comments about articles, it is possible perhaps to detect distinct tendencies to prefer slightly different values in the humanities and social science article reviews, from those of mathematics, science and medicine.
For instance, terms introduced by reviewers into their discussion of history and social science articles included 'polished', 'eloquent', 'aesthetic', 'scholarly' and 'coherent'. By contrast, the key notions valued by reviewers of mathematics and science articles seemed especially to be those of scientific thinking, clarity and – above all – conciseness:
- "The difference between the articles is very stark. The first is very waffly and never really gets on to the actual substance of what attention is / how it works. By contrast, the second article is concise and yet covers the important main points." (Reviewer 1 – academic – Attention)
Such fairly predictable and minor distinctions aside, though, it is not possible to add in any significant ways to the detailed analysis of the quantitative data concerning academic discipline variation as reported in 5.1 of this report.
49
