Beyond words in evaluation: Formulaic language in critical reviews of research articles across disciplines

Abstract

Formulaic language, characterized by phraseological patterns such as lexical bundles, has been observed to significantly influence the discourse of speakers and writers. These patterns tend to differ across genres and disciplines. However, the examination of formulaic language in evaluative genres, particularly across different disciplines, has been relatively limited. This study aims to explore the use of formulaic language in review feedback on manuscripts submitted by Iranian junior researchers to international journals across three disciplines. Using a discourse analytical approach, the study analyzes the frequency, structure, and function of the most prevalent four-word lexical bundles in 120 authentic peer reviews (recommending either major or minor revisions) in applied linguistics (AL), engineering, and business (40 from each discipline). The study explores how reviewers employ formulas to convey their comments to writers. The results reveal disciplinary differences in the usage, structure, and function of lexical bundles among reviewers. However, commonalities exist due to the inherent conventions of the evaluative genre. These disciplinary tendencies are also reflected in the organization of reviewers' reports and their commenting styles. The study contributes to enhancing the understanding of evaluative practices within specific disciplines by offering valuable insights into the phraseological patterns used in peer reviews and highlighting the discipline-specific formulaic expressions employed by reviewers to provide constructive feedback to authors.