Reworking ‘defective knowledge goods’ in the knowledge production ‘factory’ through the peer-review process

Article Sidebar

Article 6
Published: Jun 5, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59677/njllcs.v17i2.63
Keywords:
peer-review, peer-review comments, knowledge production, Zimbabwe

Main Article Content

Paul Svongoro
University of the Western Cape
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-339X
Patson Kufakunesu
University of Zimbabwe
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1970-3615
Rangarirayi Mapanzure
Manicaland State University of Applied Sciences

Abstract

Manufacturing defects are errors in product design or production that can cause harm, injury, or fatality to consumers. These defects are relevant to knowledge production in academic manuscript writing. This article examines how peer-review comments assist academic knowledge manufacturers in reworking their products to meet journal production requirements. The study involved 30 anonymized research articles from four Zimbabwean universities, which were returned to authors by prospective journals with feedback to revise and resubmit. The articles were written in English by authors who spoke English as their first language or as their second, third, or fourth language. The articles were reviewed using Microsoft Word's track changes function, along with reviewers' reports and editors' comments. The study found that while authors sometimes find reviewers' comments offending, they help enhance the quality of a research manuscript by improving its language, readability, and logical structure, especially when authors write in their second, third, or fourth language.

Article Details

How to Cite
Svongoro, P., Kufakunesu, P., & Mapanzure, R. (2025). Reworking ‘defective knowledge goods’ in the knowledge production ‘factory’ through the peer-review process. Namibian Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Communication Studies, 17(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.59677/njllcs.v17i2.63
Issue
Vol. 17 No. 2 (2023): Namibian Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Communication Studies
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Author Biographies

Paul Svongoro, University of the Western Cape

Dr Paul Svongoro holds among other qualifications a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. He is a senior lecturer in Language Education at the University of Botswana and a Research Fellow in the Department of African Languages at the University of South Africa. He served as a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of the Western Cape for three years, sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Paul's research interests include legal interpreting, multilingualism and diversity, language rights, translanguaging, and academic literacies. Paul is a renowned academic with publications in various journals, including Perspectives in Education, the South African Journal of African Languages, Southern African Linguistics, and Applied Language Studies. He is a member of the African Association of Forensic and Legal Linguistics, African Languages Association of Southern Africa, and the Southern African Association for Language Teachers.

Patson Kufakunesu, University of Zimbabwe

Dr Patson Kufakunesu is a lecturer in the Department of Languages, Literature and Culture of the University of Zimbabwe. He holds a Doctor of Literature and Philosophy from the University of South Africa. In addition, Dr Kufakunesu also holds a BA, BA Special Honours degree, an MA in Applied Linguistics and a Graduate Certificate in Education all from the University of Zimbabwe. He teaches communication studies, sociolinguistics, applied sociolinguistics and language planning and policy. His research interests are in the areas of minority languages, corporate communication, language and the law, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis.

Rangarirayi Mapanzure, Manicaland State University of Applied Sciences

Dr Rangarirayi Mapanzure is a lecturer in English studies with a bias towards Post-colonial literature, Academic literacy, Critical thinking and Business Communication at Manicaland State University of Applied Sciences, Zimbabwe. He has over 35 years of experience working as a teacher, lecturer and literary critic. He has taught at several universities in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Among his other qualifications, Dr Mapanzure holds a PhD in Literature in English and an MA in Literature. He has researched and published in post-colonial literature in such journals as Issues in English Studies in Africa and Imbizo. He has also acted as a reviewer for such journals as Journal of African Languages and Literary Studies and A Review of International English Literature.

References

Ali, P.A. & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open, 3(4), 193–202.

Amaral, O.B. (2022). To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature, 611, 637-649.

Barczak, G. & Griffin, A. (2021). How to conduct an effective peer review. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bayar, O., & Chemmanur, T. (2021). A model of the editorial process in academic journals. Research Policy. 50(9), 26-41.

Buckeridge, J. (2015). Fast-track fast one. Geoscientist, 9.

Burgoyne, J. (2023). Manufacturing Defect: Definition, Types and Examples. Forbes Media. https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=Manufacturing+Defect+Laws+(Burgoyne%2C+2023)

Cope, J.C.W. (2018). What’s happening to peer review? Geoscientist, 18(9).

Elman, C., Gerring, J., & Mahoney, J. (Eds.). (2020). The production of knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

Eynon, R. (2014). How to review a journal article: questions of quality, contribution, and appeal. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 151-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.888354

Fountain, H. (2014, July 11). Science journal pulls 60 papers in peer-review fraud. The New York Times, Section A: 3.

Iphofen, R. (Ed.). (2020). Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Springer Cham.

Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques and a survival guide. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.

Margalida, A., Colomer, M.A. (2015). Mistake index as a surrogate of quality in scientific manuscripts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112: E1511. https://10.1073/pnas.1500322112

Markie, M. (2015). Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay. Insights the UKSG Journal, 28(2), 107–110.

Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132–161.

Ng, K.H., & Peh, W.C. (2009). Preparing effective tables. Singapore Medical Journal, 50, 117-129.

Nield, T. (2007). Impact factor. Geoscientist, 17(9), 8–9.

O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021). An overview of post-publication peer review. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1), 11-21.

Quinn, A. (2017). Whewell on classification and consilience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 64, 65–74.

Riding, J.B. (2023). An evaluation of the process of peer review. Palynology, 47, 1-13.

Riding, J.B. (2022). How to get published in Palynology (or any other journal). Palynology, 46(1), 1–12.

Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247–258.

Selwyn, N. (2014). ‘So What?’ ... A Question That Every Journal Article Needs to Answer. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 1–5.

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358.

Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. PRC summary papers 4. Publishing Research Consortium; 22.