ISSN:

2255

3703

Skopos 3

(2013),

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee

correspondence

Julian Bourne / Bryan J. Robinson

Universidad de Granada

jbourne@ugr.es / robinson@ugr.es

Fecha de recepción: 30.06.2012

Fecha de aceptación: 01.09.2012

Abstract: Professional translators often mediate in the complex relation between the

authors of scientific articles (their clients) and the referees of scientific journals (their

clients’ clients). Experience tells us that standing in the middle of this type of

relation—crucial to ensuring scientific articles are published—can be difficult. We

need to handle issues arising from author-referee communication that are often far

from straightforward and require skilled diplomacy, both oral and written, in the

authors’ mother tongue and the target language of the translation. Future translators

need to be aware of this role as it affects their professional careers, but do clear

guidelines exist? The present communication describes mediated transactions in

author-referee correspondence, summarizes related research literature, formulates a

set of research questions, and presents a study that we are conducting with a view to

obtaining qualitative data from a sample of experienced professionals.

Keywords: mediation; scholarly communication; translation; professional practice;

translator training.

El traductor como mediador en la correspondencia entre

investigador y revisor

Resumen: Los traductores profesionales a menudo median en la compleja relación

entre los autores de artículos científicos (sus clientes) y los revisores de revistas

científicas (los clientes de sus clientes). Por experiencia propia, sabemos que no es

siempre una mediación fácil, pero que sí es fundamental para conseguir la

publicación deseada. Atendemos a las consecuencias de la complicada

comunicación autor-revisor y aplicamos toques diplomáticos, tanto de expresión oral

como escrita, en la lengua materna de los autores y la lengua meta de la traducción.

Los traductores en formación tienen que ser conscientes de este papel que forma

parte de la carrera profesional, pero ¿existen parámetros claros? En esta

comunicación describimos transacciones mediadas en correspondencia autor-

revisor, resumimos la bibliografía relacionada con el tema, formulamos una serie de

hipótesis, y presentamos el estudio que estamos realizando para obtener datos

cualitativos de una muestra de profesionales experimentados.

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

Palabras clave: mediación; comunicación científica; traducción; práctica profesional;

formación de traductores.

Sumario: Introduction. 1. Review of the literature. 2. The translator’s role. 3. Data analysis. 4.

Discussion and preliminary conclusions. 5. Further research.

Introduction

“Translation Studies, like translation itself, should be seen as a social

problem-solving activity.” (Pym 2002)

Professional translators often mediate in the complex relation between

the authors of scientific articles, who are in fact their clients, and the editors

and referees of scientific journals, their clients’ clients. This role is part of the

professional relation between translators and clients but has little or no

formal status. It is simply a natural follow-on from the preparation of a

translation that is to be submitted to a journal. For the translator, the fact that

an author renews their relation after a translation has been delivered is

highly positive. Not only does it mean the client is satisfied with the

translator’s work to the extent that they wish to re-enlist their help, it also

gives the translator the professional satisfaction of knowing their work has

been successful. However, the interaction between authors and editors

and/or referees is not always easy and the social problem-solving process

that leads to the creation of a definitive, publishable scientific article requires

not a little diplomacy. This process can involve cultural and linguistic barriers

as a function of the language of interaction and the native speaker (NS) or

non-native speaker (NNS) status of the interlocutors on both sides. Often

authors call on translators to perform a linguistic function ―translating the

contents of a letter and a reply― when in fact the mediation involved

requires an interpretation of that letter and the appropriate diplomatic

intervention in the reply.

The present study begins with this hypothetical situation and presents

a brief review of related publications, in the absence of any prior research of

our topic. Having contextualized our study, we then offer an initial analysis of

a single set of data which would seem to support our hypothesis. On the

basis of Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness (1987), we analyze a

series of translator interventions in authentic author-to-editor/referee

correspondence ―from Spanish into English― which demonstrate the

purpose and nature of the mediation that takes place. In our discussion, we

consider the underlying motives for these interventions and the translator’s

implicit intercultural understanding. Finally, we propose a wider-ranging

study of correspondence of this type based on a survey of professional

translators working in the Spanish-into-English language combination.

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

1. Review of the literature.

Our initial search for earlier studies of this topic gave no results and

only a wider-ranging online search with a manual follow-up revealed related

studies. Researchers concerned with the author-editor/referee relation have

taken the academic peer review process as their starting point and applied

one of two approaches: an introspective approach which has led to their

proposing recommendations or guidelines for authors to follow in their

response to editor/referee letters (Cummings & Rivara 2002, DeBehnke,

Kline, & Shih 2001, Samet 1999, Williams 2004), or an empirical approach

based on the analysis of corpora of correspondence and/or other related

documents (Belcher 2007, Lillis & Curry 2006).

Introspective publications have generally begun with an analysis of

the contexts arising as a result of the peer review process in which the

authors of a scientific publication can face one of four different scenarios: (1)

the unqualified acceptance of their article; (2) the acceptance of their article

subject to minor revisions; (3) the suggestion that the article should undergo

substantial revision with no guarantee that it will be accepted for publication

even if the revision is carried out to the letter; and (4) outright rejection. The

authors of these studies are often former or current editors and/or referees

of academic journals and they consider that the peer review process in itself

constitutes “mediation” through which editors/referees and authors negotiate

the production of a final document “worthy” of publication. To achieve this,

Williams (2004) suggests authors need to follow a set of “Golden rules”

when making their responses. He recommends they respond promptly,

putting their emotions aside despite the all-too-natural sense of injury at

having their work criticized. Furthermore, he suggests authors read the

reviews carefully and respond to them point by point, enumerating the

reviewers’ comments if necessary. The authors’ replies should always by

complete, polite, and supported by the appropriate evidence.

One further perspective on the peer review process that gains

importance in both the introspective and the empirical studies is the issue of

the NS/NNS divide in scientific publications. Academic journal editors and

referees are widely considered the Anglophone gatekeepers to publication

and the issues associated with “first world” and “third world” science have

been widely debated by information scientists since Garfield (1990a, 1992a,

1992b, Garfield & Welljams-Dorof 1990) defined the concept of “impact” and

formulated the “impact factor” (IF). The key concepts in this description are

those of inclusion ―English NS authors writing for English-language

publications― exclusion ―English NNS authors finding themselves unable

to publish in the foremost English-language journals ― and the peripheral

authors, who are described as being “off-network” and, as such, producers

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

of “lost science” (Gibbs, 1995). In this context, Burrough-Boenisch (2003)

writes from her experience working with Dutch authors who are soundly

networked, in that they achieve high numbers of publications in English-

language journals with good IF scores. In what she terms the “shaping”

process that produces a scientific article, Burrough-Boenisch identifies

indirect and direct interventions from two groups of professionals: discourse

community members, that is, professionals who are involved in the same or

similar research fields and have, therefore, a good grounding in the topic

area; and language professionals, among whom she includes a category

defined as authors’ editors. Furthermore, in the shaping process, she

describes two distinct levels of editing: higher order editing, typically

involving members of the discourse community, and lower order editing,

usually of a linguistic nature and, we interpret, possibly involving the

translator or ―what is more likely in the case of Dutch authors― the

author’s editor.

The empirical studies we have encountered are based on corpora

either at a micro-level, such as the submission histories of nine journal

articles studied by Belcher (2007), or at a macro-level, such as the study of

46 scholars from four European states reported by Lillis & Curry (2006). Both

studies begin with the NS versus NNS debate. Belcher analyzes content and

tone in an attempt to determine whether or not NNS authors are

disadvantaged and concludes that they are not. However, she does find that

“off-network” scholars need help interpreting referees’ comments and that

politeness and politeness strategies are fundamental both to NNS authors

and, importantly, to NNS referees.

In their study of the politics of access, Lillis & Curry look at the

publishing histories of 46 scholars in the fields of Psychology and Education.

The authors are natives of Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and Portugal and the

researchers have had access to text histories including draft documents and

correspondence that constitute parts of the “literacy brokering” process ―in

their view a part of the larger process of mediation, and synonymous with

what Burrough-Boenisch termed “shaping”: “…ways in which people are

involved in helping others interact with written texts, whether formally or

informally, paid or unpaid” (Lillis & Curry 2006:12).

Like Belcher, they divide those who intervene into two major

categories: academic professionals (73%), such as general academics,

discipline experts, sub-discipline experts; and language professionals (24%),

like translators, copy editors, proofreaders, and English-language specialists

such as (sic) teachers of English. [We cannot but remark on this apparently

unfounded distinction which appears to assume neither translators, nor copy

editors, nor proofreaders are English-language specialists.] To these groups,

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

Lillis & Curry add a third, albeit minority group of non-professionals (3%)

―spouses, family, friends― who they have also found to intervene in

mediation.

Their conclusions centre on authors’ concerns about the process of

brokering and, most especially, the changes introduced in their texts.

Authors, they find, feel complexity is reduced and the academic contribution

of their texts is in some way “shifted”.

This brief review confirms that author-editor/referee negotiation in the

context of scientific article submission is a complex area often requiring the

intervention of several people. However, up till now the process has not

been studied from the point of view of the translator. This is somewhat

surprising given the volume of scientific research which is published into

English and the fact that, having translated an article, it is natural that the

translator should also be asked to help out with the subsequent author-

editor/referee correspondence. In the following section, we offer an account

of the role of the translator in this situation, based on the concept of face as

presented in Brown & Levinson’s (1987) classic account of politeness.

2. The translator’s role.

Brown & Levinson (1987:76) specified two social dimensions as

having a crucial impact on the way politeness is carried out between

interlocutors, these being Social Distance and Power. In author-

editor/referee correspondence, it seems reasonable to suppose that Social

Distance is rather small, since both parties belong to the academic world

and are experts or near experts in the same field. On the other hand, the

imbalance of Power between the parties is great. For the author(s),

acceptance in a high-impact journal may be a decisive factor in the future

viability of their research, as demonstrated by the expression “publish or

perish”. However, the decision to accept or reject the article is entirely in the

hands of the editors and referees, and authors have no choice but to follow

their indications. In his or her role as mediator on behalf of the author(s), the

translator is therefore on the side of the powerless.

In their strategic account of politeness, Brown & Levinson (1987: 80)

predict that the powerless will attend to the face of the powerful, particularly

when they want them to do something. Broadly speaking, this may be

achieved through promoting the addressee’s self-image (positive politeness)

and communicating the wish not to impose (negative politeness). In

author/editor-referee correspondence, common examples of such strategies

are giving thanks, agreeing and showing deference. However, there are

times when authors threaten the negative face of the editor/referee by

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

making requests which limit their freedom of action, and they may also

challenge the positive face of editor/referees through disagreement and

even criticism.

Our hypothesis, formed on the basis of a single set of data taken from

correspondence between Spanish authors and US scientific journals, is that

when mediating on behalf of the author(s), the translator will typically

intensify both positive and negative politeness strategies towards the

editor/referee, and mitigate threats to the latter’s face. In the following

section we aim to show how this is done.

3. Data analysis.

The examples which follow are taken from replies to US authors-

editors/referees mediated by a single translator working for research teams

from the University of Granada, Spain. Specifically, the teams belonged to

the Instituto de Agua and the Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y

Tratamiento Psicológico. Targeted journals were as follows: Journal of

Hazardous Waste, Desalination, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,

Psychology in the Schools, Learning and Individual Differences, Archives of

Clinical Neuropsychology and Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.

It should be pointed out that in the present sample, the translator was

only required to render the authors’ replies into English, since as generally

occurs in scientific translation, their level of English was sufficient to make it

unnecessary to translate the editor/referees’ indications into Spanish.

This section is divided into two parts. The first attempts to show how

the translator intensifies the extent to which the Spanish researchers

enhance the face of referees and editors, while the second illustrates the

translator’s efforts to mitigate threats to face.

―Intensifying enhancement of face.

a) Giving thanks.

The data revealed a tendency on the part of the translator to reinforce

expressions of gratitude through the addition of the adverbial phrase ‘very

much’. On occasion, the translator supplied an expression of gratitude where

none was present in the source text:

(1) Gracias por sus comentarios...

Thank you very much for your comments...

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

(2) A la espera de sus noticias, reciba un saludo cordial…

Thank you very much for your attention, with best wishes…

b) Agreeing.

Similarly, the translator made small additions with a view to

highlighting the authors’ agreement with the editor/referees’ suggestions and

criticisms. There was also a tendency to make the authors’ willingness to

comply with the journal’s recommendations more explicit:

(3) Respecto a estas cuestiones tenemos que decirle que

evidentemente la muestra utilizada es representativa del sur de

España…

In this regard, we agree that the sample is indeed representative

of the south of Spain…

(4) También se ha corregido the ‘Research Highlights’.

We have also corrected the ‘Research Highlights’ in line with

your comments.

(5) Se han realizado los cambios propuestos por los revisores.

All the suggested changes have been carried out.

―Enhancing deference.

As Brown & Levinson point out (1987: 178) deference may be carried

out either by evoking the superior status of the addressee or by lowering the

face of the addresser. Status may be explicitly encoded through the use of

honorifics as in example (6), in which the translator supplies a high-status

term of address where none was present in the source text:

(6) Estimado P. Philips

Dear Professor Philips

In (7) and (8), the translator indirectly communicates respect by

supplying ‘please’ in speech acts with directive force:

(7) Adjuntamos el artículo revisado...

Please find enclosed the revised version…

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

(8) Ver respuesta 3 revisor 1.

Please see Answer 3 to referee 1.

With regard to lowering addresser’s face, in example (9) the translator

places the blame for any comprehension errors squarely on the authors,

whereas in the source text it is ambiguous. In examples (10) and (11) the

authors’ dependence on the goodwill of the editor/referees is evoked and

intensified respectively:

(9) Respecto a los problemas de comprensión en p.11…

Finally, regarding the confusing sentence in the middle of page

11...

(10) ...el revisor estará de acuerdo con nosotros en que es una

comprobación básica.

...we hope the referee will agree that this is a basic assumption.

(11) Esperamos que ahora puedan aceptar nuestro trabajo.

We very much hope that the article will now be accepted.

―Mitigating threat to face.

As mentioned above, authors may sometimes threaten the editor’s

negative face by making requests, thus conditioning their freedom of action.

More seriously, they can threaten positive face by disagreeing with the

editors and referees and even criticizing. With regard to requests, it was

observed that the translator sometimes impersonalizes their expression, and

thus avoids specifying that it is the addressee who is being called upon to

carry out the action predicated (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 190):

(12) Me permito pedirle que no se demoren demasiado en la revisión

para que este trabajo no pierda actualidad.

I am also taking the liberty of requesting that there should not be

too long a delay in the revision of this third version, so that the

article does not become out of date.

(13) Esperamos que con estos cambios y aclaraciones puedan

definitivamente aceptar nuestro trabajo para su publicación.

We hope that with these changes and clarifications, our article

may now be definitively accepted for publication in your journal.

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

―Hedging disagreement.

It is quite common for authors to feel that the referees have

misunderstood a certain section of the manuscript or have made

inappropriate suggestions for its improvement. Authors may therefore state

their disagreement with the referees, which inevitably challenges their self-

image as experts in the field. In (14) and (15), the translator hedges such

disagreement by stating it as an opinion rather than an assertion, thus

allowing the possibility for other points of view:

(14) No tiene mucho sentido hacer los subgrupos que nos indica…

We feel there is little point in specifying the proposed

subgroups…

(15) El número de sujetos participantes (215) es suficientemente

representativo de la población objeto de estudio.

We consider that the number of participating subjects (215) is

sufficiently representative of the population under study.

In (16) the disagreement takes the form of non-compliance with a

referee’s indication. Here the translator uses minimizing techniques to

suggest the non-compliance is an isolated occurrence and of little

significance:

(16) …mantenemos la referencia a los trabajos previos realizados

sobre minorías étnicas.

…here we do maintain a brief reference to previous studies

involving ethnic minorities.

―Softening criticism.

At times authors’ disagreement with the referees may turn into outright

criticism, particularly when they feel that their indications are contradictory or

based on a misinterpretation of the manuscript. Again, the translator was

observed to use hedging and impersonalization techniques to weaken the

force of such criticism:

(17) Hasta el momento hemos intentado responder a todos los puntos

que nos plantean los revisores pero estos parecen no entender el

objetivo que perseguimos con nuestro trabajo…

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

Up to now we have tried to answer all the points raised by the

referees; however, we feel they may have misunderstood the

objective of our study...

A common source of criticism is the recommendation that the

manuscript be extended in specific ways while at the same time the article is

said to be too long. In (18) the translator uses impersonalization to disguise

the fact that such contradiction arises from the referees, while in (19) the

difficulty experienced in complying with the contradictory indications is

minimized, and the indications themselves are reported with weaker force:

(18) …no hemos podido profundizar más en este tema dado que se

nos pedía no alargar más el manuscrito.

…we have not been able to go into detail in view of the need to

avoid extending the manuscript further.

(19) También hemos intentado no aumentar la longitud del trabajo,

cosa muy difícil, dado que nos han pedido descripciones de

instrumentos que han tenido que ser incluidas.

We have also done our best to avoid increasing the length of the

manuscript, although this has proved difficult in view of the

referees’ request that we should provide descriptions of the

instruments used.

Finally, criticism sometimes arises from apparently inconsistent

guidelines on formal conventions such as the presentation of footnotes (20)

and references (21). In both cases, the translator intervenes to make the

accusation of inconsistency on the part of the editors or referees less

explicit. This is achieved particularly through temporal distance, whereby the

inconsistency is represented as an isolated event in the past:

(20) Se han quitado las notas a pie de página, aunque en algunos de

los artículos de esta revista consultados, sí se incluyen.

The footnotes have been eliminated, although when consulting

other papers of this journal, we did notice that some of these

include footnotes.

(21) Se han eliminado las referencias internas…a pesar de que en la

guía del autor se encontraron ejemplos de citas con referencias

internas.

The internal references have been eliminated…However, in the

Guide for Authors we did find some examples of citations with

internal references.

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

4. Discussion and preliminary conclusions.

One question arising from this brief review of translator-mediated

correspondence between Spanish researchers and editors or referees from

US scientific journals is why the translator should feel the need to intervene

in this way. Our view is that instinctively, the translator recognizes the

expression of certain speech acts as inappropriate or even unacceptable to

the target reader, and also notes the absence of certain expressions that

might be expected, such as gratitude and deference. This may be related to

different ideas on the part of the two cultures involved with regard to

appropriate manifestations of politeness in this context. Several authors

(Lorés Sanz, 1997; Hickey, 2000; Ballesteros Martín, 2001; Lorenzo-Dus,

2001; Arnaiz, 2006) have noted different orientations between Peninsular

Spanish and Anglo-Saxon politeness, whereby Spanish places less

importance on the need to protect the addressee’s face than Anglo-Saxon

cultures and may therefore express requests, disagreement and criticism in

more direct fashion.

At the same time, it is likely that researchers are too busy and too

focused on the matter in hand to worry about these interpersonal niceties, so

that perceived inadequacies in the expression of politeness may also be the

result of lack of attention. Either way, it is incumbent upon the translator to

smooth the way through deployment of a variety of mediation strategies

which go well beyond mere linguistic transfer.

A further question is how far the behaviour of the translator in this

case is representative of translators in general. Clearly, empirical research is

required before we can make any claims in this regard. However, the

findings from our sample are at least sufficient to advance the hypothesis

that professional translators act as mediators in this type of correspondence,

and that in doing so they provide a service which may help to speed up

acceptance of the article in question and even determine whether or not the

manuscript is published at all. Up to now, this service has been largely

unnoticed and, as our review of the literature indicates, has certainly not

been perceived as having anything to do with translation. In our view, there

is a clear need to make this service on the part of the translator visible, so

that it may be acknowledged and rewarded as an essential part of the

brokering process.

5. Further research.

As stated above, it is proposed to corroborate the findings described

here through questionnaires and/or interviews which will allow us to obtain

empirical data on the practice of a large number of professional translators

with experience of mediation in author-editor/referee correspondence. These

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

data may then be used to identify and describe effective mediation strategies

which should be incorporated into the training of future translators. In

particular, the results may be used to design a series of classroom activities

both to demonstrate the need for mediation and to provide practice in

different mediation techniques.

References

RNAIZ

, C. (2006): “Politeness in the portrayal of workplace relationships:

second person address forms in Peninsular Spanish and the

translation of humour.” Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 123-141.

ALLESTEROS

ARTÍN

, F. (2001): “La cortesía española frente a la cortesía

inglesa. Estudio pragmalingüístico de las exhortaciones impositivas”.

En: Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 9, 171-207.

ELCHER

, D. D. (2007): “Seeking acceptance in an English-only research

world.” En: Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1, 1-22.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001.

ROWN

, P. & S. L

EVINSON

. (1987): Politeness: some universals in language

use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

URROUGH

-B

OENISCH

, J. (2003): “Shapers of published NNS research

articles.” En: Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 3, 223-243.

doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7

UMMINGS

, P., & R

IVARA

, F. P. (2002): “Responding to reviewers’ comments

on submitted articles.” En: Archives of pediatrics & adolescent

medicine, 156, 2, 105-7. [Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11814367].

EHNKE

, D. J., K

LINE

, J. A, & S

HIH

, R. D. (2001): “Research fundamentals:

choosing an appropriate journal, manuscript preparation, and

interactions with editors.” En: Academic emergency medicine : official

journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 8, 8, 844-

50. [Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11483464].

ARFIELD

, E. (1990a): “The Languages of Science Revisited: English (Only)

Spoken Here?” En: Current Contents, 31, 3-17.

——— (1992a): “The Languages of Science Revisited: A Focus on

Microbiology, 1981-1991.” En: Current Comments, 47, 180-182.

——— (1992b): “The microbiology literature: Languages of publication and

their relative citation impact.” En: FEMS Microbiology Letters, 100, 33-

37.

ARFIELD

, E. & A. W

ELLJAMS

-D

OROF

(1990): “Language Use in International

Research: A Citation Analysis.” En: Annals of the American Academy

of Social and Political Science, 511, 10-24.

IBBS

, W. Wayt (1995): “Lost Science in the Third World.” En: Scientific

American, 92-99. Available at

Julian Bourne / Bry

an J. Robinson

The translator as mediator in researcher/referee …

Skopos 3

(2013),

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v273/n2/pdf/scientific

american0895-92.pdf. [Consulted 28/01/2011].

ICKEY

, L. (2000): “Politeness in translation between English and Spanish”.

En: Target, 12, 2, 229-240.

ILLIS

, T., & C

URRY

, M. J. (2006): “Professional Academic Writing by

Multilingual Scholars: Interactions With Literacy Brokers in the

Production of English-Medium Texts.” En: Written Communication, 23,

1, 3-35. doi:10.1177/0741088305283754

ORENZO

-D

, N. (2001): “Compliment responses among British and

Spanish university students: a contrastive study”. En: Journal of

Pragmatics, 33, 107-127.

ORÉS

ANZ

, R. (1997): “Contribución al estudio de la equivalencia

pragmática de las estrategias de cortesía lingüística en la traducción

al español de textos dramáticos americanos”. Tesis Doctoral inédita,

1997.

, A. (2002): “Translation Studies as Social Problem-Solving”. Retrieved

from http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/research_methods/thessaloniki.pdf.

AMET

, J. M. (1999): “Dear Author – Advice from a Retiring Editor.” En:

American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 5, 433-436.

ILLIAMS

, H. C. (2004): “How to reply to referees’ comments when

submitting manuscripts for publication.” En: Journal of the American

Academy of Dermatology, 51, 1, 79-83.

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049.