Ganapathy, K., Feng, R., Slud, E., Goldblum, M. and Goldstein, T. (2020), \u201cAn open review of OpenReview: a critical analysis of the machine learning conference review process\u201d, ArXiv:2010.05137 [Cs], available at: http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2010.05137 (accessed 31 July 2021)."},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref061","article-title":"Human development report 2010: the real wealth of Nations - pathways to human development","author":"UNDP","year":"2010"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref062","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"313","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-018-2848-x","article-title":"Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports","volume":"117","year":"2018","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref063","first-page":"169","article-title":"Emerging trends in peer review - a survey","volume":"9","year":"2015","journal-title":"Frontiers in Neuroscience"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref064","first-page":"175","article-title":"Sentiment analysis of peer review texts for scholarly papers","year":"2018"},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref065","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"700","DOI":"10.1123\/jtpe.2014-0158","article-title":"Writing quality peer reviews of research manuscripts","volume":"34","year":"2015","journal-title":"Journal of Teaching in Physical Education"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref066","volume-title":"Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives","year":"2008"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref067","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"316","DOI":"10.1002\/pra2.26","article-title":"Understanding the peer review endeavor","volume":"56","year":"2019","journal-title":"Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology"},{"key":"key2022051813315782700_ref068","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"333","DOI":"10.1007\/978-981-287-868-7_41","article-title":"Metrics for automated review classification: what review data show","volume-title":"State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning","year":"2016"},{"issue":"7","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref069","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"6187","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-020-03836-4","article-title":"The open access usage advantage: a temporal and spatial analysis","volume":"126","year":"2021","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref070","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"607","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-020-03545-y","article-title":"Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ","volume":"125","year":"2020","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022051813315782700_ref071","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"66","DOI":"10.1007\/BF01553188","article-title":"Patterns of evaluation in science - institutionalisation, structure and functions of referee system","volume":"9","year":"1971","journal-title":"Minerva"}],"container-title":["Aslib Journal of Information Management"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/AJIM-06-2021-0172\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/AJIM-06-2021-0172\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T23:00:54Z","timestamp":1753398054000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/ajim\/article\/74\/3\/399-416\/40326"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,7]]},"references-count":71,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,7]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,16]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/AJIM-06-2021-0172"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/ajim-06-2021-0172","relation":{},"ISSN":["2050-3806"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2050-3806","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,7]]}}}