Introduction: The Risks and Rewards of Scholarly Publishing

Habibie, Pejman; Hyland, Ken

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_1

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much has been written of the problematic nature of binaries such as native versus nonnative users of English (Davies, 2013; Faez, 2011; Paikeday, 1985), including in (L2) writing studies, where there is a strong argument that many of the challenges faced by those seeking to achieve publication of their research are shared by all scholars, regardless of their L1 (Habibie & Hyland, 2019; Hultgren, 2019; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016). As Mauranen, Pérez-Llantada and Swales (2010) rightly point out, academese is nobody’s first language.…”

Section: Native Speakerness and Situated Privilegementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing

Corcoran

2019

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article outlines findings from a case study investigating attitudes toward English as the dominant language of scientific research writing. Survey and interview data were collected from 55 Latin American health and life scientists and 7 North American scientific journal editors connected to an intensive scholarly writing for publication course. Study findings point to competing perceptions (scientists vs. editors) of fairness in the adjudication of Latin American scientists’ research at international scientific journals. Adopting a critical, plurilingual lens, I argue that these findings demand a space for more equity-driven pedagogies, policies, and reflective practices aimed at supporting the robust participation of plurilingual scientists who use English as an additional language (EAL). In particular, if equity is indeed a shared goal, there is a clear need for commitment to ongoing critical self-reflection on the part of scientific journal gatekeepers and research writing support specialists.

show abstract

Section: Native Speakerness and Situated Privilegementioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing

Corcoran

2019

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of publication in academic journals, it has been shown that writing and publishing can be difficult for early-stage researchers (Habibie and Hyland, 2019;Murray and Metheny, 2002) due to four main factors. The first factor is due to the massive workload of a doctoral student (Moradi, 2019;Stoilescu and McDougall, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest editorial: Emerging voices in lesson studies

Tan

Schipper

Clivaz³

et al. 2023

IJLLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Reporting scholarly work in top-tier academic journals is a stressful endeavor (Belcher, 2006; Casanave, 2019; Habibie & Hyland, 2019; Murray et al, 2008; N. Phillips, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phillips, 2019, p. 307). Although publishing is a high-stakes activity, it has become a graduation requirement for a majority of doctoral level students worldwide (Curry & Lillis, 2018; Habibie & Hyland, 2019). Universities and business schools may differ in their graduation requirements for doctoral students, but what each has in common is that administrators typically attach importance to journal publications (Nagano & Spiczéné, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reader Perceptions of Authorial Voice in Top-Tier Management Journals: The Case of Doctoral Students of Management From Eastern Europe

Lehman

Sułkowski

2023

Journal of Management Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pressure to publish in scholarly journals has been increasingly pervading doctoral education worldwide and has become a high-stakes activity for any novice writer who wishes to pursue an academic career. In this manuscript, we explore how doctoral students of management from Eastern Europe identify and evaluate authorial voice and compare their perceptions with those of established academics. Perceptions of authorial voice, as manifested in conclusions to six articles published in top-tier management journals, were collected from 24 students and six academics, and analyzed from their responses to a questionnaire. The study highlighted differences in what these groups considered as the rhetorical nature of a convincing authorial voice. The examination of students’ perceptions was expanded through interviews which revealed that for this group, a reader-considerate voice is essential for a text to be convincing. To enable novice academics’ visibility and participation in their discipline’s global discourse community, we provide a compelling case for de-emphasizing the methodological and theoretical soundness (“rigor”) in reporting scholarly work and prioritizing the effective communication of meaningful and practical research (“relevance”). It is also argued that the provision of strategic writing instruction at graduate level will help achieve this goal.

show abstract

Introduction: The Risks and Rewards of Scholarly Publishing

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing

Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing

Guest editorial: Emerging voices in lesson studies

Reader Perceptions of Authorial Voice in Top-Tier Management Journals: The Case of Doctoral Students of Management From Eastern Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About