Abstract
While the pressure for junior scholars to publish in international journals is increasing, many find it challenging to do so (Hyland, 2016). Therefore, it is imperative to conduct empirical research into the difficulties faced by novice writers and uncover possible solutions to these challenges. This edited volume by Pejman Habibie and Ken Hyland investigates the under-researched topic of scholarly publications by doctoral candidates and junior researchers. It provides an overview of the praxis and difficulties of scholarly publication experienced by both English as a native language (ENL) and English as an additional language (EAL) junior scholars. The following key issues are addressed: 1) The dichotomy of the Anglophone and non-Anglophone researchers, the perceived advantages of ENL writers in scholarly publications, and the complexity of publishing; 2) the discursive and non-discursive difficulties encountered by both ENL and EAL junior researchers; and 3) the methods and strategies used by junior scholars and by their mentors to improve their doctoral students’ writing and research skills.
This text is an invaluable resource for doctoral supervisors, authors, junior researchers and graduate students. Junior researchers and master’s and doctoral students may heed the advice from the researchers in this volume to overcome their challenges in writing scholarly publications. On the other hand, senior researchers may develop a more in-depth understanding of the current challenges faced by both Anglophone and non-Anglophone junior writers, so that they may empathize with their students and alleviate some of their students’ difficulties when mentoring them. Compared to the previous literature, this volume adopts a more balanced approach to make sure that both Anglophones and non-Anglophone perspectives are presented and provides a current and realistic account of the “scholarly publication landscape” (p. 4).
The book comprises four sections, each of which delineates the narratives and viewpoints of authors, mentors, editors and reviewers, by painting a dynamic yet nuanced panoramic view of the praxis and hurdles of writing for publication undertaken by both Anglophone and non-Anglophone junior researchers. Chapter One, by Pejman Habibie and Ken Hyland, introduces the topic, the summary of each part, and the aim of early scholarly publications, explaining that the increasing expectations and the under-researched issue of early publications by doctoral students necessitate further research. This chapter helps the readers better understand the theme and the literature of this topic, and see the big picture of the issues involved—problematizing the Anglophone and non-Anglophone dichotomy in scholarly writing. Innovative ideas such as those proposed in the volume may inspire and appeal to its readers.
Part One of this text elaborates on the perspectives of the authors themselves. Christopher Tribble (Chapter Four), advocates for non-native speakers of English (NNSE), arguing that it is unfair to demand EAL writers to conform to the conventions of native speakers of English and proposes the apprenticeship model for NNSE. Next, Ken Hyland and Pejman Habbie call for a more inclusive approach to scholarly publications. Hyland (Chapter Two) believes that the “native vs. non-native populisation” discourages EAL writers and disregards the challenges of novice ENL writers. In the same vein, Habbie demonstrates that the “Lucky Anglophone Scholar Doctrine” encourages studies conducted exclusively on NNSE writers (p. 5). Hyland and Habbie’s advocacy may alert teachers and researchers to the potential prejudice against both EAL and ENL writers and call for them to treat the difficulties faced by both with equity.
Part Two examines both the Anglophone and the non-Anglophone authors’ perceptions about their own experiences of scholarly publications, and scrutinizes the difficulties, practices, strategies and possible solutions to their challenges. This further indicates that both the native and the non-native English writers share similar experiences, and publishing scholarly articles may not be easier for Anglophones. In Part Three, the volume emphasizes the views of mentors. It begins with Elena Shvidko and Dwight Atkinson (Chapter Nine) conducting a study on three native and three NNSE linguists about their experience from being a student to becoming an academic writer. They find that every case is unique and whether the student is an Anglophone or a non-Anglophone is irrelevant. Based on their model of investment, Ron Darvin and Bonny Norton (Chapter 10) investigate collaborative writing between doctoral candidates and their mentors, both of whom may find the academic socialization process advantageous, as they frequently write collaboratively for publication. This section reveals how mentors may help their students grow and become successful academics. It may unravel the publication process and alleviate some of the difficulties faced by junior researchers, who may now have a better idea of the trajectories in their development to become academics.
The last section of the book (Part Four) discusses scholarly publications from the perspectives of editors and reviewers. It sets out to demystify the reviewing process so that it is less intimidating to junior scholars. We all know that the doctoral students’ supervisors play a pivotal role in their professional growth. Likewise, journal editors and reviewers may also help them grow, by providing insightful, constructive feedback on their manuscripts. In addition, while it may be disheartening for doctoral candidates to receive rejections, this process helps build their resilience and persistence.
Nonetheless, the volume could have been expanded further. Other than focusing on doctoral candidates and junior scholars, the book might also briefly discuss the experience of mentoring top undergraduate and master’s students publishing in international journals. Moreover, these mentors could share their narratives about identifying aspiring academics at undergraduate level, encouraging them to publish, and informing them of the publication process. Finally, we believe that the risks of premature publications mentioned in this book may not necessarily be that daunting; instead, they could be minimized through step-by-step close mentoring.
Overall, Habibie and Hyland propose a more balanced view of scholarly publications, which aims to minimize the prejudice against both ENL and EAL junior scholarly writers. This is echoed by other researchers. For instance, Wu and You (2018) call for translingualism in L1 or L2 English writing classes, advocating it for non-native English writers. However, they also caution about “. . .inverting the power pyramid—the dominated becomes the dominant” (p. 57). There are numerous ways to help students improve their L1 or L2 academic writing. As educators and researchers, we do not need to be fixated on one perspective or go from one extreme to another. Instead, we should embrace diversity, which may propel innovation in pedagogy and research (Zhao and Xiao, 2021).
