Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts

Englander, Karen; López-Bonilla, Guadalupe

doi:10.1177/1461445611403261

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is, however, little evidence to support the idea that there is a widespread and systematic bias against writers whose first language is not English. Such dichotomizing conceptualizations are not only largely unfounded, they are also unhelpful: demoralizing for novice writers and offensive to the many reviewers, editors and mentors who seek to support non-anglophone authors in getting published (Casanave, 2008;Englander & Lopez-Bonilla, 2011).…”

Section: Is There Linguistic Injustice In Gatekeeping Practices?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice

Hyland

2016

Journal of Second Language Writing

314

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic publication is now an enormous industry which dominates the professional lives of academics across the globe, with perhaps six million scholars in 17,000 universities producing over 1.5 million peer reviewed articles each year (Bjork et al, 2009). The reach and significance of this industry has never been greater because it is through publication that knowledge is constructed, academics are evaluated, universities are funded, and careers are built, and each year its influence becomes ever more intrusive and demanding. Publication is where individual reputations and institutional funding coincide; the result of managerialism and an accountability culture which seeks to measure 'productivity' in terms of papers, and citations to those papers. In this context 'knowledge' is regarded as a thing which can be parcelled up and measured and those that produce it are seen as deserving of rewards. The more knowledge produced, the greater the reward. Scholars around the world have therefore found their promotion and career opportunities increasingly tied to an ability to gain acceptance for their work in high profile journals indexed in the Web of Knowledge SCI databases and usually published in English. This counting of output, for example, helps explain the 4-fold increase in submissions to the 4,200 journals using the ScholarOne manuscript processing system between 2005 and 2010 and why this increase is led by academics from countries which have not traditionally been strong in research. So while submissions from traditional publishing powerhouses such as the US and Japan increased by 177% and 127% respectively during these 5 years, those from China and India increased by 484% and 443%, and Iran and Malaysia saw more than 800% increases in submissions (Thomson Reuters, 2012). Overall, the US share of world submissions dropped by 3.3% over this period while China`s increased by 5.5%, moving it from 14th to 5th in world output in just 10 years (Royal Society, 2011). More recent figures from SCImago (2014) show China just behind the US in submissions.

show abstract

Section: Is There Linguistic Injustice In Gatekeeping Practices?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice

Hyland

2016

Journal of Second Language Writing

314

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this section, each interview is categorized according to Englander and Lopez-Bonilla's insights [14], and then a brief summary of the main points is given. This is followed by a discussion of the implications of the findings.…”

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, I would argue that simply analysing the texts is not enough to provide a comprehensive picture of the role played by reviewers in the publication process. In an interesting article, Englander and Lopez-Bonilla [14] examined the reviewer reports of two manuscripts that had been submitted to English medium journals in the United States or Europe by non-anglophone researchers. A careful analysis of the reviews led the authors to categorise the roles of the five reviewers as:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shakespeare and the English Poets: The Influence of Native Speaking English Reviewers on the Acceptance of Journal Articles

Strauss

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vast majority of highly ranked academic journals use English as the means of communication. That means that academics who wish to have their research internationally recognised need to publish in English. For those who are not native speakers of English (non-anglophone), this requirement is challenging. Research indicates that these authors are at a distinct disadvantage, and that to a certain extent, this disadvantage may be exacerbated by the attitudes of reviewers. This study sought to investigate the attitudes of journal reviewers who are native speakers of English (anglophone). Eight academics who regularly review for international journals took part in semistructured interviews about their attitudes towards the kind of English they believe should be used in articles they would recommend for publication. It appears that there is a bias against language that differs from native speaker use, and that authors who employ nonstandard English might well be regarded negatively, regardless of the merits of their research. It is important, therefore, that the issue of what is regarded as appropriate English for international journals enjoys a great deal more careful consideration.

show abstract

“…Englander and Lopez‐Bonilla () examined the responses of reviewers to journal submissions by non‐native English speakers. They found that reviewers focused on concerns with written English, with some not reviewing papers.…”

Section: Homophily and Social Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This raises a concern that authors unfamiliar with academic conventions may be excluded from the academic community. Indeed, a number of reviewers in the Englander and Lopez‐Bonilla () study suggested that the authors in the manuscripts analysed should develop links with native English speakers. Networking within the academic community can have a number of benefits, for example, assisting those from non‐Western countries to adhere to the dominant paradigm within their discipline.…”

Section: Homophily and Social Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homophily in Human Resource Management Publishing

Barnes

Sang

Baruch

2017

European Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing theory suggests that social networks form a major factor in individual and team performance, including in academic collaborative research. However, there is currently a lack of a theoretical framework to explain the social network related factors that influence publication processes and decisions. We address this gap by adopting a theory‐building perspective, analysing a large data set on the impact of social networks. Using a case of one leading journal (Human Resource Management), we collected data on 10 years of publication, exploring 327 papers, written by 667 authors, which represent 839 ties. Examining individual demographic and institutional characteristics, we developed and tested a set of hypotheses, providing a framework for shaping and guiding future academic research collaborations. Our findings suggest that as albeit the intention, diverse collaboration is still at a low level. This contribution adds to the literature on understanding the factors influencing the type of collaborations that lead to publications in leading journals.

show abstract

Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts

Cited by 26 publications

References 25 publications

Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice

Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice

Shakespeare and the English Poets: The Influence of Native Speaking English Reviewers on the Acceptance of Journal Articles

Homophily in Human Resource Management Publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About