The Iranian Research on Vocabulary Acquisition: An Exploratory Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers an insightful perspective on L2 vocabulary acquisition by Iranian researchers. Several key points are raised that warrant broader consideration, both in the context of research in Iran and for understudied contexts more generally.
These points would be strengthened, however, by some re-framing and restructuring of the article, and a more formal tone throughout.

First, it would be helpful to clarify the framing: is the goal only to introduce Iranian L2 vocabulary acquisition? Or is the goal to raise awareness about L2 vocabulary acquisition from under-represented contexts, with research from Iran as an example? The second option seems like it can have a stronger theoretical rationale, while still highlighting research from Iran.

Next, while the author breakdown and bibliometric analysis are particularly interesting, the analysis is structured in a somewhat post-hoc fashion: the data is presented, followed by an analysis. However, it would be helpful before the data is presented to include a discussion of what might be expected - might there have been different possible results, and if so what might we expect? These could be motivated by other citation patterns - perhaps in related fields, or from other under-represented contexts.

Meanwhile, the analysis are somewhat difficult to evaluate given the method selected for identifying relevant articles, which seems to have been to search for the term "Iranian" in the title. Would this approach not have missed relevant articles? If so, can we be sure that the selected sample is also representative of the articles that were missed? Some support for this search method would be helpful.

Finally, the tone should be more formal - in particular, avoid the first person singular. The author biographies also seem out of place, although this will depend on the goal of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is grammatical, but could be more formal (see above)

Author Response

Please see attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study conducted a bibliometric micro-analysis of a dataset comprising 153 papers focused on vocabulary acquisition in an Iranian setting. An initial review highlighted a few highly prolific authors, while a deeper examination of author citations within the dataset uncovered distinct research clusters that diverge from typical patterns observed in Western vocabulary studies.

The study appears to be quite limited in scope. Firstly, it is confined to an Iranian context and specifically focuses on vocabulary acquisition. While this may be of significant interest to Iranian readers, it may not be particularly relevant to a broader international audience.

Additionally, the study primarily presents findings without offering much depth in terms of literature review or theoretical discussion. To enhance its academic value, I suggest adding a section in the introduction that explores the rise and scope of vocabulary studies (how has this field developed and emerged?), as well as the scientific contribution in this field (what are the major journals titled ‘vocabulary acquisition’?; you can include the journal’s title, its launch date, the total number of volumes published to date, the country of origin, and a summary of its scope.   

A structured discussion, particularly highlighting the work of Iranian scholars would provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic.

Overall, despite these limitations, the study is well-written and presented.

Author Response

Please see attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a reviewer on the previous instance of the paper, I asked for several broader changes to the framing and theoretical motivation of the artical, as well as minor changes to the formality of the tone. While the latter has been addressed, the former - much more fundamental issue has not been.

The focus still seems to be on introducing the authors, with a rationale that they would not be familiar to non-Iranian researchers. Indeed this is likely to be the case, and I agree that it is important for under-represented research to be published; however a stronger motivation is needed than the authors are not known. The argument needs to be framed from a more theoretical standpoint, involving how this body of work contributes to the L2 vocabulary literature.

The request for a more theoretically motivated search strategy has also not been addressed, and should refer to other meta-analytic approaches. Searching for "Iranian" without further filtering based on content is not typical of a meta-analysis, and the reason cited - that the dataset is "just to large to process effectively" is not particularly convincing when many other meta analyses do just this.

For a resubmittion, it would be helpful for the author to address each of these points in a response letter, to explain how they have been addressed.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf