Critical comments have shown to figure prominently in determining the fate of manuscripts submitted to reputable journals. While various studies have explored different facets of this evaluative genre, there has been limited examination in the context of second language and disciplinary writing. Using a discourse analytic approach, this study analyzed a corpus of 160 reviewers’ reports on submissions by Iranian nonnative writers in applied linguistics (AL) and engineering. The aim was to compare how reviewers employ different categories of critical comments to prompt writers to revise their submissions. The findings revealed that reviewers, regardless of discipline, more frequently commented on language-use issues than content-related issues. Among language-use comments, issues pertaining to lexical and syntactical usage of English were more prominent than concerns about discourse and rhetoric. The analysis also indicated consistent patterns in the reviewers’ reports regarding discourse organization and the balance between positive and negative feedback. These findings are discussed in terms of their practical implications for novice and nonnative researchers in the examined fields, offering insights into the rhetorical and disciplinary norms governing peer reviews and the linguistic choices made by reviewers to guide authors throughout the review process. Increased awareness of these issues can facilitate more effective responses to reviewers’ feedback.

中文翻译：

---

学科中的批评评论：应用语言学和工程学同行评审报告的比较

事实证明，批评意见在决定提交给知名期刊的手稿的命运方面发挥着重要作用。虽然各种研究探索了这种评价类型的不同方面，但在第二语言和学科写作的背景下进行的研究却很有限。本研究使用话语分析方法，分析了由 160 位审稿人提交的伊朗非母语作家在应用语言学 (AL) 和工程学领域提交的报告的语料库。目的是比较审稿人如何利用不同类别的批评意见来促使作者修改其提交的内容。调查结果显示，无论学科如何，审稿人更频繁地评论语言使用问题而不是内容相关问题。在语言使用评论中，与英语词汇和句法使用有关的问题比对话语和修辞的担忧更为突出。分析还表明，审稿人报告中有关话语组织以及正面和负面反馈之间平衡的一致模式。这些研究结果对所研究领域的新手和非本地研究人员的实际意义进行了讨论，提供了对同行评审的修辞和学科规范以及评审员在整个评审过程中指导作者的语言选择的见解。提高对这些问题的认识可以促进对审稿人的反馈做出更有效的回应。