We agree completely with the reviewer, but ... ": Stance in author rebuttal letters for journal manuscript reviews.

Authors' rebuttal letters (ARLs) in response to journal reviewers critically affect whether a paper is accepted or rejected. However, the genre is traditionally "occluded" from the public view, and its linguistic or rhetorical features are seldom examined in the literature. Using Hyland's (2005) model, this study analyzes stance markers, i.e., expressions of the speaker's attitudes towards or commitment concerning a proposition, in 50 ARLs from five high-impact Nature Portfolio journals, which started publishing ARLs as supplements to manuscripts in 2020. The analysis shows that authors' stance deployment differs markedly between different sections of the ARL, i.e., Opening Statement, Point-by-Point Response, Additional Changes, and Closing Remarks. Attitude markers, boosters, and self-mentions are more frequent in ARLs than in research articles, serving to advocate the paper, highlight improvements, and show gratitude towards reviewers. Only 6 % ARLs fully accommodate all reviewer suggestions. When rejecting a criticism, authors rarely express total disagreement with reviewers, choosing instead to hedge the No Revision claims, use expressions of agreement and gratitude as buffers, and boost positive aspects of the paper. Findings of this study may be of interest to those who seek a better understanding of the language of ARLs, including ESP teachers and novice researchers. • 94 % authors' rebuttal letters (ARLs) contain No/Partial Revision responses. • Replies to criticisms contain fewer self-mentions than replies to positive comments. • Attitude markers showing gratitude and merits of paper are common throughout ARLs. • Hedging is most prevalent in No Revision responses, serving to soften disagreement. • Boosters reinforce self-praise, especially in No/Partial Revision responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]