IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v15y2022i10p18.html

English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds

Author

Listed:
  • Randa Alsabahi

Abstract

This critical exploratory study aims to examine the role academic brokers play in opening (or not) the gates to non-first-language-English (NFLE) scholars to contribute to the global research conversation. For the study, a qualitative research approach was used to collect data; ten emergent and established researchers were interviewed, all of whom originated from non-Anglophone countries. Four academic brokers were also interviewed to further examine the topic from their viewpoints. The findings revealed that revisions recommended by journal editors and reviewers could perhaps diminish the richness of texts and ultimately affect the voices NFLE authors try to project in their papers. Findings also showed that academic brokers are cognizant of the problems NFLE authors face when writing for publication, especially those pertaining to the quality of their writing and to the ways they respond to reviewers’ suggestions and handle the review process.

Suggested Citation

  • Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/0/0/47776/51294
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/47776
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    2. Patrizio E Tressoldi & David Giofré & Francesco Sella & Geoff Cumming, 2013. "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-7, February.
    3. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    4. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    2. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    3. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    4. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    6. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    7. Pardeep Sud & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Evaluating altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1131-1143, February.
    8. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2019. "Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020)," Working Papers 1918, Banco de España, revised Mar 2020.
    9. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    10. Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Ni, Chaoqun & Cronin, Blaise, 2013. "Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 897-906.
    11. Stephen A Gallo & Karen B Schmaling, 2022. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Álvarez-García, Elena & García-Costa, Daniel & Squazzoni, Flaminio & Malički, Mario & Mehmani, Bahar & Grimaldo, Francisco, 2026. "Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1).
    13. Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau & Ana Wheelock & Tushna Vandrevala & Priscilla Harries, 2022. "Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664.
    15. Emilija Stojmenova Duh & Andrej Duh & Uroš Droftina & Tim Kos & Urban Duh & Tanja Simonič Korošak & Dean Korošak, 2019. "Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Sven E. Hug, 2024. "How do referees integrate evaluation criteria into their overall judgment? Evidence from grant peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1231-1253, March.
    17. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Orduña-Malea, Enrique & Delgado-Vázquez, Ángel & Gorraiz, Juan & Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, 2024. "Foundations of Narrative Bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    18. Rui Dai & Lawrence Donohue & Qingyi (Freda) Drechsler & Wei Jiang, 2023. "Dissemination, Publication, and Impact of Finance Research: When Novelty Meets Conventionality," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 27(1), pages 79-141.
    19. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "Confirmatory bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 517-533, April.
    20. Daniel E Acuna & Misha Teplitskiy & James A Evans & Konrad Kording, 2022. "Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.