Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences

Abstract

The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers.

Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

“…Moreover, because 98% of scientific journals are published in English, success is related to English proficiency or access to additional editorial support. Scholars who are not fluent in English are at a distinct disadvantage in the publication process, further exacerbating the global gap in citations and research dissemination [ 43 ].…”

Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity

“…English was established as the lingua franca of science as a result of the Anglo-American dominance after the second World War, and today 98% of scientific publications are in English (41). This monopoly of English disadvantages researchers for whom English is a secondary language or who are based in countries with low English proficiency (42,43) and leads to biases in scientific research through the exclusion of non-English publications In several countries, national political and legal frameworks through the formulation and enforcement of fossil heritage laws have promoted local research endeavors (17). Many countries (e.g., Argentina, Brazil and China) restrict exports of fossils to other countries (Table S1), meaning that these specimens remain in local repositories that can be accessed more easily by local paleontologists for research purposes, as compared to when they are reposited in foreign collections.…”

Latin American Network for Scientific Culture (RedLCC): A Regional Science Communication Initiative

“…English is currently the lingua franca of science. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English (Ramírez-Castañeda, 2020 ). This has facilitated the dissemination of knowledge across boundaries, but at the same time, the hegemony of English in science promotes and enforces the imposition of just one cultural point of view over others (Márquez and Porras, 2020 ).…”