Prestigious journals hinder non-English speaking scientists, study finds
Open access articles and editors from non-English speaking countries didn’t strongly correlate with adopting linguistically inclusive policies.
To address various global concerns and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, it is imperative that scientific information be shared globally. To that extent, the standard use of the language presents difficulties for academics in areas where English is not a common language.
Experts claim that scholars must choose between publishing in their own tongue so local communities can easily access their work or in English for a wider audience. Additionally, they spend more time and effort writing and editing papers when they work in English than their counterparts who speak the language natively.
Now, a study has found that most prestigious journals, considered gatekeepers of scientific knowledge, make it hard for scientists who don’t speak English to get published. “Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies,” said researchers in the study.
The details of the team’s research were published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Need for inclusive policies
A thorough analysis of 736 biological sciences journals’ policies helped the team infer that most of them only put in minimal effort to bridge the language gap in academic publishing.
The problem that many scholars who do not speak English as their first language encounter when trying to communicate locally or internationally could be solved by allowing articles to be published simultaneously in many languages. The team found that only 7 percent of the journals they polled permitted this scenario, and an additional 11 percent featured the option of bilingual abstracts only.
Using machine translation software to provide multilingual versions of articles on a journal’s website is an additional option. Although there has been some recent advancement in this field, just 11 percent of the journals that responded to its survey have used it.
Researchers suggest that publications can also show that they appreciate submissions from writers with different language backgrounds by stating that they will not reject manuscripts based only on the author’s opinion of the English language. Remarkably, the team discovered that only two journals made this claim.
Similar to this, publishing author instructions in several languages would promote the submission of works by a diverse range of writers. Only 8 percent of the journals researchers looked at provide their whole recommendations in several languages, compared to 11 percent of those that translate just certain aspects of them.
Factors contributing to inclusivity
In the study, researchers also pinpointed two important factors that influence a journal’s decision to implement linguistically inclusive policies.
The first is the impact factor, a metric often used to gauge a journal’s reputation. It was observed that journals with higher impact factors have a tendency to have less inclusive policies; this could be because the majority of their authors and readers are English-speaking.
The ownership by a scientific society has the second effect. Scientific societies’ journals have a history of implementing more welcoming policies. Additionally, they are at the forefront of the push to publish information in several languages.
Many scientific bodies mandate the provision of diverse communities. According to researchers, they are in a good position to advocate for a cultural shift in scientific publishing since they have the backing of their members.
Furthermore, the team discovered that neither publications with more diverse editorial boards nor open-access journals—which provide research to the public for free—were more likely to have inclusive language rules.
According to researchers, it is puzzling that board members with varying language backgrounds seem to have little influence. It is possible that editors who have encountered language hurdles in their professional lives do not support authors who do not speak English as their first language. Alternatively, editorial boards might not have as much authority as we might think to establish editorial policies.
Abstract
Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transferring scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies, whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open-access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.
SHOW COMMENT ()
