PONE-D-22-23652

A multi-dimensional analysis of CBEC English genre Variation in South Asia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear Author,

Thank you so much for such an interesting paper on CBEC English genre variation in South Asia. It is a data-rich study, which could contribute remarkably to the aspects of business English across the South Asian diaspora. However, the research outcomes lack cohesion with the review of related literature to support the statements and dimensions mentioned by you. The paper requires rearrangement of discussions at different sub-sections to meet the journal’s publication requirements. Our reviewers have shared their valuable inputs for your paper. Please incorporate them accordingly in your paper. Please find the details below in brief.

Reviewer 1:

Add more explanation on why Crown and CLOB is considered as common language corpus in the study. The reasons and explanations are needed, particularly on why Crown and CLOB corpus is chosen as the reference corpus

Reviewer 2:

Please review the entire document for typographical errors, mathematical errors, and any other necessary corrections and etc Following references are missing the Reference mentioned APA Style (Ban, H. J. , Choi, H. , Choi, E. K. , Lee, S. , & Kim, H. S. . (2019), Bickart, B. , & Schindler, R. M. . (2001), Chaudhuri, A. , & Ghosh, S. K. . (2016).,Gong, W. . (2009).Halliday, M. . (1992),Herck, R. V. , Dobbenie, B. , & Decock, S. . (2021),Hu, C.Y., ＆ Tan, J.L.. (2020) ----and so on

Moreover, the paper specifically requires revision on the following aspects for more clarity.

1. The abstract sounds very unclear and just lost in the middle of nowhere. It should be simple and precise enough to describe what the study is about, its methods/tools, and the research outcomes. Its clarity is also required for the purpose of the paper’s alignment with the journal scopes, which does affect its possibility of publication. Modify this please. Also, it is advised to not include any acronym in the abstract.

2. Literature review section requires more elaboration, particularly on literature around MDA and the research methods/tools the study adopts. Moreover, literature related to the mentioned corpora and dimensions need to be reviewed here to support the objectives (RQs in this case). The discussion will also help readers understand the sociocultural communication contexts in the South Asian diaspora.

3. The research corpora (and sub-corpora) and the six dimensions require elaboration with references. This should be either part of the literature review section, or the methodology section after the description of research methods/tools used in the study.

4. The research questions are somewhat confusing. To begin with, basically the study focuses on finding the genre features in CBEC English (RQ 1). RQs 2 and 3 seem repetitive. As dimensions and corpora are mentioned here, it is advised to discuss them just before or after the research questions. To further make these RQs precise, the study can follow this order: RQ 1 about genre features in CBEC English, RQ 2 about the possibility of genre difference among the mentioned corpora, RQ 3 about the identification of linguistic features in the mentioned dimensions affecting the differences if any, and RQ 4 about the identification of environmental factors causing genre variation if any.

5. Results are described at great length. However, this requires thorough discussion and elaboration. Moreover, it misses cohesion in terms of research objectives, reviewed literature and structural construction of paragraphs. For instance, discussion in Section 4.3 is quite sound. This needs to be related to the literature review section to make way for more clarity.

6. It seems readers can make a strong sense of clarity of the topic and related aspects only from the discussion of results. This is why structural reordering is necessary to keep the flow coherent.

7. Conclusion section must not introduce any new aspect or new discussion. It is just a summary of the research.

8. A suggestion here: the paper looks too lengthy with discussions and analyses on genre features, genre differences and linguistic features influencing genre differences. With the suggestions and feedback incorporation accordingly, this will be even lengthier. In such a case, it will be better if you can divide your foci into making two papers: one focusing on the genre features and the other on genre differences along with linguistic and environmental factors affecting it.

9. There are spelling mistakes, sentence construction and grammar issues throughout the manuscript. Please revise it accordingly.

Kindly go through all the comments provided and incorporate them accordingly. Hope to see your revised paper soon.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 28 2022 11:59 PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dipima Buragohain

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5, 7, 11, 14 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Add more explanation on why Crown and CLOB is considered as common language corpus in the study. The reasons and explanations are needed, particularly on why Crown and CLOB corpus is chosen as the reference corpus

Reviewer #2: Please review the entire doccument for typographical erros,mathematical errors, and any other neccessary corrections and etc Following references are missing the Reference mentioned APA Style (Ban, H. J. , Choi, H. , Choi, E. K. , Lee, S. , & Kim, H. S. . (2019), Bickart, B. , & Schindler, R. M. . (2001), Chaudhuri, A. , & Ghosh, S. K. . (2016).,Gong, W. . (2009).Halliday, M. . (1992),Herck, R. V. , Dobbenie, B. , & Decock, S. . (2021),Hu, C.Y., ＆ Tan, J.L.. (2020) ----and so on

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: MURATHOTI RAJENDRA NATH BABU

**********​

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

A multi-dimensional analysis of CBEC English genre Variation in South Asia

PONE-D-22-23652R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: