Understanding the needs of international authors

Mudrak, Benjamin

doi:10.1087/20130212

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That papers submitted by authors from countries with lower English proficiency perform just as well as those from English‐speaking countries when reviewed double‐blind was unexpected. The need to write in English is a significant disadvantage for authors who learn English as a second language (Clavero, 2011; Mudrak, 2013), especially when their primary language is more distant from English (Elder & Davies, 1998) or when they learn later in life (Qureshi, 2016). For these authors, writing is often more laborious than it is for a native English speaker (Hyland, 2016), although how much more laborious will certainly vary a lot among individual authors (Brereton & Cousins, 2022), and writing can also be a struggle for many native English‐speakers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review process. Many scholars have advocated for double-blind peer review (also known as double-anonymous review) to reduce these biases. However, the effectiveness of double-blind peer review in eliminating biases is uncertain because few randomized trials have manipulated blinding of author identities for journal submissions and those that have are generally small or provide few insights on how it influences reviewer biases.2. In 2019, Functional Ecology began a large, randomized trial, using real manuscript submissions, to evaluate the various consequences of shifting to double-blind peer review. Research papers submitted to the journal were randomly assigned to be reviewed with author identities blinded to reviewers (double-blind review) or with authors identified to reviewers (single-blind review). In this paper, we explore the effect of blinding on the outcomes of peer review, examining reviewer ratings and editorial decisions, and ask whether author gender and/or location mediate the effects of review type.3. Double-blind review reduced the average success of manuscripts in peer review; | 1145Functional Ecology FOX et al. | INTRODUC TI ONThe assessment of research by experts in the subject, commonly called peer review, is the primary means by which granting agencies and journal editors assess the quality and importance of scholarly research. Yet there is a widespread perception among researchers that systemic biases influence the outcomes of peer review. In particular, there is concern that the gender, nationality, location or reputation of authors may influence how manuscripts are assessed by reviewers due to unconscious, or sometimes conscious, biases (Lee et al., 2013). Of all of the possible biases that can occur during peer review, bias against women has received the most attention, although studies are inconsistent in their outcomes. Some find that papers authored by women are rated lower or have lower acceptance rates in academic journals Murray et al., 2018;Walker et al., 2015; and references therein), but others have failed to find gender differences in peer review outcomes, or have even found that papers authored by women perform better than those authored by men (Lerback & Hanson, 2017;Squazzoni et al., 2021). Other biases, such as favouring papers by authors from the same country or that speak the same language as the reviewer (

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double‐blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It makes the terrain of acceptability of the scholarly research of such scholars, for international publication, more limited and complex. [24] opined that international authors sometimes perceive biases based on language skills, country of origin, or other factors. It found that reviewers and editors often make remarks on grammar and diction in manuscripts from second-language authors.…”

Section: Topical Issues In Features Of Scholarly Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It cited an example of a study of medical manuscripts written by Italian researchers where about 44% of all reviewer comments dealt with language issues. Interestingly, Mudrak [24] observed the need and appropriateness of reviewer's comments on the language in a manuscript, but mentioned that a large number of language issues can make the author feel defensive and may even create concern that the manuscript is being judged more harshly than it would have been if the manuscript had been written by a native English speaker. By way of recommendation, the study added that the possibility of perceived bias could be avoided if the instructions for authors should include a statement stressing the need for a certain threshold of English language quality.…”

Section: Topical Issues In Features Of Scholarly Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language in Academic Writing: Features and Topical Issues

Awagu¹

2021

lls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, jour- 10 and upcoming features will help authors and compare the impact of articles from potential target journals. As stated at the start of this article, JournalGuide was based on feedback from busy researchers, 11 and it was also built for journal editors who want to build a community of interested researchers and provide updates about their journals. And while searching on JournalGuide clearly benefits the author, strong matches also benefit journals by reducing wasted time and effort on the part of editors when they receive off-topic manuscripts.…”

Section: The Future Of Journalguidementioning

confidence: 99%