Evaluation strategies in open peer-review: Polarity of evaluation and representational variability

Authors:
Abstract:

The article examines the linguistic representation of evaluation in open peer review reports. Open peer-review as a relatively new discourse practice of academic communication makes the review process publicly visible – an approach intended to mitigate unconstructive criticism and potential conflicts in academic expert communication. The reviewer faces the task of conducting a qualified academic expertise while respecting the politeness principles and ethical norms of academic communication. The central research question of the paper is related to what linguo-semiotic and linguo-pragmatic resources are used to construct evaluative meanings of different polarity (positive or negative) in the open reviews. The analysis is based on the research corpus of open peer-reviews published from 2023 to 2025 on OpenReview.net. The corpus includes 60 reviews, annotated using the instrument for textual markup CATMA. In the process of annotation evaluative contexts with positive and negative polarity as well as linguistic devices for modifying evaluative meanings were identified. Quantitative analysis was additionally used to determine the dominant evaluative strategies and the corresponding linguistic resources. The paper also concludes that the evaluative strategies in open peer-reviews heavily depend on the evaluative polarity. Positive evaluations are mainly objectivized, explicit and non-graduated. Such evaluations are monologic, i.e., no alternatives are suggested. Negative evaluations tend to be subjectivized, implicit, and graduated. They are presented as dialogic, providing scope for discussion.