Just because you think...
... you'd written a good research paper, doesn't mean it would be good in the eyes of others.
One of the papers which I submitted for the Richard Hogg Prize years ago had these remarks:
The paper is topical and well contextualized. The Fairclough model could, however, have been made more use of; now it merely provides a backdrop for the discussion of extended data excerpts (interesting and illuminating as such). The paper could have been balanced by shortening the data analysis (30 pages out of the total 42) and including more discussion and problematization of the findings.A reviewer from the ALS conference has a different take:
Suggestion: redress the balance between methodology and data analysis, and consider submitting the revised version to a sociolinguistic publication.
This paper is well-written and readable but I wasn't sure what the point was. It reads like a student's term paper, and I can't see that it makes any significant contribution to the study of Singlish or more general issues in diglossia and language attitudes. I (reluctantly) recommend that the paper be rejected, however in case the editors disagree with my recommendation I have included some specific comments below that should be addressed.Meh.
The reference to Fairclough's theoretical framework seemed unneccesary, and unfortunately the diagram on p.4 didn't match the description in the text, making it even more difficult for the reader to appreciate the relevance of this framework."
In short, one reviewer favours the paper and suggested that I should consider sending a revised copy to a journal, while the other does not favour it. One can see the significance of using the model, while the other does not.
(If this info would be of any use) The reviewer who favoured the paper is a Professor from the English Dept at the University of Helsinki. I have no idea who the other reviewer is.







