1 Introduction

This section introduces the interactive and negotiated nature of peer review in journal articles, emphasizing that authors should pay attention to their wording when responding to reviewers' comments to facilitate publication. It also points out that studies on English for Academic Purposes (EAP) often focus on the features of academic texts but seldom explore authors' responses to reviewers' comments, while frequently overlooking the academic writing traditions of non-native English speakers. Based on this, this study aims to investigate the use of stance markers in Chinese and English journal article authors' responses to reviewers' comments, as well as their similarities and differences.

2 Literature Review

A comprehensive review of research on stance expression in academic discourse is presented. First, it is noted that studies on stance expression in academic discourse can be categorized into three types: the first focuses on the influence of genre, discipline, and other factors on stance expression in English texts; the second compares the English academic texts of novice L2 researchers and experts to improve the writing skills of novice L2 writers; the third compares academic texts from different language backgrounds, emphasizing the roles of language, cultural traditions, and context, but the research objects are mainly journal articles, with insufficient coverage of other academic genres. Next, contrastive/cross-cultural rhetoric research is discussed, which focuses on the relationship between culture and written discourse, from initially examining differences in the organizational patterns of written discourse to the later emergence of the cross-cultural rhetoric school, which updated the definition of "culture." Some recent studies integrate metadiscourse and cross-cultural rhetoric perspectives, but primarily use journal articles as corpora. Finally, it is pointed out that research on peer-review-related texts is insufficient, mainly focusing on the characteristics of reviewers' comments, with little exploration of authors' responses and a lack of cross-linguistic/cultural comparisons.

3 Theoretical Framework

This chapter introduces Hyland's framework for stance analysis, used to identify and analyze stance markers in texts. Stance markers are categorized into four types: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mentions, which respectively serve to reduce certainty, express certainty and relationships, convey emotional attitudes, and express first-person information. This framework is widely applied in stance research in academic discourse. Table 1 lists different types of stance expressions in Chinese and English, along with their author characteristics and identities.

4 Research Methods

The research methods are introduced, including corpus selection and data analysis. The corpus consists of authors' responses to reviewers' comments from 10 articles published in 2024 in *Acta Psychologica Sinica* and *Nature Human Behaviour*, respectively. The reasons for selecting these journals are that both publish peer review texts on their official websites, both are high-level and influential psychology journals. For data analysis, AntConc and a self-built corpus were used to retrieve stance markers. The results were checked and supplemented with additional searches. Frequencies were calculated and ranked, and SPSS 27.0 was used for chi-square tests to compare the similarities and differences in the use of stance markers between Chinese and English.

5 Findings

A detailed analysis of stance expression in Chinese and English journal article authors' responses to reviewers' comments is provided. In Chinese journal article responses, stance markers appear with relatively high frequency, with boosters being the most frequently used to enhance the certainty of their research; hedges are used to indicate subjective inferences and avoid offending reviewers; attitude markers highlight the value of the research, among other aspects; self-mentions, though less frequent, help emphasize agreement and engagement. In English journal article responses, stance markers appear with even higher frequency, with self-mentions being the most commonly used, boosters ranking third, hedges used to reduce certainty, boosters to highlight certainty, and attitude markers to emphasize innovation, among other aspects. Similarities exist between Chinese and English authors in stance expression, such as the common use of stance markers and their subcategories, the relatively frequent use of attitude markers, and the relatively infrequent use of hedges. However, differences also exist, such as the higher frequency of stance markers and their subcategories in the English corpus, and the different frequency rankings of subcategories between the Chinese and English corpora.

6 Discussion

The use of stance markers in Chinese and English journal article authors' responses to reviewers' comments is discussed. The study finds that stance markers are prevalent in both Chinese and English responses, allowing authors to interact with reviewers and express their attitudes. Chinese and English authors use similar stance markers to achieve similar functions, but English authors use them more frequently, which may be related to differences in cultural values and communication styles. From a "big culture" perspective, the collectivist and high-context characteristics of Chinese culture lead Chinese authors to use fewer stance markers. From a "small culture" perspective, the preferences of Chinese and Western academic communities for writing styles also influence the use of stance markers. Additionally, English authors prefer self-mentions, while Chinese authors tend to use boosters to meet the face needs of reviewers.

7 Conclusion

This study compares stance expression in authors' responses to reviewers' comments in mainstream psychology journals in Chinese and English, revealing similarities and differences. Similarities include the use of various stance markers with similar functions, and similar frequency rankings of attitude markers and hedges. Differences lie in the frequency of stance marker use and the preferences for boosters and self-mentions. The study expands the perspectives of metadiscourse and cross-cultural rhetoric research in academic discourse, providing insights for academic writing instruction and academic publishing practices. It is suggested that future research continue to explore peer-review-related genres, comprehensively examine reviewers' comments and responses, and incorporate qualitative research methods.