Addressing the “Bias Gap”: A Research-Driven Argument for Critical Support of Plurilingual Scientists’ Research Writing

Native Speakerness and Situated Privilege

Much has been written of the problematic nature of binaries such as native versus nonnative users of English (Davies, 2013; Faez, 2011; Paikeday, 1985), including in (L2) writing studies, where there is a strong argument that many of the challenges faced by those seeking to achieve publication of their research are shared by all scholars, regardless of their L1 (Habibie & Hyland, 2019; Hultgren, 2019; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016). As Mauranen, Pérez-Llantada and Swales (2010) rightly point out, academese is nobody’s first language. However, the past decade has seen empirical evidence which suggests distinct research writing challenges for those using English as an additional language. For Spanish-speaking L1 scholars, these distinct challenges may include what Canagarajah (2013) has labeled “discursive” or textual issues at the lexicogrammatical, rhetorical, and structural levels (Englander, 2009; Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess & Moreno, 2014; Mur-Dueñas, 2011; Pérez-Llantada, Plo & Ferguson, 2011) as well as “nondiscursive” or extra-textual issues such as lack of access to human, bibliographic, and technology resources (Abdeljaoued, 2018; Corcoran & Englander, 2016; Englander & Corcoran, 2019; López-Navarro, Moreno, Quintanilla, & Rey-Rocha, 2015; Salager-Meyer, 2014). Hanauer and Englander (2011) and Hanauer, Sheridan, and Englander (2019) have gone so far as to quantify the collective “burden” of these discursive and nondiscursive challenges when writing research articles in an additional language, pointing to a resulting competitive disadvantage for plurilingual EALs vis-à-vis their English L1 counterparts.

Despite bibliometric data suggesting an increasing number of research articles published by plurilingual EALs (Hultgren, 2019; Hyland, 2019), this disadvantage appears particularly acute for plurilingual EALs working from outside centers of knowledge production in the global “periphery” or “semiperiphery” due to lack of access to research writing resources, networks, and support (Bennett, 2014; Canagarajah, 2002; Corcoran, Englander, & Muresan, 2019; Flowerdew, 2019; Lillis & Curry, 2010). It is worth noting that locally responsive initiatives to the challenges faced by plurilingual EALs writing from more peripheral locales have begun to emerge (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Burgess, Martín, & Balasanyan, 2019; Janssen & Restrepo, 2019; Li & Cargill, 2019), though empirical work supporting the efficacy of these interventions is still scant (Cargill, 2019; Corcoran et al., 2019; Curry & Lillis, 2019; Flowerdew, 2015).

Claims of an uneven playing field on which plurilingual EAL scientists must compete against their English L1 counterparts have been voiced loudest from within scientific disciplines (Huang, 2010; La Madeleine, 2007; Okike, Kocher, Mehlman, Heckman, & Bhandari, 2008; Politzer-Ahles, Holliday, Girolamo, Spychalska, & Harper Berkson, 2016; Saposnik, Ovbiagele, Raptis, Fisher, & Johnston, 2014; Woolston & Osorio, 2019). Suggestions of inequity have been leveled by these scientists against a system that strongly promotes monolingual dissemination of scientific research thus greatly benefiting those who wield English as their L1 (Ammon, 2001; Corcoran, 2015; Hamel, 2013; Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010, 2015). Plurilingual EAL scientists working from the peripheries have argued that the burden of this systemic inequity is shouldered by those without the privilege of Anglophone and/or “centre” scholar status (Clavero, 2010, 2011; Politzer-Ahles et al., 2016; Primack & Marrs, 2008; Umakantha, 1997).

Broader claims of inequity include specific reference to a lack of access for plurilingual EAL scientists stemming from unfair adjudication by journal editors and reviewers at international, English-medium scientific journals. Frequently described as “bias” against scholars visible via their names, institutional affiliation, and/or “nonstandard” English(es), such claims often emanate from plurilingual EAL scientists working in disciplines such as the health and life sciences, where peer review is single rather than double blind, exposing the identity and university affiliation of the author or authors to the editor(s) and/or reviewer(s) (Peters & Ceci, 1982; Ross et al., 2006; Salager-Meyer, 2014; Thompkins, Zhang, & Heavlin, 2017).

There is little consensus on the validity of plurilingual EAL scientists’ claims of such bias in adjudication (Flowerdew, 2001, 2008, 2019; Hyland, 2019; Politzer-Ahles et al., 2016; Starfield & Paltridge, 2019; van Parijs, 2007). Indeed, there are a growing number of voices—predominantly from the fields of sociolinguistics and applied linguistics—who have cast doubt on those attempting to position plurilingual scientists’ additional burden as a “language” issue (Blommaert, 2010; Hultgren, 2019; Hyland, 2016, 2017; Salo, 2017), suggesting the scholarly writing for publication challenges for scholars are similar regardless of L1. In particular, Hyland (2016, 2017, 2019) argues that because novice L1 scholars often have difficulty getting their papers published and because there are increasing numbers of L2 scientists achieving publication of their work, there is no specific “privilege” accrued to having English as one’s L1 (for another critique of this position, see Flowerdew, 2019). In response to Hyland, Politzer-Ahles et al. (2016) argued that “privilege does not entail that everything is easy for a member of the privileged group, nor that nothing a privileged individual accomplishes is earned” and that “privilege does not mean that a person from an underprivileged group cannot achieve success in spite of her challenge” (p. 4). Given the polemic, highly charged nature of the debate surrounding fairness in adjudication of research submitted to international scholarly journals, it is undoubtedly a topic worthy of continued robust investigation and deep consideration.

Fairness, Access, and Editorial Review

Rarely are the stakes higher for international scientists than in the publication of research articles in international, indexed journals (e.g., Nature), almost all of which are published in English. Gatekeepers at such journals can play a “particularly powerful role in evaluating whether texts should or should not be published” (Lillis & Curry, 2010, p. 149), making the final decisions and, potentially, influencing review policy and practices at the journal (McKay, 2003; Paltridge, 2015, 2017, 2018; Starfield & Paltridge, 2019). Importantly, there has been recent acknowledgement among applied linguists that particular beliefs—or ideologies—regarding language(s) may influence adjudication of academic research articles (Adamson & Muller, 2017; Heng Hartse & Kubota, 2014; Lillis & Curry, 2015; McKinley & Rose, 2018; Starfield & Paltridge, 2019; Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). These ideologies and orientations—for example, that language is a “problem” for plurilingual EALs, or (that) native speakerness denotes good or effective writing and/or reviewing—may serve to reinforce particular asymmetrical relations of power in the global production and dissemination of knowledge (Canagarajah, 2013; Englander & Corcoran, 2019; Hamel, 2013; Heng Hartse & Kubota, 2014; Lillis & Curry, 2015; Lin, 2016; Pérez-Llantada, 2014).

Though there has been an increased focus on gatekeeper practices over the past decade, there are few studies that have investigated contrasting perceptions (author vs. editor) of language and equity in scientific publishing. Indeed, most of the empirical work on this topic has been carried out by applied linguists and has focused either on experiences of plurilingual EAL scholars (Adamson & Muller, 2017; Flowerdew, 2001; Flowerdew, Ho, & Wang, 2016; Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2015) or gatekeeper perceptions of plurilingual EAL scholars’ writing (Belcher, 2007; Englander & Lopez-Bonilla, 2011; Flowerdew, 2007; Gosden, 1992; Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). This article aims to contribute to current conversations surrounding language and equity through analysis of varying stakeholder perspectives on English as the dominant language of scientific knowledge production. Drawing on data from my case study investigation into the experiences of Latin American scholars with scholarly writing for publication, this article not only highlights the voices of Latin American Spanish L1 health and life scientists, but also juxtaposes them with those of North American English L1 editors of scientific journals—all of whom were connected to an intensive scientific writing for publication course offered at MU.

Critical Plurilingualism

Drawing on theory from education and (critical) applied linguistics, this section aims to explicate and advance a novel lens—critical plurilingualism—for analyzing research writing adjudication and support practices. A “critical” orientation includes viewing knowledge production as not only a set of socially, historically, and geographically situated academic literacy practices (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Casanave & Li, 2008; Lea & Street, 2006; Street, 2009), but also an economy of symbolic exchanges (Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1994; Lillis, 2012). Within such a “market”, language (in this case, English) is the mediating tool for negotiating power and can serve to create, maintain, and/or challenge particular (asymmetrical) relations of power (Englander & Corcoran, 2019; Pennycook, 2010). Such a critical orientation views language (and discourse) as “an unstable social practice . . . not a neutral and objective conduit for description of the real world” (Kincheloe, 2007, p. 23). Importantly, this orientation necessitates the consideration of how particular language ideologies may pave the way for certain discourse(s) to achieve and maintain power (McLaren, 2009; Pennycook, 2001; Phillipson, 2008). Acknowledging the inextricable links between language, ideologies, and power leads to consideration of how research writing adjudication and/or support practices may exacerbate potentially asymmetrical relations between those more linguistically and/or geographically privileged and those who are not (Burns, 2018; Canagarajah, 2002; Cummins, 2009; Curry & Lillis, 2013; Englander & Corcoran, 2019; Flowerdew, 2007; Henry et al., 2017; Lin, 2016).

A “plurilingual” orientation welcomes linguistic and discursive variation and critiques normative (monolingual) epistemologies, ontologies, and ideologies that may reify particular relations of power (Atkinson et al., 2015; Bennett, 2014; Canagarajah, 2016; Cummins, 2009; Curry & Lillis, 2019; Hamel, 2013; Jenkins, 2014; Lillis & Curry, 2015; Lin, 2016; Marshall & Moore, 2018; Piccardo, 2013). Such a plurilingual orientation necessarily attends to issues of (evolving, hybrid) scholarly identities among those writing research in an additional language, positioning these actors not as deficient but rather as pluri-competent users of English as a language of scholarly communication. Importantly, the notion of pluri-competence can be extended to all facets of plurilingual EAL scholars’ knowledge production, with languages seen as part of plurilingual scholars’ dynamic repertoire of communicative resources (Englander & Corcoran, 2019), thus challenging “discourses of deficit, (in)competence, and open[ing] spaces for a plurality of languages” (Marshall & Moore, 2018, p. 21) in scientific knowledge production. Adopting such an orientation may facilitate ways forward for those tasked with adjudicating and supporting an increasingly diverse array of research writing produced from plurilingual EALs from outside centers of global knowledge production.

Considering stakeholders’ differing perspectives through a critical, plurilingual lens facilitates a focus on issues of power, privilege, and diversity in knowledge production, including how particular beliefs may impact our research writing (support and adjudication) practice(s). I specifically argue that such a lens equips us to understand the contrasting perspectives of Latin American authors and North American editors regarding English as a language of science and fairness in the adjudication of plurilingual EAL scholars’ scientific research writing at international, indexed, English-medium journals (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Critical plurilingual lens.

Method

Between 2011 and 2014, MU offered an intensive ERPP course aimed at improving the scholarly publication outcomes of its novice, or “emerging” (PhD students) and more experienced, or “established” (junior and senior research faculty), health and life scientists. The two- or three-week intensive ERPP course—designed and developed by a language school in Canada—was offered at various MU campus locations. The foundational elements of the course included focus on (a) lexicogrammatical issues specific to Spanish L1 scholars writing in English, (b) genre-specific conventions of scientific writing, and (c) information and suggestions on how to navigate the submission and review process (see Corcoran, 2017, or Englander & Corcoran, 2019, for a broader course description). An additional element of the course was the inclusion of a one-day seminar with an international scientific journal editor from the participating scholars’ discipline (e.g., Forestry, Veterinary Sciences, etc.).

Ultimately, this course served as a window into the experiences and perspectives of health/life scientists and scientific journal editors. A case study of the course was conducted to investigate a variety of questions related to plurilingual EAL scholars’ challenges and experiences with scholarly writing for publication. This article highlights one of these questions: What are scientists’ and journal editors’ perceptions of English as the dominant language of science writing?

Drawing on both survey-centered (e.g., Ferguson, Pérez-Llantada, & Plo, 2011) and ethnographic research designs (e.g., Li & Flowerdew, 2009) aimed at understanding plurilingual EAL scholars’ attitudes toward writing for publication in (semi)periphery contexts, I employed a qualitative-heavy, mixed methods design (Creswell, 2013; Jang, McDougall, Pollon, Herbert, & Russell, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This approach led to triangulated perspectives on language and equity in science publishing through two main data collection tools: a post-course survey of emerging and established scientists who participated in the ERPP course and semistructured interviews with scientists as well as scientific journal editors.

Study participants included 55 MU scholars and seven scientific editors associated with the ERPP course (see Table 1). Data sources included a post-course survey administered in English to 55 scholars (of 109 invited). The survey included 33 questions, including several on scholars’ perceptions of English and equity in scientific knowledge production (see Appendix A). Of the 55 scholars responding to the survey, 38 were emerging (PhD students) and 17 were established (research faculty). From the survey, 20 emerging and nine established scholars volunteered to participate in semistructured interviews (in person, via Skype, or via phone) conducted in English and/or Spanish (including 2 three-person focus group interviews) (see Appendix B). ² In addition, seven scientific editors from international journals were interviewed at length about the potential of such a course at promoting scholarly publication outcomes for the participating scholars as well as their opinions on access and support for plurilingual EALs in international scientific publishing (see Appendix C). ³

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Overview of Study Participants.

Participant group	Post-course survey	Semistructured interviews	Average number of publications in English
Faculty supervisors (biological sciences)	17	9	11
Graduate students (biological sciences)	38	20	1
Scientific journal editors		7	N/A a
Total participants for each phase of data collection	55	47

a.

Journal editors were not asked about their publishing records. It was assumed they, as editors in chief of top journals in their respective fields, had long track records of publication in top-tier journals.

Descriptive statistical analysis of survey data was followed by two main phases of analysis of semistructured interviews, leading to emergent, triangulated understandings of participant perspectives (Creswell, 2013). Using NVivo 10 data management and analysis software, I coded and categorized the interview transcripts into thematic categories related to experiences with writing for publication using a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Silverman, 2016; Strauss & Corbin, 1997). In the data reduction phase, recoding resulted in the emergence of salient themes, including the place of English in scientific knowledge production, dissemination, and adjudication. The final analysis stage involved the integration of survey and interview findings (Caracelli & Greene, 1993; Yin, 2014), highlighting triangulated perspectives on English as an international language of science, in particular those related to fairness in adjudication of plurilingual scientists’ research writing at international scientific journals.

Results

Divided into three subsections, this section provides survey data alongside qualitative findings from semistructured interviews with emerging and established plurilingual EAL scientists, juxtaposing their perceptions of English and fairness in international scientific knowledge production, adjudication, and dissemination with those of Anglophone scientific journal editors.

Grudging Acceptance: “If You Want to be a Researcher, Play by These Rules. Otherwise, Play Something Else”

As might be expected of those attending a writing for publication course aimed at improving their English language publication outcomes, when interviewed, many scientists stressed the instrumental need for wielding the language effectively. As Francisco, a senior life scientist, asserts, “I have no feelings [toward English]. It is not a feeling, it is a fact . . . [English] is a tool we have to learn, like statistics and other stuff you need. Like computers are a tool. For me, English is a tool.” While many scientists—both those with extensive records of English language publication and those without—expressed positive or neutral feelings about the place of English in scientific knowledge dissemination, most responded with mixed sentiment or what could be described as a “grudging acceptance” of English. Emiliano, a senior life scientist, explains,

Well, it’s just a fact of life. We have to live with it. I used to have emotions about it . . . at the beginning I would say, “Why is everything in English?,” “Why do we have to read and write in English when those who were born in those countries do it easily without any problem because it is their mother tongue?” Now, it’s just the way it is. . . . Most of my colleagues are of the same opinion . . . [when you] enter academia there is no way that you can survive if you don’t read and write in English.

Scientists lauded the fact that English could act as a scientific lingua franca, allowing for sharing of knowledge across borders as well as increased international collaboration; however, many added that they would prefer to write more in Spanish, and have their bilingual research writing valued more by their institution. This resulted in frustration at the primacy of English in “the game,” as noted by Juan Carlos, a senior life scientist:

I have frustrations because [it] is an obligation to publish in English in our system but my English is not so good. I want to tell my students everything in Spanish and show them how [to] do things in Spanish and write [in] Spanish . . . but as a colleague told me, “if you want to play baseball, you have to play by the baseball rules. If you want to play football, you have to play by the football rules. If you want to be a researcher, play by these rules; otherwise play something else.”

Scientists’ grudging acceptance of English as the hyper-dominant language of science also included frustration at institutional and federal science evaluation policies that heavily incentivize getting their research published in English (or at least in an indexed scientific journal, the vast majority of which are published in English), regardless of whether that was the preferred language of the researcher(s), the research was “done” in Spanish, and/or the issue at hand was one of more interest to local or regional stakeholders in Mexico.

Plurilingual EAL Scientists’ Perceptions: “No, Definitely Not [Fair Adjudication]”

Survey results suggest that the 55 plurilingual EAL MU emerging and established scientists surveyed did not feel that their submissions receive fair treatment at international scientific journals. These results suggest a high number of scientists (67%) feel that plurilingual EAL scholars are treated unfairly when attempting to publish their research at international journals when compared with their English L1 counterparts, with 19% responding neutrally, and only 14% suggesting the two groups (NES vs. NNES) are treated equally. ⁴ Interestingly, the results remained relatively stable even when disaggregating the data into the two major groups: established versus emerging scientists (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Emerging and Established Scientists’ Response to the Survey Statement “NNES Authors Are Treated Equally to NES Authors When Attempting to Publish at International Scientific Journals.”

	Strongly agree or agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Strongly disagree or disagree (%)
Emerging	14	21	65
Established	18	11	71

Interviews with MU scholars enhance our understandings of this perceived inequality. For many of the emerging scholars—who, it should be noted, almost always had limited experience with writing for scholarly publication—perceptions of inequality at international scientific journals stemmed mainly from anecdotal evidence, as seen in this focus group interview exchange between two emerging life scientists:

Maria:

It is a disadvantage for the persons who English is not our first language because we cannot write a paper in short time . . . also I have heard that in some journals if they read your last name it’s Spanish they—

Juana:

Judge—

Maria:

—Just reject. And they don’t review, they don’t check the paper in the same way as it would be [when] written from an English person.

Juana:

I have heard the same thing too. I don’t know if it’s a myth but when they look at a last name and that it’s not European or English they say this report is not from an English speaker or something like that and they don’t judge the same.

Maria:

Yeah.

One wonders at the strength of these emerging scientists’ claims given that they had only one combined English language publication between them. However, it is noteworthy that, as emerging scholars, they would have such a preemptively cynical view prior to experiencing the rigors of scholarly review. As other emerging scholars suggest, these perceptions may be based on conversations with more established colleagues and supervisors about their experiences navigating submission and review of manuscripts at international, English-medium science journals.

For more established scholars—who often had extensive experience navigating the submission and review process as well as experience as reviewers at either domestic or international scientific journals—the sense of inequality appeared to stem from direct experiences with editorial feedback. Raúl, a senior health scientist, explains,

Once I submitted a paper and the co-author was an English person and I suppose they didn’t read his name in the co-authors list and that very comment was made to me [please check English and resubmit] even though I know the paper was really well written. I wrote it and then I got it checked by this [Anglophone] person so I know the paper was well written and I know there wasn’t an issue with the language.

It is interesting to note that, in describing a common strategy employed by many of the more experienced scientists—having an Anglophone on the team be responsible for editing the manuscript prior to submission—Raúl appears to suggest that having an Anglophone review the writing will mitigate any “language issues.”

Of the nine established scientists interviewed, Raúl was not alone in suggesting unfair adjudication based on the name(s) of the submitting author, nor was the assertion made only by established scientists. Javier, an emerging life scientist, adds,

Well my advisor and me once submit an article and they say it would be better if “you have a professional check the English.” So, then we submit with a friend of mine—[who] is more Mexican than mole [traditional Mexican sauce]—named Ian McGregor and no problems when we submit the same article with him as first author . . . so we say, okay, what is happening here?

MU scientists seem to suggest that editors at international scientific journals may dismiss plurilingual EAL scientists’ work based on author name and/or institutional affiliation. José, a senior life scientist, adds,

I am not imagining this. I have seen [journal editor and reviewer comments like] “This is very badly written. If they cannot properly write in English how can they do an experiment?” Who the hell do they [journal editors and reviewers] think they are? Awful. I would add it’s not only the language, I think there is also prejudice concerning your affiliation (institutional) . . . so if you are from a Mexican institution you are subject to doubts but if you are affiliated with UC London then it’s ok.

Given José’s extensive experience and status (unit head with a long track record of English publications), his perceptions carry significant weight. After considering his comments, José qualifies his suggestion, “but you know there are some among us [MU scholars] who use this as a bad excuse to not do what they are supposed to do [publish in international, indexed scientific journals] . . . there are many [faculty] like that. This should not be an excuse not to write in English and publish your important work . . . that is just lazy.” José’s suggestion that perceptions of inequality among his colleagues may be a convenient excuse not to produce work in English is interesting in that it highlights the often nuanced and conflicting sentiment of scientists toward English.

MU scientists’ frustration was also at times tempered by a sense of pride, particularly among those who had managed to compile a lengthy record of publication in indexed journals in the face of what many described as an unfair playing field. Francisco, a senior life scientist, explains,

We are going to be demanded to do twice what an American would do in order to get something published. In a way, it is positive—coming from someone who likes challenges—because you have to be very rigorous and very strict with yourself and your work and then success!

Francisco goes on to suggest that the prominence of English as the predominant international language of science creates financial opportunities and incentives for publishing houses, something he sees as problematic and unethical:

The straightforward business is that they make money by offering services for editing your work. [Following rejection] They say, “ok we can help you with the paper but you have to pay for that” . . . but was the rejection because of English or because of science? How many of my colleagues give up instead of share [their] work because of cost or hurt feelings or something?

Francisco provides another excellent example of conflicting sentiment toward English as an international language of science. His recognition of the utility of a scientific lingua franca alongside his pride of achievement in gaining recognition through his many English language publications is tempered by his clear identification of systemic inequality and inequity in scientific knowledge production. Francisco and many of his plurilingual EAL colleagues—both those with long records of English language publication and those without—bear the burden of what they feel is insufficient English language research writing support not only at international scientific journals but also at their home institutions. Overall, MU scientists reported several key reasons for sensing a lack of fairness in adjudication of their scientific research writing as part of an overall sense of inequity in scientific knowledge production (see Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Reported Factors Contributing to Plurilingual EAL Scientists’ Perceptions of Inequality.

Scientists’ perceptions of inequality in adjudication	Examples
Dismissive editor feedback based on author name and institutional affiliation	“Please check English and resubmit.”
Harsh reviewer feedback	“This is very badly written. If they cannot properly write in English, how can they do an experiment?”
Limited or paid language support for plurilingual EAL authors	“We can help you with the paper but you have to pay for it.”

Scientific Journal Editors’ Perceptions: “We Bend Over Backwards”

The scientific journal editors described in this section all accepted invitations from the MU scholarly writing for publication course designers to come to Mexico from the United States or Canada and share with MU scholars “insider” or “behind the scenes” knowledge of the submission and review process at their particular discipline-specific international scientific journal. Each of the editors was an experienced member of their disciplinary community having published extensively in their field and acted as editor in chief at one or more indexed international scientific journals. All editors who participated in this course were Anglophone (though two were also plurilingual: English-French; English-Spanish), male, and/or live in “centers” of knowledge production. During interviews, each editor expressed enthusiastic support for the MU ERPP initiative, suggesting that it was well positioned to support plurilingual EAL scholars that, as John, a life sciences journal editor, put it, “sorely needed” English scholarly writing for publication support.

First and foremost, the editors lauded the potential of English to act as a global language of science, suggesting the suitability of the language for advancing scientific knowledge through increased global access. Paul, a life sciences journal editor, explains, “I think we can all benefit from scientists around the world communicating better in English . . . this will allow for more sharing of knowledge from previously lesser known global locales.” This position was consistent among stakeholders involved with the ERPP course, including the vast majority of the emerging and established scientists; however, perspectives differed on the fairness of increased expectations for publishing in English for plurilingual EAL scientists with different levels of exposure to and proficiency with English scholarly research writing. When reflecting on the place of English in international scientific publishing, Stewart, a former life sciences journal editor, shares a common trope that appeared during interviews with editors: the natural fit of English for communicating scientific knowledge. He goes on to explain, “When I’ve been to World Fairs or museums with translations of different languages side by side I’m often impressed that the English one is the shortest one. I think this relates to the conciseness of the language and that is good for communicating scientific results.” These positions suggest a particular orientation toward English, one where English is ostensibly viewed as, if not superior to other languages, then as the ideal, neutral conduit for communicating scientific findings. Importantly, this suggests a form of separation of science (knowledge) and language (in this case, English), a problematic distinction.

With the caveat that those in positions of power are unlikely to self-incriminate, these particular scientific editors held vastly different perspectives from MU scientists on issues of fairness and equity in international scientific publishing. First, several editors conceded plurilingual EAL authors did not always get, as Paul noted, a “fair shake” from editors at high-profile international scientific journals. However, editors suggested this was almost exclusively due to the massive amount of submissions and limited human resources available, with John, a former life sciences editor, stating that, in his experience, editorial staff often “bent over backwards to try to help authors who are in that position [plurilingual scientists using English as an additional language] to produce a final product that is clear, concise and that the author can be proud of.” To a person, each of the editors interviewed spoke to the efforts made at their particular scientific journal to facilitate publication of work from plurilingual EAL scientists. George, a former health science editor, points out,

It would be a rare event that we return a paper because of language issues . . . when the editor says the problem is the English, there are probably also problems with the structure and organization of the papers . . . we spend a lot of time transforming language from not very good into good scientific English. There are some papers on which I spend hours and hours.

Though it is hard to say exactly what George means by “good scientific English,” he raised research article structure (in particular concise and connected introduction and results/discussion sections), rhetorical strategies, and lexicogrammatical accuracy as some of the more salient “issues” they encounter when engaging with plurilingual EAL scientists’ submissions. These manuscript shortcomings are indeed ones that were consistently raised by editors during interviews; however, one wonders whether such issues would also be salient when considering submissions from a broader population of scientists.

Further, scientific editors suggested that perhaps the dreaded statement “Please check English and resubmit” could be due to more than “language issues,” with editors potentially using this response as a time-saving mechanism when dealing with the large number of submissions and subsequent pressure on editorial staff. When discussing adjudication of submissions, a lack of publishing industry resources was highlighted as a consistent theme by editors and cited as the main impediment to plurilingual EAL scientists’ submissions passing the editorial review stage. Janet, one of the MU ERPP course designers, and a scientific writing consultant, shares her behind-the-scenes experiences:

I’ve seen it happen, watched it happen. I’ve been in the room with [other] science editors who say we want to see publications from emerging nation authors—we want to publish those papers . . . and then an hour later they’re saying “I’m getting all these papers and the English is so poor that the peer reviewers can’t understand them so we have to send them right back and say get help with your English.” They have to because they don’t have the time or money to put into it.

When asked about the post-course survey data that pointed to scientists’ perceptions of bias and inequity in scientific adjudication, journal editors spoke to the often helpful feedback given to authors, with some stating that when it is apparent the submission is coming from an emerging scholar and/or a scholar with less than “native” writing proficiency in English, particular care is given to the submission. As George explains,

If the science is good and the message intelligible, we make our best effort to work with the author to make it work; however, if the language requires improvement and it would be too much time for us to do that ourselves, we suggest that you either seek assistance of a colleague who is proficient in the use of scientific English or use a commercial service available to assist in editing this . . . and it is always done in the spirit of being helpful; it is never insulting or disparaging. You do get the occasional editor or reviewer who is harsh and unreasonable, quite independent of the author’s language—this happens even when talking about papers by people who are native English speakers.

Paul, a former life sciences journal editor, corroborates George’s claim, suggesting the goal of disseminating important scientific findings is everybody’s ultimate goal, from the editors on down the line:

The important thing I think to remember on this is that theoretically everybody has the same goal: we want to have the best papers we can . . . so that’s what the editors are trying to do. . . . When talking to the group of young scientists here [at the MU ERPP course] I tried to express that they mustn’t be too sensitive about this, they really have to get themselves in the mind-set of taking advantage of what people have said and it is not enough just to put the paper away and never look at it again . . . to just get mad and say “what does that person know?” I think some of these people [MU scientists] think the paper got rejected because they’re from Mexico as opposed to perhaps the paper got rejected for other reasons . . . they should carefully read our feedback because perhaps they don’t read all the words or they miss some of the answers.

When considering emerging scholars, journal editors seem to point to a potential lack of experience—particularly among the emerging MU scholars—for, as Paul put it, “unreasonable expectations for getting help at our journal. . . . I think they [emerging scientists] need more experience doing the things we do to better understand what to expect.” Paul’s perspective raises questions surrounding the participation of (emerging) plurilingual EAL scholars in the peer review process: Should these scholars not become more actively involved in the peer review process in order to mitigate some challenges that arise due to linguistic or geographical constraints? Might this participation change their perspectives on fairness in adjudication practices? Further, Paul’s suggestion that plurilingual EAL scholars must improve their capacity to synthesize editorial (and reviewer) feedback should be noted by ERPP scholars and course designers alike given that this is clearly a major challenge for emerging scholars, including perhaps even more acutely those working from the global peripheries (Corcoran, 2017; Curry & Lillis, 2013; Flowerdew, 2007).

Ultimately, there is a clear disparity in perceptions of English, fairness, and equity at international scientific journals, including that of the adjudication of plurilingual EAL scientists’ research writing for publication, a disparity that I henceforth refer to as “the bias gap” (see Table 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Disparity in Perceptions of Fairness in International Scientific Publishing.

Plurilingual EAL authors	Anglophone L1 editors
Prejudicial adjudication is limiting potential advancement/dissemination of scientific knowledge	Plurilingual scientists’ poor research and/or English is prejudicing their publication success
Editorial bias creates inequality	Systemic lack of resources creates occasional inequality
Efforts are not being made to change an unequal, inequitable situation	Individual and group efforts are being made to change an occasionally unequal situation

Discussion: Competing Perspectives

This section considers Latin American scientists’ and North American scientific journal editors’ perceptions of English as an international language of science, including divergent views on fairness in adjudication of plurilingual EAL scientists’ research article submissions to English language international scientific journals. Considering these results in light of the extant literature and through a critical, plurilingual lens, discussion centers on how to address the apparent bias gap through more equity-driven pedagogies, policies, and reflective practices aimed at supporting the robust participation of plurilingual EALs in global scientific knowledge production.

Bridging the Bias Gap: Addressing (Perceived) Inequity

MU scientists’ grudging acceptance of the growing pressure to publish in English is in line with findings from recent studies investigating attitudes of Spanish-speaking EAL scholars working in peripheral or semi-peripheral geolinguistic locales (e.g. Englander, Kent, Carrasco & Corcoran, forthcoming; Ferguson et al., 2011; López-Navarro et al., 2015; Martín et al., 2014; Mur-Dueñas, 2019). Such studies—particularly those that highlight scholars’ voices from different geolinguistic locales and disciplinary affiliations as they attend to evolving pressures to publish their work in English-medium scholarly journals—are undoubtedly an important contribution to the field of ERPP.

What is most noteworthy, though, is MU scientists’ pervasive, vigorous claims of inequity in the international scientific publishing world, including in the adjudication of their work. Specifically, there was a strong perception of bias based on—according to emerging and established MU scientists—author name, institutional affiliation, and/or English language use (see also Ross et al., 2006 for empirical evidence of such bias during single-blind reviews). Yet, equally clear from this study is that the scientific journal editors who participated in this study had starkly different perspectives on equity in scientific publishing, including fairness in the adjudication of plurilingual scientists’ research articles. Journal editors cited the extra individual and collective efforts at their respective international, indexed, English-medium journals in providing access and support to plurilingual EAL scientists seeking to publish their research. Editors argued that though journals may not be able to attend to all authors’ needs given the mass of submissions, submissions from scientists across global regions (including those from Latin America) are increasingly welcomed and supported. Though much more research is necessary on editorial perspectives, scientific journal editors’ claims of interest in enabling participation of plurilingual EAL scholars is also in line with previous findings (Flowerdew, 2007; Gosden, 1992). What is unclear, despite bibliometric data suggesting more widespread participation by plurilingual EAL scholars (Hultgren, 2019; Hyland, 2019), is whether such claims by scientific journal editors are in fact being supported by practices that enable such participation.

What are we to make of these divergent perspectives, and why does it matter? Clearly, this study neither proves nor disproves that bias exists against plurilingual EALs writing science from outside centers of knowledge production. However, what is clear is that, at least among this population of Latin American health and life scientists, the perception of such bias is widespread. Even the more experienced and oft-published MU scientists often saw themselves as having succeeded in the face of systemic inequity and in spite of the bias at international scientific journals rather than due to its absence. Though these scientists seem to take particular pride in having achieved publication in spite of systemic barriers, perceptions of inequity and bias should be of concern to those interested in the advancement of science and/or equity in science writing and publishing.

The contrasting perspectives highlighted in this article provide insight into some particular orientations toward language(s) and science held by both scientific journal editors and plurilingual EAL scholars. For example, editors suggested—either explicitly or implicitly—that (a) English is an intrinsically natural, neutral conduit of scientific knowledge and (b) there is a unified understanding of what constitutes “good” scientific writing. As Lillis and Curry (2015) point out, the “ideology of English as a single . . . semiotic resource” (pp. 147-148) can impact the uptake of research writing by gatekeepers (e.g., journal editors). The potential result here is that the onus is almost squarely on the plurilingual EAL author to rectify the “problem” of language (Adamson et al., 2019; Adamson & Muller, 2017; Corcoran & Englander, 2016; Heng Hartse & Kubota, 2014; McKinley & Rose, 2018). On the surface, these monolingual orientations toward language and science may seem benign. However, when considered in light of adjudication practices of an increasingly diverse global community of scientists, one can see how these orientations or ideologies could have a direct impact on scholars’ language choice (e.g., English vs. Spanish) and/or language variation (standard vs. nonstandard English), exerting a “centripetal” pressure toward normative (English) language use (Lillis & Curry, 2010). Within a market of symbolic exchange where one language is valued over others, I argue that such orientations may serve to exacerbate the already asymmetrical relations of power among global scientists by limiting the robust participation of plurilingual scholars (Englander & Corcoran, 2019; Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010, 2015; McKinley & Rose, 2018). Such ideologies facilitate a neutral, technical gatekeeping devoid of appreciation for how language choices (lexicogrammatical, rhetorical, etc.) are linked to authors’ evolving, plurilingual scholarly identities (Corcoran & Englander, 2019; Flowerdew et al., 2016). Recognition of the inextricable links between language, identity, and (relations of) power is essential, I argue, in a move toward greater equity in scientific knowledge production and, more specifically, in achieving greater equality in the adjudication of plurilingual EAL scholars’ research writing.

Scientific journal editors are not the only ones holding on to potentially dogmatic or detrimental orientations or ideologies. At times MU scientists also display an equally uncritical acceptance of the separation of language, science, and power, for example, if my English is judged to be “good,” then my science will be judged fairly; or scientific rigour is the only criteria for acceptance of research articles. However, language is never an apolitical, neutral tool (Canagarajah, 2002; Cummins, 2000; Pennycook, 2018). Such beliefs may detract from a healthy understanding that, first, editors are part of a broader system of knowledge production that may promote certain types of language use over others, thus disadvantaging plurilingual EAL scholars writing from the peripheries (Bennett, 2014) and, second, that scientific gatekeepers are human (Starfield & Paltridge, 2019; Tardy, 2019) and thus not immune to implicit or unconscious bias during adjudication (e.g., Flowerdew, 2019; Ross et al., 2006).

Further, findings point to MU scientists’ perceptions that, first, it is simple and/or straightforward for Anglophone scientists to get their research published and, second, there is complicity among gatekeepers at international scientific journals to keep out plurilingual EAL scientists’ research. As many applied linguists and writing studies experts have pointed out, novice scholars share many of the same acute challenges when it comes to achieving publication of their work, regardless of L1 or geographical location (Habibie, 2019; Hultgren, 2019; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016). Further, there is little evidence to suggest explicit, concerted efforts on the part of scientific journal editors to exclude or prevent publication of plurilingual EAL authors’ work. Ultimately, there is a need for critical self-reflection on the part of not only scientific journal editors but also these plurilingual EAL scientists, as well.

There are two essential claims I would like to make in this article: (a) language matters in the adjudication of scientific research; and (b) orientations toward language impact the way authors, editors, and other language brokers (e.g., research writing support specialists) engage with these (scientific) texts. These claims can impact textual production, revision, and adjudication, leading to particular relations of power in scientific knowledge production. Rather than dismissing the impact of language (ideologies) on asymmetrical relations of power, perhaps a more productive and equitable path would be to adopt a critical, self-reflexive approach that holds notions of equity and diversity as central within a world of rising inequity and increasing linguistic hegemony and homogeneity. Given the cacophony of voices from the periphery suggesting inequitable and exclusionary practices at international scientific journals (Clavero, 2011; La Madeleine, 2007; Meneghini & Packer, 2007; Salager-Meyer, 2014), wouldn’t it be more equitable in support and adjudication of plurilingual EAL scientists’ research writing—not to mention advantageous to science—to consider measures addressing these perceptions? The remainder of this article is dedicated to providing suggestions for how to address the bias gap through critical reflection and plurilingual pedagogy. Of note, these measures are intended to be neither overly proscriptive nor one-size-fits-all; how these suggestions are taken up should be grounded in the historical, social, and geolinguistic contexts in which they are enacted.

Bridging “the Bias Gap” via Critical Self-Reflection

Evidence from this study does not suggest the complicity of editors in the delegitimization or oppression of scientists using English as an additional language; indeed, evidence suggests there is a recognition among these editors that the issue of perceived bias/inequity is a legitimate concern that should be addressed when supporting plurilingual EAL scientists. However, the apparently pervasive nature of particular orientations toward English and science highlighted in this study invites the following question: Shouldn’t the onus be as much on journal gatekeepers (e.g., editors) to develop language adjudication practices that take into consideration diversity and equity as it is on scholars to conform to normative (though ever changing) science writing conventions? Surely there is a need for further discussion within and between international scientific communities regarding the (perceived) bias experienced by plurilingual EAL scientists as well as the rigidity of English language research article norms? Such discussion and critical reflection by scientific journal gatekeepers should ideally take into consideration not only geolinguistic features (e.g., English L1 vs. L2, center vs. periphery, etc.) that impact plurilingual EAL scientists’ scholarly writing (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2019; Mur-Dueñas, 2019; Omobowale et al., 2019; Pérez-Llantada et al., 2011) but also how such writing is taken up by journal gatekeepers across disciplinary communities (Adamson & Mueller, 2017; Bocanegra-Valle, 2015; McKinley & Rose, 2018; Paltridge, 2018).

Adopting a plurilingual mind-set to adjudication could include consideration of author L1, geographical location of manuscript production, and intelligibility (vs. accuracy) in science writing. Given the single-blind peer review format adopted by the health and life science journals in question, identification of such linguistic and geographical author(s) characteristics is possible. This is not, of course, strictly a science writing issue as there is a growing body of work pointing to the growing diversity in English(es) used in published work across disciplines (e.g., Hynninen & Kuteeva, 2017; Jenkins, 2014; Martinez, 2018; Mauranen, Hynninen, & Ranta, 2010; Tribble, 2017). Critical reflection on diversity of expression in scholarly research writing could benefit both plurilingual EAL scholars as well as those adjudicating their work. What might such a critical reflective approach look like?

As outlined in Table 5, some potentially uncomfortable but necessary questions—ideally considered by authors, editors, and writing support experts alike—may drive necessary critical reflection on orientations toward language and science, leading to adjudication and support that considers equity and diversity in scientific knowledge production (Corcoran, 2015; Englander & Corcoran, 2019). While not a panacea by any means, such critical, reflective practice may lead to a wider range of possibilities for scholars to produce (and gatekeepers to recognize) meaningful, diverse, and impactful knowledge from within systems that often encourage homogeneity and adherence to dominant, normative discursive and linguistic practices.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Critical Reflective Guiding Questions for Scientific Authors, Editors, and Language Brokers.

	Five Critical Reflection Questions
1	What constitutes “good” writing? What constitutes “good” science?
2	(How) do I use or promote adoption of dominant vs. alternative discursive, rhetorical, structural, stylistic, or lexicogrammatical norms?
3	Is English the only vehicle for advancement of knowledge? (How) do I use or encourage monolingual vs. plurilingual writing practices and processes?
4	How am I engaging in/promoting sustainable writing for publication practices and processes?
5	(How) am I effectively providing/engaging with editorial/reviewer/author feedback?

Bridging the “Bias Gap” via Critical, Plurilingual Pedagogies

For those of us involved in the support of plurilingual scientists’ scholarly writing, it is important to consider how the design and delivery of research writing support might address the bias gap. Pedagogical initiatives aimed at increasing scholars’ awareness of what editors are looking for appear promising in terms of building sustainable social practices for scientific research writing (Cargill & Burgess, 2017; Corcoran, 2017; Curry & Lillis, 2013). The MU ERPP course, for example, provides an interesting template where conversations on research production and adjudication may be broached between editors and scientists. As Karen Englander and I have suggested elsewhere, a more critical approach to writing for publication pedagogy in the global (semi)periphery is one way to promote the pragmatic publication goals of plurilingual scholars while providing the conditions for greater individual and collective agency (Corcoran & Englander, 2016; Englander & Corcoran, 2019). Such critical approaches (see also Burgess et al., 2019; Curry & Lillis, 2013 Flowerdew, 2015; Harwood & Hadley, 2004) should include not only a pragmatic focus on effectively navigating the submission and review process but also a concurrent focus on building critical language awareness. Part of this awareness building could be an explicit introduction and discussion of language and power in relation to the global dominance of English as a language of science, the impact of language choice on ways of thinking and knowing, intercultural rhetorical differences between L1 and L2, the emergence and acceptance of English as a lingua franca of academia, and so on. An essential part of building such critical language awareness is explicitly discussing the power and positioning of authors, language brokers, and gatekeepers. ⁵

Rather than making achieving publication of their research “that much tougher” (Hyland, 2016, p. 11), explicitly highlighting the inextricable links between language and power in scientific knowledge production may serve to empower plurilingual EAL scientists. As Curry and Lillis (2013) suggest, by deeply examining and considering the social practices of research writing, we raise awareness of how these practices are “tied to institutions and structures that involve power dynamics and specific ideologies related to knowledge production and language(s)” (p. 4). As such, by specifically addressing issues of inequity and “bias” in scientific publishing, a critical plurilingual pedagogical approach could explicitly unpack and challenge dogmatic orientations, ideologies, and epistemologies, all expressed to some extent by participants in this study:

English is a neutral conduit of science

“Good” English equals “good” science;

Adjudication of scientific texts is completely impartial

There is a conspiracy at international journals against plurilingual EAL scholars

Publishing is easy for those whose first language is English

In combination with a concurrent focus on the social practice of effectively dealing with feedback from editors/reviewers (Curry & Lillis, 2013; Flowerdew, 2008; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016), such a pedagogical approach could serve to provide the conditions for plurilingual EAL scientists to make informed decisions and craft strategies for navigating the submission and review process (Curry & Lillis, 2013). Providing a path for critical choices as to which languages (e.g., English vs. Spanish) or varieties of language to use (e.g., standard vs. nonstandard English[es]) and how to use them when writing science for particular audiences is essential for scholars as they develop their hybrid, plurilingual research writing practices/repertoires (Burgess et al., 2019; Englander & Corcoran, 2019). Further, in so doing, these scholars might more effectively engage with editor and reviewer feedback in attempting to achieve publication of their research, a challenging endeavor regardless of author L1 and experience (Casanave, 2019; Hyland, 2019; Paltridge & Starfield, 2016; Tardy, 2019). Developing a “thicker skin” may lead to fewer instances of plurilingual EAL authors leaving their research to gather dust on the shelf following editorial rejection or harsh gatekeeper feedback. Moreover, such a plurilingual orientation to ERPP instruction can counter a deficit narrative that positions these scholars as deficient users of scientific English and, instead, validates and affirms their evolving scholarly identities as “plurilingual social actor[s]” (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 2009, p. v).

Building on Lin’s (2016) critical framework for approaching content and language integrated learning, Table 6 (adopted from Englander & Corcoran, 2019) outlines some guiding principles for those looking to raise scholars’ critical awareness of the scientific research article writing as a “complex, socially-embedded literacy product” (Hanauer & Englander, 2013, p. 137). Ultimately, such an “identify and situate” approach to writing for publication pedagogy could lead to increased plurilingual scholar agency and, as a result, more robust participation in scientific knowledge production. Clearly, these pedagogical principles are neither one-size-fits-all nor a panacea for attending to global inequity in knowledge production; rather such pedagogies should be based on the local realities of scholars engaged with advanced research writing.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies.

Critical plurilingual pedagogies: “identify & situate”
Historically situate norms and suggest alternatives
Point to nonstandard alternatives to article construction
Analyze and promote diversity of expression
Recognize (and thus validate) intelligibility over “accuracy”
Examine and reflect on impact of publishing choices
Examine and reflect upon power and positioning of authors, language brokers, and gatekeepers
Focus on developing sustainable social research writing practices and processes

Note: This table is inspired by Lin’s (2016) description of critical, pragmatic approaches to English language support. It is expanded upon in Englander and Corcoran’s (2019) book, titled English for Research Publication Purposes: Critical Plurilingual Pedagogies.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Avenues

To conclude, the study described in this article was conducted in a specific geolinguistic region; thus, results obtained may not be the same or even similar across contexts. A far greater amount of research is needed to ascertain the veracity of claims of bias from plurilingual EAL scientists from across global locales and disciplinary communities. Robust empirical investigation into adjudication practices at scientific journals would ideally include a variety of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Hultgren, 2019; Paltridge, Starfield, & Tardy, 2016). In particular, the charting of not only plurilingual EAL scientists’ research writing processes and practices during manuscript production (e.g., textographies) but also how their research writing is taken up by language brokers (e.g., translators, copy editors, writing support specialists) and journal editors with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, the point I raise is that the perceptions of, first, bias in adjudication of plurilingual EAL scientists’ writing at English-medium journals and, second, broader inequity in scientific knowledge production must be addressed whether such perceptions are empirically founded or not. Though plurilingual EAL scholars’ perceptions may differ across contexts and regions, it is important for journal gatekeepers and language brokers to deeply consider voices such as those of these MU scientists. The perceptions of inequality and inequity described by MU scientists are real; by critically reflecting on our role(s) in maintaining or challenging such relations of power, perhaps we can chart a more equitable path for diverse global scholars in an increasingly Anglo-dominant world of scientific research writing.

Pedagogical initiatives—such as the MU ERPP course—aimed at supporting the scientific output of plurilingual EAL scholars are an excellent measure that can impact the robust participation of these scholars in global knowledge production. However, the burden should not be borne strictly by plurilingual EAL scholars (or their institutions) alone. Language brokers and scientific journal gatekeepers must critically reflect upon the ways in which their particular stances, approaches, practices and pedagogies may impact plurilingual EAL scientists’ perceptions and practices. Ultimately, all stakeholders should reflect upon the impact of the choices we make in our writing (support) and adjudication practices. Bringing to bear an equity-driven, critical plurilingual lens on our (science) writing support and adjudication practices will not create an equal playing field in scientific knowledge production; however, it may be a step in the right direction, ultimately not only benefitting plurilingual EAL scientists but also, perhaps, contributing to the advancement of science.