Abstract

We analyzed reports in which it was recommended to reject the publication of manuscripts sent to a Chilean humanities journal. We sought to establish whether these reports varied according to two attributes of the referees: the number of publications and the type of participation in the journal. The results show that, regardless of their status, when rejecting an article of scientific research, the referees make evaluations centered on the article as a unit. Descriptions, descriptions of errors, and descriptions of what is missing are the most frequent communicative purposes in this genre.