English as an international language of scientific publication: a study of attitudes

Abstract

This paper focuses on an issue attracting increasing attention: the possible disadvantage inflicted on non-Anglophone academics by the dominance of English in scientific publication and academic exchange. We critically review the evidence for linguistic disadvantage, noting some of its limitations, and critique the native/non-native distinction as a coarse and somewhat unsatisfactory criterion for distinguishing between the advantaged and disadvantaged. In the second part of the paper we report on an empirical survey of the attitudes of Spanish academics at the University of Zaragoza to the possible disadvantage they may experience in publishing in English, and we investigate determinants of these attitudes. Though the survey shows, as expected, that a majority do feel disadvantaged in academic publication relative to Anglophone scholars, it also indicates, we argue, that attitudes are more complex and multidimensional than the literature sometimes suggests. Self-reported language proficiency emerges as a significant determinant of attitudes. The final part of the paper discusses a number of proposed language planning interventions designed to redress linguistic disadvantage. We argue that some of the more radical of these are flawed or unfeasible and suggest that more modest measures have a greater likelihood of ameliorating the situation.

Communicating science in international English: scholarly journals, publication praxis, language domain loss and benefits

“…Results show that the number of scholarly research published in journals has steadily increased; that scientists consider English, used as a Lingua Franca, a convenient means to reach a wider audience and that findings are increasingly discussed by means of a more journalistic style connected to the race for priority and to the struggle for funding and for career advancement (Fanelli, 2012;Swales, 2004). Since English in academia will continue to be the dominant language of scientific communication (Ferguson, 2011), language practitioners' main goal should be to educate future experts cope with what non-native English speakers consider the English language burden (Benfield & Feak, 2006). This educational objective, already met by initiatives pivoted on the development of academic literacy and on research in the ESP/EAP field, has identified communicative practices based on the academic genres commonly employed by experts.…”

“…Results not published in English can be undervalued (Salager-Meyer, 2008) because any work written in languages other than English is not easily accessed by scholars who do not speak the language in which the research was published. The idea of translating relevant papers or of offering language editing services free of charge (Benfield & Feak, 2006), or paid by the universities researchers work with (Ferguson et al, 2011) is not feasible because of the economic costs that far outrun the benefits. In reply to those who fear for language loss, it should be stressed that in spite of everything, national idioms will be used to discuss topics dealing with regional key-points of interest published in local journals.…”

“…250,000 periodicals were said to be published in 2005, with an additional figure of 4,300 open access journals (van Dalen & Klamer, 2005;Larsen & von Ins, 2010;Mabe andAmin, 2001 &2002;Ware & Mabe, 2009 The bulk of research published in online-only journals and in self-archiving repositories is predicted to grow not only because it is encouraged by digitalization procedures but also because a different attitude on the researchers' part is evident (Swan & Brown, 2005). In recent surveys on the impact of open access journals (Björk, Welling et al, 2010) and on the role played by English (Ferguson, 2007;Ferguson et al, 2011), researchers showed that in some disciplines, e.g. the earth sciences, medicine, biochemistry, chemistry and physics, online publication is accepted and subscribed by many members of the above mentioned communities to gain visibility and for the easy access to research data it offers to the scholarly audience at large (Björk et al, 2010).…”

English or Englishes in Global Academia: A Text-Historical Take on Genre Analysis

“…Faced with the veritable need to publish in English, certain studies have found that non-native English speaker (NNES) researchers are at a disadvantage on this English-only playing field [1,2], although other reports gather author perceptions that partially challenge this claim [4][5][6][7]. Real or perceived, the advantage enjoyed by researchers who are native English speakers (NESs) is not always considered by NNES authors to be an unfair one [8]. While some researchers state that English usage and style are not the reasons given by journals for rejecting submissions [9], others say just the opposite (Weller, 2001, cited in [10,11]).…”

“…Guidelines currently recommend reducing oral calcium intake, including calcium-based phosphate binders in hemodialysis patients, especially in the presence of adynamic bone disease, vascular calcification or hypercalcemia (6), to decrease the risk of vascular calcification (7). In this regard, over 60% of dialysis patients have adynamic bone disease (8). Dialysis calcium concentration ([calcium]) also contributes to calcium balance in hemodialysis patients (9,10).…”