New Data on the Linguistic Diversity of Authorship in Philosophy Journals

Yen, Chun-Ping; Hung, Tzu-Wei

doi:10.1007/s10670-018-9989-4

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the years since this series of papers issued this challenge to the field, several more papers have put forth conceptual arguments for or against the existence of linguistic injustice. For example, Flowerdew (2019) and Yen and Hung (2019) argued that linguistic injustice in academic publishing does exist and is worth attention. Conversely, Hultgren (2019) agreed with Hyland (2016a , b ) that the idea of linguistic injustice detracts from more important injustices in academic publishing and, at worst, borders on language policing or “verbal hygiene”.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Politzer-Ahles

Girolamo

Ghali

2020

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a spirited debate over whether there is linguistic injustice in academic publishing. One way that linguistic injustice might occur is if gatekeepers (e.g., peer reviewers and editors) judge the scholarly quality of academic writing more harshly if the writing does not meet expectations for international academic English, even if the content is good. We tested this with a randomized control study in which scholars judged the scientific quality of several scientific abstracts. Each abstract had two versions with identical scientific content, such that the language in one version conformed to standards for international academic English, and the language in the other version did not (but was still comprehensible). While the data are preliminary and the effects statistically inconclusive, both pre-registered and exploratory analyses of the data suggest that scholars may give abstracts lower ratings of scientific quality when the writing does not conform to standards of international academic English. These results suggest that linguistic bias may occur in academic peer reviewing and motivate further study to better understand and address this phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Politzer-Ahles

Girolamo

Ghali

2020

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This linguistic injustice adds to the already existing difficulties of conducting scientific scholarship and participating in the broad endeavor of science (Canagarajah, 1996). It is worth noting that beyond language difficulties, involvement and persistence in science have suffered from a range of social imbalances, including gender disparities, ethnically/racially disproportionate representation, institutional affordances, financial inequalities, and limited disciplinary networks that all contribute to inequality in academia and publication (Blickenstaff, 2005 Riazi, 2012;Xie, 2014). Doing science, being a scientist, and publishing scientific findings are, at this time, far from being equitable activities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…J. Liu, 2014; Uzuner, 2008). Research over the past decade has pointed to the situation in which researchers publishing in English face difficulties as a result of using English as their second, third, or additional language (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008; Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013; Hanauer & Englander, 2011, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Yen & Hung, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considerable empirical evidence has shown that writing science in a second language places additional burden on second language English researchers and constitutes an uneven playing field that can be characterized as a linguistic injustice (Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Yen & Hung, 2018). As explicated by Politzer-Ahlesa, Holliday, Girolamod, Spychalskae, and Berkson (2016) and exemplified by Lillis and Curry (2015) and Thrower (2012), part of this injustice is the inherent structural advantage that first language speakers of English have in publishing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linguistic Injustice in the Writing of Research Articles in English as a Second Language: Data From Taiwanese and Mexican Researchers

Hanauer

Sheridan

Englander

2018

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the added burden Mexican and Taiwanese non-native English speaker (NNES) researchers perceive when writing research articles in English as a second language (L2) compared with their experience of first language (L1) science writing. 148 Mexican and 236 Taiwanese researchers completed an established survey of science writing burden. Results revealed significant differences between L1 and L2 science writing with an increased burden for L2 science writing consisting of an average increase of 24% in difficulty, 10% in dissatisfaction and 22% in anxiety. No significant differences between the Mexican and Taiwanese researchers were found. Regression analyses established that the variables of science writing burden contribute to a sense that English is a barrier to writing science. We maintain that the additional burden of L2 science writing constitutes a linguistic injustice and a barrier to science that should be addressed by relevant constituents.

show abstract

“…Considerable empirical evidence has depicted that the use of second language in scientific writing places an extra burden on non-native researchers and constitutes an uneven scale that can be considered as "language injustice" (Hanauer et al, 2018;Yen & Hung, 2018). Yen and Hung (2018) explain that a part of this injustice is the inherent structural privilege that native speakers of English have in publishing. They show that "the low rate of presentation of non-Anglophone scholars in academic journals casually results from the linguistic disadvantages faced by these scholars" (p.17).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing for Journal Publications: A Case Study of Eight Computer Scientists in Algeria

Cheriguene

Tayeb²,

Kerrache³

2020

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journal publications written in English are a sina qua non condition for national and international recognition. Recent literature in applied linguistics and other fields has denounced the existence of some conventions and "rules" that govern a given research writing. That is, using a concise, clear and error-free language is demanded in order to increase accessibility and ease of understanding. With the aid of textual descriptive analysis, this paper attempts to review the most common linguistic reasons behind papers' rejection. Eight papers of Ph.D. computer science students were collected and analyzed qualitatively in order to diagnose the main problems and challenges Ph.D. students face while writing for scholarly publication. Other than other linguistic lacunes, it is found out that the authors had problems mainly with using the right tone, choosing the correct words and the adequate tense use. Indeed, the results of this study are supposed to be of some use to writers who want to know what writing conventions, if there are any, are adequate for paper publication. Finally, some recommendations related to students' problems in writing for scholarly publication are made.

show abstract

New Data on the Linguistic Diversity of Authorship in Philosophy Journals

Cited by 13 publications

References 38 publications

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

Linguistic Injustice in the Writing of Research Articles in English as a Second Language: Data From Taiwanese and Mexican Researchers

Writing for Journal Publications: A Case Study of Eight Computer Scientists in Algeria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About