In numerous scientific disciplines, English holds the position of an academic lingua franca. Particularly in fields such as natural sciences, medicine, and engineering, English has emerged as the predominant academic language for scholars driven by the necessity to enhance research visibility and garner increased citation counts. In recent decades however, there has been a growing awareness of the prevalence of English dominance in academia, bringing forth a substantial body of research that delves into the challenges and experiences encountered by non-Anglophone scholars in their endeavors to place their research in top-tier journals, which are predominantly, though not exclusively, published in English (Curry and Lillis 2004, 2019; Flowerdew 2001, 2008; Hyland 2016; Kuteeva and Mauranen 2014; Lillis and Curry 2006, 2015; Pérez-Llantada 2007; Pérez-Llantada, Plo, and Ferguson 2011).
The primary research emphasis has been English-medium writing, with a predominant focus on researchers in the fields of engineering, medicine (Martín et al. 2014), and natural and social sciences. Less scholarly attention has been devoted to researchers in humanistic disciplines, with exceptions found in the recent studies by Lynn Nygaard (2019), conducting research on academic literacies among Norwegian social scientists and humanists; Nuria Edo-Marzá (2021), focusing on Spanish English-linguists; and Karim Sadeghi and Mahsa Alinasab (2020), centered on researchers in applied linguistics. To the best of our knowledge in the realm of translation and interpreting (T&I), academic publishing in foreign languages barely has received scholarly attention. Current studies within this domain, as evidenced by the works of Agnes Pisanski Peterlin (2019) and Maria Alice Antunes (2022), primarily focus on self-translation among T&I scholars or analyze the importance of English in translation studies, as demonstrated by Rosa Agost’s (2015) bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, despite the emerging interest in multilingual publishing evidenced by recent studies (Kulczycki et al. 2020; Zheng and Guo 2019; Shchemeleva 2019; Krauskopf, Garcia, and Funk 2017), as highlighted by Mary Jane Curry and Theresa Lillis (2019), there remains a necessity for more research into the utilization of multiple languages by plurilingual scholars in the context of scholarly publishing and the impact of these language choices on knowledge production.
Hence, the primary objective of this study is to extend the scope of research and provide insights into the experiences of plurilingual scholars in translation and linguistics concerning the process of publishing scholarly articles in a foreign language without exclusively focusing on English-medium publishing. For this purpose, a survey is conducted with the endeavor to unveil the challenges faced by plurilingual scholars and elucidate their approaches to the writing and revision processes in order to adhere to the high language requirements to ensure acceptance of their submissions.
Before inquiring into the nexus of foreign language writing and scholarly publishing, it is essential to take a closer look at the scholarly publishing landscape within the discipline under scrutiny. Considering the increased necessity within the field of T&I—a realm in which the primary means of disseminating research has historically been through monographs and book chapters (Agost 2015)—to disseminate research findings in renowned journals, the exploration of the scholarly publishing landscape is directed towards the language practices evident in renowned T&I journals.
Mapping the Landscape of Multilingual Publishing in Translation and Interpreting
One may contend that the field of T&I, characterized by plurilingual scholars and research topics typically involving more than one language, appears to be an inherently well-suited realm to accommodate multilingual publishing. However, for a more nuanced understanding of multilingualism in this academic field, an examination of scholarly publishing in journals within this field seems to be an appropriate approach.
To acquire a comprehension of the scholarly publication landscape within the field of T&I an inquiry was conducted across the Web of Science (WoS) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The exploration within the Master Journal List of the WoS facilitated the identification of 32 T&I journals, while the search conducted in DOAJ yielded a total of 42 journals, indicating a substantial overlap in the journals displayed in both databases. Nevertheless, the resulting findings offered only a partial depiction of the scholarly publication landscape, conspicuously lacking several renowned journals within the realm of T&I. Consequently, in order to complement our investigation, we opted to utilize a database of academic journals compiled and maintained by the Department of Translation and Interpreting, the Department of East Asian Studies, and the humanities library staff of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB).1 The UAB database stands out as the preeminent repository in T&I encompassing a comprehensive array of current journals dedicated to matters within the domain of T&I, alongside journals specializing in linguistics, philology, intercultural communication, and discourse analysis, which are recognized for the publication of a substantial number of articles pertaining to translation. Within the sphere of T&I, a substantial number of journals lack indexing. Thus, adhering to the study’s objective to focus on journals esteemed for their scientific merit, the journals indexed in Scopus from the UAB database (69) have been taken into consideration.
Figure 1 illustrates the overall count of journals categorized by their quartile scores and the corresponding number of accepted languages for manuscript submission.2 As depicted in the figure, the vast majority of Q1 journals in the domain of T&I exclusively accept one language, primarily English. In the case of Q2 journals, approximately 77.3% accept two or more languages, and this proportion increases to 84.6% for Q3 journals and 85.7% for Q4 journals. The trend indicates that lower quartile scores correspond to the acceptance of submissions in more than two languages. Therefore, the domain of T&I mirrors other disciplines (see, for example, Krauskopf, Garcia, and Funk 2017) in the sense that top-ranked journals are also predominantly English-language journals. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that 65 of the analyzed 69 journals (94%) accept English as the only or one of the languages for manuscript submission. The sole exceptions among the T&I journals not accepting English include a Polish journal exclusively devoted to the study of Romance linguistics (Studia Romanica Posnaniensa), two Spanish journals—Lingumática and Tonos digital—which exclusively admit submissions in Spanish, and Palimpsestes, a French journal accepting manuscripts only in French.
Regarding languages other than English accepted for manuscript submission, the majority of T&I journals accept European languages, with Spanish and French being the most widely accepted (Figure 2). It is noteworthy that languages such as Croatian, Danish, and Slovak are local languages of the respective countries where the journals are published. Focusing specifically on the issue of regional languages, Basque and Galician are accepted only by Spanish journals, whereas Catalan is also accepted by some international journals. Among the five Q1 journals, MonTI, a Spanish journal, accepts submissions in five languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Catalan). Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, another Spanish journal, accepts submissions in eight languages (Basque, Catalan, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish). Cadernos de Tradução, a Brazilian journal, welcomes submissions in 10 languages (Catalan, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish). Linguistica Antverpiensia, a Belgian journal, accepts submissions in four languages (English, French, German, Spanish). Finally, Meta, a Canadian journal, accepts submissions in French, English, and Spanish.
After examination of the articles published in the aforementioned journals between 2019 and 2023, the following picture emerges. As illustrated in the distribution depicted in Figure 3, a distinction is evident between the number of languages accepted for manuscript submission by these Q1 journals and the languages in which scholarly articles are ultimately published. During the examined five-year period, three of the journals predominantly published articles in the local language, followed by articles in English. Linguistica Antverpiensia exclusively featured research articles in English, while the Canadian journal Meta presented a more balanced distribution with publications in all three languages accepted for manuscript admission.
In summary, while multilingualism is an intrinsic characteristic of scholarly publishing in the field of translation and interpreting, the analysis of the period under consideration reveals that the majority of top-tier journals still prioritize English as the sole language for manuscript submission. Furthermore, those journals that accept manuscripts in multiple languages do not encompass the full range of languages admitted for publication, and they predominantly publish articles in the local language followed by articles in English.
Academic Publishing in a Foreign Language Survey
The survey conscientiously centered on soliciting participation from scholars within the academic domains of translation and interpreting, along with those in linguistics and language studies. The rationale behind this selection lies in the interdisciplinary nature of these domains. The fact that translation is designated as a subfield of applied linguistics in the UNESCO nomenclature underscores the nuanced interplay between the two disciplines. The intricate relationship between translation and linguistics is evident in the fact that researchers in translation delve into linguistic themes, while their counterparts in linguistics conduct investigations germane to the realm of translation. Moreover, within linguistics and translation studies, language plays a crucial role in the research process. Hence, the choice of language and the researcher’s proficiency in that language have a major influence on the research and its quality. As highlighted by Gisèle Sapiro and Hélène Seiler-Juilleret (2016), in social sciences and humanities (SSH), the quality of research outcomes is intricately linked to the quality of scholarly writing. Consequently, linguistic inequality experienced by non-native English speakers creates a language bias.
With the aim of obtaining data on the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of plurilingual scholars regarding academic publishing in a foreign language, a questionnaire was developed. After preliminary discussions with plurilingual researchers in T&I from both public and private Spanish universities, focusing on the challenges of publishing in a foreign language, their experiences, and the significance of investigating this subject, a pilot survey was administered to a sample of five T&I and language scholars with different native languages. These scholars evaluated the initial version of the questionnaire, providing feedback on the pertinence and relevance of items as well as the clarity of wording. Before disseminating the self-administered survey, their suggestions were addressed, and items were subsequently refined according to their comments.
The web-based survey, disseminated through a hyperlink, was distributed via pre-moderated international mailing lists within the fields of T&I and linguistics. The primary objective was to elicit responses from a spectrum of scholars from as many countries as possible, possessing distinct native languages. Given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the present study, coupled with the voluntary and anonymous engagement of participants, the survey was conducted utilizing a convenience sampling methodology. While the survey was administered using an English-language questionnaire to engage with a population of scholars with varying linguistic backgrounds, respondents were explicitly encouraged to respond to open-ended questions in the language of their preference.
Information was gathered through a semi-structured questionnaire of 44 both closed and open-ended questions, organized into seven sections. The first section aimed at collecting demographic information about the respondents, including age, gender, academic affiliation, country of the institution, research area, and years in academic research. The second section was targeted to gather data regarding the respondents’ linguistic background, including their native language and their primary language of academic publishing, as well as additional language(s) of academic publishing, and self-assessment of their language proficiency. The third section focused on the motivations for publishing in a foreign language. The fourth section was dedicated to scrutinizing the writing process in a foreign language with particular emphasis on the impact on content and macrostructural aspects. The fifth section comprised items relating to the revision process, such as artificial intelligence (AI) utilization and revision undertaken by a native speaker. The sixth section delved into the authors’ publishing experience and the peer review process, while the seventh section explored the support scholars received from their institutions or journals and publishers, along with available resources. The concluding section of the questionnaire concentrated on respondents’ suggestions for improvement of the publishing experience for non-native-speaking scholars and additional comments they deemed pertinent to impart.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the survey results, it is essential to articulate potential limitations. Notably, the particularities of the fields of language studies, linguistics, and T&I in which the survey was conducted should be considered when interpreting the study’s results. Within the highly diverse realm of SSH, linguistics constitutes a comparatively small discipline. This characteristic is further pronounced in the field of T&I. As a result, the survey’s target population is reduced in size compared to other disciplines within SSH. This attribute, along with the substantial time commitment to complete the questionnaire and the voluntary and anonymous nature of the survey, is reflected in the number of responses, totaling 115.
Survey Results
This section presents the survey’s most pertinent findings aligned with the thematic structure delineated in the questionnaire, summarizing both the quantitative and qualitative data derived from the survey.
Demographic Data
Regarding demographic data, 67% of respondents identified as female, 29.5% as male, 0.9% as nonbinary, and 2.7% preferred not to disclose information regarding their gender. The higher representation of female respondents is consistent with the observation that women still dominate the academic fields under survey (Pym et al. 2012; Schäffner 2013). As for the age data of the respondents, the distribution is relatively balanced: 17.9% are aged 60 and above, 25.1% fall within the range of 50 to 59 years of age, 23.1% are aged 40 to 49 years, and 24.1% are within the category of 30 to 39 years of age. Only young scholars are less represented (9.8%). The respondents’ academic affiliations show a pronounced degree of homogeneity, with an overwhelming 97.3% representing university affiliation, while the remaining 2.7% are either affiliated with research institutions or are not affiliated. However, across a total of 28 countries, notable diversity is observed in the geographic locations of the academic institutions where the respondents conduct their research.3
With regard to their research area, 50% of the respondents stated language and linguistics, 38% T&I, 10% literature, and 2% other related research areas (communication and education). As to their research experience, 15.2% of the respondents possessed less than five years of experience in academic research, 26.8% fell within the five to 10 years range, 17.9% accumulated between 11 and 20 years, and a substantial 40.2% were senior researchers with more than two decades of experience in academic research.
Linguistic Background
Concerning their linguistic background, the respondents encompass a spectrum of 29 distinct native languages. Most respondents are native speakers of Spanish, followed by native speakers of German, English, Lithuanian, Polish, and Arabic (see Figure 4).
A salient attribute of the surveyed participants is their proficiency in more than one language. Specifically, 20% of the surveyed respondents identified as balanced bilinguals or plurilinguals.4 Furthermore, 60% of respondents stated that they are proficient users (C1–C2) of one foreign language in addition to their native language, and 20% are proficient users of two or more foreign languages.5 This self-assessment diverges to some degree from the results obtained when participants were queried about the challenges they face in terms of grammar, syntax, and idiomatic expressions in the context of foreign language writing, as well as difficulties associated with navigating cultural nuances and adhering to stylistic conventions and language norms of the academic register. As depicted in Figures 5 and 6, only a small minority, comprising 17% and 16.2%, respectively, faced no challenges with these language-related aspects.
Languages of Academic Publishing
When queried about the frequency of their native language employed in academic publishing, a minority of 7.3% of the respondents stated that they always publish in their native language(s). Notably, these respondents comprised exclusively native English speakers or balanced bilinguals with English being one of their native languages. Among the 28.4% who indicated using their native language often in their published work, more than half were Spanish native speakers or balanced bilinguals with Spanish being one of their native languages. This result can be partly attributed to the growing importance of Spanish as a language of science and the increasing visibility and recognition of scholarly journals in Spanish (Abadal et al. 2015; Navas-Fernández, Abadal, and Rodrigues 2018; Gradim and Piñeiro-Naval 2019) since the turn of the millennium. Respondents who employed their native language occasionally account for 21.1%, those who employed their native language rarely 23.9%, and respondents who never used their native language add up to 19.3%. Among those who never used their native language, 15% were native speakers of Arabic, 15% of German, 10% of Polish, 10% of Turkish, 10% of Greek, and the remaining 40% of the following languages: Basque, Bengali, Hindi, Lithuanian, Russian, Romanian, Slovak, Sinhala, Fali, and Fulfulde.
As far as the primary foreign language of academic publishing is concerned, the results show that the vast majority of the respondents published their research in English. In contrast, the use of Spanish, German, French, or Arabic as foreign languages in academic publishing is relatively insignificant (see Figure 7). The prevalence of English is noteworthy when taking into account that, alongside the primary foreign language used in academic publishing, 17% of the respondents incorporated an additional foreign language, and 24% published their research in three or more foreign languages. Although Spanish, French, and German emerge as the most prevalent among these additional languages, some respondents indicated publishing in Esperanto, Catalan, Montenegrin, Arabic, Korean, Danish, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, or Turkish.
Given the diverse modalities within the realm of academic publishing, respondents were asked to quantify the percentage of their peer-reviewed scholarly articles published in English, languages other than English, and in their native language to their overall publication output. Figure 8 displays the predominant trend among respondents to publish peer-reviewed articles in English, albeit with varying percentages. Notably, a substantial number of respondents published over 80% of their peer-reviewed articles in English.
However, more than two-thirds of the respondents also published peer-reviewed articles in languages other than English. However, it is noteworthy, as depicted in Figure 9, that only approximately a quarter of respondents exhibited a peer-reviewed scholarly output in non-English languages exceeding 50% of their overall peer-reviewed publishing.
As to peer-reviewed scholarly articles published in respondents’ native languages, almost one-third of the surveyed scholars did not publish peer-reviewed articles in their native language altogether, whereas over two-thirds did publish peer-reviewed articles in their native language. As Figure 10 displays, the distribution of the percentages, however, exhibits considerable variation.
Motivations Underlying the Choice to Publish in a Foreign Language
A substantial majority of the respondents (87.5%) asserted that the rationale for the choice to publish in a foreign language arises from the desire for increased visibility and higher impact of their research. In contrast, only a minority of 12.5% stated that such considerations were not relevant to their decision to publish in a foreign language. The fact that top-tier journals or high-end publishing companies in the respective research area only accept manuscripts in English prompted 64.3% of the respondents to publish in a foreign language, with 35.7% responding that this consideration was not relevant. Journals or publishing companies generally not accepting submissions in the respondent’s respective native language motivated 51.8% to opt for publication in a foreign language, while 48.2% indicated that this consideration was irrelevant to their decision.
Similar results emerged when inquiring whether the lower prestige of journals and publishing companies accepting manuscripts in the respective native language influenced a scholar’s decision to publish in a foreign language. Of respondents, 58.9% declared that this factor played a role in their decision-making. Conversely, 41.1% of the respondents stated that the lower prestige associated with these journals and publishing companies was not a determining factor for them to publish in a foreign language.
Moreover, participants were requested to specify any additional rationales for choosing to publish in a language other than their native tongue. The subsequent list concisely presents the key ideas articulated by 38% of the survey participants:
Lack of proficiency in specialized terminology and academic register within the native language.
The central focus of research pertains to the domain of the foreign language of academic publishing.
Sustained residency and occupational tenure within the country where the foreign language is spoken.
Particular interest in the dissemination of the research within the scientific community of the foreign language.
Collaborating and/or publishing in conjunction with peers whose native languages vary.
Criteria established by the national academic evaluation system.
In sum, the results show that increased research visibility emerges as a motivating factor for the vast majority of the respondents to opt for publishing in a foreign language. For over 50% of the surveyed participants, the determining factors influencing their decision to publish in a foreign language included the fact that high-impact journals and renowned publishing companies in their research domain only accept manuscripts in English, journals and publishing companies do not accept manuscripts in the respondents’ native languages, and the perceived lower prestige of journals in the respondents’ native languages.
Regarding the additional motivations, it is interesting to note that there are plurilingual scholars who acknowledge a lack of expertise in academic writing in their native language due to academic training in a foreign language alongside long-term residency outside their native country. The comments of the following respondents with different linguistic backgrounds are rather illustrative:
I cannot express my research ideas in Arabic. All my degrees are in English. So, all the academic terminology I know is in English, I don’t know the Arabic equivalents! (Arabic native speaker)
I did my graduate studies in English, so it is easier to write specialized articles in a language in which I’m familiar with the terminology. (Catalan and Spanish bilingual)
It’s usually difficult to use academic diction in my non-English languages. (Bengali and Hindi bilingual)
I have lived outside my native country for decades and do not master my L1 on the academic level being trained in Spanish, French, English, Creole and Portuguese… . I would not like to use my native language in academic publishing. I am a functional multilingual and don’t use L1 in publishing. (Polish native speaker)
These respondents perceived the act of publishing in a foreign language to be more straightforward than doing so in their native language, an observation that resonates with the study carried out by Josep Soler (2019).
Also noteworthy is the observation that respondents affiliated with Spanish universities mentioned being subject to criteria articulated by national evaluation bodies. In Spain, scholars are required to obtain accreditation and subsequently must provide evidence of their research productivity and quality over six-year periods for promotion. Over the last decade, both Spanish academic evaluation bodies, the National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agency (ANECA) and National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI), have notably raised their requirements. Consequently, publishing scholarly articles in high-impact journals, particularly in English, has become imperative in Spain (Edo-Marzá 2021) and Portugal, as Anabela Gradim and Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval (2019) point out. The adoption of merit systems incentivizing researchers to publish their work primarily in high-impact English-language journals is not exclusive to Spain or Portugal, as demonstrated by Irina Shchemeleva (2019) in the case of Russian scholars.
The final question of the survey section exploring motivations for publishing in a foreign language required respondents to articulate their preference for publishing in their native language, provided there were no differences in visibility and impact. Respondents exhibited a split in preferences, with a slight majority (60%) expressing preference for publishing in their native language and 40% indicating otherwise. The fact that a notable subset of respondents lacked preference for their native language is consistent with the insights gleaned when inquiring about additional reasons for publishing in a foreign language. Some respondents either did not feel comfortable publishing in their native language due to a deficiency in mastering the academic register or preferred to publish in a foreign language owing to their research focus, collaboration with peers of different language backgrounds, and a particular interest in disseminating their research within the academic community of the foreign language.
Writing Process
Before touching in detail on the writing process of scholarly articles in a foreign language, respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale whether writing in a foreign language influences how they communicate their findings. Figure 11 depicts that most respondents replied that writing in a foreign language affects the manner in which they convey their research findings. Although 60% of respondents stated proficiency as advanced users (C1–C2) of the foreign language employed for academic publishing, it is interesting to note that 43.6% of the respondents still perceived writing a manuscript in a foreign language as either definitely or very probably more demanding and time consuming (see Figure 12). This finding is consistent with the observations by Tatsuya Amano et al. (2023) and Valeria Ramírez-Castañeda (2020).
However, when inquiring about the additional time needed by respondents for drafting a manuscript in a foreign language compared to writing a manuscript in their native language, the survey yielded a diverse range of responses: 28.2% of the respondents claimed no need for additional time, 32.7% indicated a slight increase in time, 23.6% reported a moderate increase, and 15.5% acknowledged a significant increase in time.
Another set of questions probed into the strategies employed by respondents when approaching the writing process in a foreign language. These strategies included co-authorship with a native speaker, use of professional translation services, use of translation programs and AI, and the language(s) used for manuscript drafting. A minority of scholars noted opting always (6.1%) or often (7.8%) for co-authorship with a native speaker. Additionally, 25.2% acknowledged occasional use of co-authorship, 31.3% reported using this strategy rarely, and 29.8% asserted never opting for co-authorship with a native speaker. A significant majority of respondents (67%) reported abstaining completely from utilization of professional translation services. In contrast, 11.3% resorted to it on rare occasions, with an additional 12.2% employing it occasionally. A small percentage of the respondents frequently chose the translation of their manuscripts (3.5%), and 6% consistently used this option. Regarding the frequency of the use of translation programs and AI applications during the initial writing process, 48.2% did not use these resources at all. Conversely, 51.8% of the respondents leveraged these resources, albeit with diverse frequencies: 17.3% made a rare use, 20% opted for them occasionally, 11.8% frequently, and 2.7% consistently.
In addition to these strategies, the majority (81.8%) acknowledged drafting the manuscript directly in a foreign language from the very beginning, whereas a minority (12.7%) decided to make the initial draft in their native language and translate it afterward. Within the 5.5% of respondents employing alternative drafting strategies, the following approaches emerge: a combination involving drafting in both the mother tongue and the foreign language; a combination of drafting in the foreign language followed by translation from the native language using tools such as DeepL or ChatGPT; or a hybrid approach that included drafting in the foreign language, the native language, or a third language, contingent upon foreign language intended for publication of the manuscript. The following comment from a native Polish speaker may serve as a prime example of this drafting technique: “[It] depends on the language. In English and Esperanto, I draft in them from the beginning; in German, I draft in English and/or Polish, and translate.” This observation corresponds with the findings of Curry and Lillis (2019) and Linus Salö (2015), indicating that researchers draw on various languages in the writing process.
Responding to the question about the extent to which writing in a foreign language affects the content of their manuscript, 27% indicated no impact at all, 36.5% noted a slight influence, 23.5% reported a moderate effect, 10.4% acknowledged a great influence, and 2.6% highlighted an extreme impact. Very similar results yielded the query about the extent to which respondents address structural and organizational aspects of their manuscript differently when writing in a foreign language (see Figure 13). The results suggest that for the majority of respondents, publishing in a foreign language has a restricted impact on the content and macrostructural aspects of their manuscript, if it exerts any influence at all.
Revision Process
The segment of the questionnaire dedicated to the manuscript revision process encompassed items focusing on the use of translation and AI tools, revisions by native speakers, and the extent to which their feedback exerts influence on the final manuscript.
With respect to the utilization of translation and AI tools during the revision phase, the findings align with those obtained regarding the writing process. Specifically, 40.9% of the respondents completely refrained from using these resources, 20.9% rarely employed them, 22.6% used them occasionally, 12.2% utilized them frequently, and 3.4% consistently made use of them. As far as revision by native speakers is concerned, only a minority of the respondents did not seek their feedback before submitting the manuscript. Figure 14 illustrates a majority of surveyed scholars (89.1%) drew on native speakers for manuscript revision, though with varying frequencies. This discrepancy is further reflected in Figure 15, which displays the degrees to which the surveyed scholars considered and integrated the native speakers’ feedback into their final manuscript.
The observation that native speakers’ input did not consistently influence the final manuscript of the respondents may partly be related to the self-perceived high proficiency of most respondents in the foreign language. However, this phenomenon may also be ascribed, in part, to the difficulty of finding a native speaker who also possesses expertise in the specific field. This sentiment is echoed in a respondent’s comment: “Have your manuscript read by a (near) native speaker who is an expert in your field. Just having texts revised by a native speaker who has no idea what you are talking about is of no use.”
Peer Review Process
Given the pivotal role of peer review in scholarly publishing, the survey sought to solicit responses concerning their experience with peer reviews and the language-specific dimensions of this evaluative process. Opinions were divided as to the extent to which the peer review process ensures inclusivity and fairness for submissions in foreign languages: 17.1% expressed the belief that such assurance was lacking, 26.7% held the opinion that they were ensured to a limited degree, 29.5% considered it to be moderately addressed, 22.9% felt that these aspects were ensured to a great extent, whereas only 3.8% of the surveyed scholars perceived inclusivity and fairness as consistently addressed. With regard to the question about the impact of linguistic aspects on the outcome of the peer review for their manuscript, the substantial majority (88.9%) of respondents believed that linguistic aspects exert at least some influence on the peer review results, while a minority of 11.1% held the opinion that there is no influence whatsoever (Figure 16).
The prevalent belief among the majority of the respondents regarding the influence of linguistic factors on peer reviews corresponds to the outcomes of an experimental investigation conducted by Stephen Poltizer-Ahles, Teresa Girolamo, and Samantha Ghali (2020). The authors focused on the assessment of scientific quality in abstracts written in English, contrasting those adhering to academic English standards with those that did not. Their study provided indicative evidence suggesting that abstracts adhering to academic-standard English were more likely to be perceived as possessing higher scientific quality. An additional consideration in peer review processes within domains like T&I is the fundamental interplay between research findings and their communicative presentation. In accordance with Nygaard’s (2019) observation that the standards of academic writing quality are influenced by disciplinary culture, and supported by Claus Gnutzmann and Frank Rabe’s (2013) findings that in disciplines prioritizing content over form, language demands may be lower compared to disciplines where language serves both as an instrument of cognition and an object of study, it can be asserted that in T&I research, the quality of language used to convey findings is intricately intertwined with the essence of the findings themselves.
As regards the inquiry into whether the peer review process adequately takes into account the challenges faced by non-native authors, most respondents (84.3%) concurred that it does not. When asked about their overall experience with the peer review process when submitting manuscripts in a foreign language, a small percentage (9.3%) of respondents rated their experience as excellent, a majority of 46.3% of respondents described their experience as good, and 30.6% considered it fair. On the opposite end of the spectrum lies a minority for whom the experiences with peer review were less favorable: 12% of the respondents assessed their experience as poor, and 1.9% rated it as very poor.
Regarding manuscript rejections solely on linguistic grounds, merely a minority of 12.1% of respondents reported receiving feedback indicating rejection exclusively due to linguistic issues. A slightly different picture emerged concerning the imperative to enhance manuscripts. When queried about the frequency with which they were asked to improve their writing, only 15.6% of respondents indicated that they were never requested to enhance their writing, while 31.2% reported rare occurrences. Additionally, 33.9% of surveyed scholars stated they were occasionally asked to do so, and 16.5% reported frequent requests. Only a minority (2.8%) consistently had to improve their writing in a foreign language.
The section of the questionnaire addressing peer review concluded with two questions concerning improvements in this evaluative process. Respondents were asked about their preference regarding separate feedback for linguistic aspects, methodological considerations, and content-related matters. Furthermore, participants were queried about the necessity of a standardized process for providing constructive feedback on language issues within the peer review process. To the first question, 83.3% of respondents expressed a preference for receiving distinct feedback for linguistic aspects, methodological considerations, and content-related matters. Among the surveyed scholars, 74.5% endorsed the idea that there should be a standardized process for providing feedback on linguistic issues. This finding is particularly interesting, given that 74.5% of the respondents had conducted peer reviews and were familiar with the procedures and intricacies inherent in the peer review process.
Support and Resources
To comprehensively capture the respondents’ experiences in scholarly publishing, they were requested to report on whether they received support from their institutions or journals and to express their views on the potential for improvement in the publishing process. A majority of 51.8% indicated having received support or training in academic writing in a foreign language. However, concerning support or resources provided by journals, a substantial majority of 85.5% reported not having received any support to enhance the foreign language quality of their manuscripts. A comparable percentage of respondents (88.2%) expressed the need for more language support in the publishing process for scholars seeking to publish in a foreign language. Among the respondents’ suggestions for improving the publishing experience for these scholars, the following are recurrent:
Support provided by academic institutions, publishers, and journals for proofreading without incurring any expenses.
Tailored training programs provided by academic institutions to facilitate scholars in their writing processes in a foreign language.
Increased opportunities in indexed journals to publish in languages other than English.
Establishment of more high-rank journals in other languages.
Increased attention to language-related concerns, including style and the cultural and social framework of knowledge from which a researcher generates their written work.
Ensuring that decisions to reject or accept a paper are not influenced by language-related issues.
In the concluding section of the questionnaire, respondents were encouraged to provide further insights and additional comments regarding their experience in scholarly publishing in a foreign language. Prominent among the experiences shared by respondents is the subject of the peer review process. Several survey participants perceived a lack of transparency in the peer review process: reviewers’ criticism targeting their language use and highlighting non-native language features resulted occasionally in disparate evaluations. The subsequent comment serves as an illustrative example of this perception: “Reviewer’s comments are in many cases contradictory, one says the language is fine and the other that English is very poor, even after being reviewed by native [speaker]s. There is no consensus and I feel that many reviewers automatically include that comment on English language regardless of what they find in the paper.”
Another aspect highlighted in the comments is the challenge arising from managing three languages in publication: the author’s native language; the language involved in the research topic; and a third language, which is the language of scholarly publishing.
In my case, with Spanish as my native language and German as my target language of study, I believe that the requirement to publish in English about the German language and its comparison with Spanish is nonsensical. However, there is a certain imposition of English that greatly limits my opportunities to publish my research. (Spanish native speaker)
As a translation scholar specialized in Romance languages and a native speaker of German, I encounter the peculiar circumstance of having to publish in English about translations from Spanish into French and/or German. (German native speaker)
Finally, respondents also expressed concerns about the preservation of linguistic diversity and the future of other lesser-used languages in scholarly publishing as languages of science.
Should the obsession with English-only publications remain with us (as it most probably will), it may significantly affect the quality of academic writing in languages other than English, gradually leading to the demise of academic style and discourse in those languages. (Czech native speaker)
Conclusions
While a substantial body of literature addresses publishing in English across academic disciplines, along with the challenges encountered by non-native-English-speaking researchers in English-medium scholarly publishing, comparatively less attention has been given to the experiences of proficient plurilingual researchers when publishing in languages other than English. Therefore, the study aimed to close an existing research gap by expanding the scope of inquiry to investigate the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of plurilingual scholars within the domain T&I and to gain an understanding of the challenges they encounter throughout the publication process and the strategies they employ during writing and revision to meet the high language standards inherent in scholarly publishing, with a focus beyond English and against the backdrop of the scholarly publishing landscape in T&I.
The present study, although exploratory in nature and limited in scope, suggests that within the scholarly publishing landscape, multilingualism is notably more prominent in the domain of T&I in contrast to other academic fields, albeit not to the degree one might presuppose, given the fact that research in this particular field generally involves two or more languages. The analysis of the publications across Scopus-indexed T&I journals over the past five years reveals that most top-tier journals prioritize English as the exclusive language for manuscript submission. There seems to be a prevailing trend to favor English and not to cater to the predominantly plurilingual T&I readership.6
Moreover, those highly ranked T&I journals that do consider submissions in multiple languages do not comprehensively cover the entire spectrum of accepted languages for publication. Instead, they predominantly publish manuscripts in the local language, with English manuscripts following in prevalence. Nevertheless, within the subset of examined Q1 journals, Cadernos de Tradução and MonTI undertake a noteworthy initiative that involves the consistent publication of manuscripts in languages other than the local language or English, accompanied by their English translation. This strategy not only allows for more linguistic inclusivity within the journal but also contributes to improving the dissemination of the research and overcoming language barriers in scholarly publishing through translation. Despite the endeavors of the examined journals to broaden the spectrum of languages accepted for submission and to publish the English translation alongside the original contribution, there persists a discernible need for improvement in effectively accommodating linguistic inclusivity and safeguarding lesser-used languages as integral elements of scientific discourse.
Focusing specifically on the survey findings, what conclusions can be inferred? Considering the profound impact of academic publishing on scholars’ professional pursuits, publications in prestigious journals and reputable publishing houses constitute the cornerstone of academic reputation and career advancement, often resulting in the obligation to publish in a foreign language. However, the utilization of a foreign language places constraints on authors. Due to the high foreign language proficiency of the surveyed respondents, these limitations are not as pronounced as suggested in the illustrative title “You Don’t Say What You Know, Only What You Can” of the study by Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Ramón Plo, and Gibson Ferguson (2011). Nevertheless, addressing linguistic issues and adhering to the stylistic norms of the academic register in the foreign language is perceived by the majority of respondents as challenging, making the entire writing process more time consuming. Thus, respondents articulate the need for more language support in the publishing process for non-native speakers. Moreover, they advocate for increased recognition of the challenges faced by non-native speakers and more attention to language-related concerns, including the cultural and social framework of knowledge within which researchers generate their work. The desideratum that researchers should be able to choose the language that suits best their communication purposes is in line with the concept of balanced multilingualism introduced by Gunnar Sivertsen (2018). This concept emphasizes the necessity to consider “all the communication purposes in all the different areas of research, and all the languages needed to fulfill these purposes, in a holistic manner without exclusions or priorities” (93). An interesting step in this direction is the initiative undertaken by the EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages (E-JournALL), which called for contributions for the special issue on translingual and multilingual pedagogies (December 2018) that translanguage within the contributions themselves (Di Ferrante, Bernstein, and Gironzetti 2019).
One interesting observation emerging from the survey results is the prevalent skepticism regarding transparency and fairness in the peer review process for submissions in a foreign language. Given that research topics in linguistics and T&I are inherently language related, the content and the language (including stylistic conventions, naturalness, and idiomaticity) in which this content is conveyed are intricately intertwined. Hence, most respondents perceive that observations and criticism targeting their language quality are impacting the peer review outcomes of their manuscripts and thus express a preference for receiving distinct feedback for linguistic aspects and content-related matters. This perception underscores the necessity to enhance the peer review process in multilingual contexts. It involves implementing measures such as linguistically inclusive assessment of manuscripts; distinguishing the evaluation of research outcomes from linguistic assessments; engaging peer reviewers with expertise in evaluating research across languages; and, ultimately, translating scholarly work into English to facilitate a more balanced dissemination of knowledge. These suggestions align with the measures proposed by Bianca Nolde López et al. (2023) to enhance linguistic inclusivity in scientific journals and, more broadly, to promote multilingualism in scholarly publishing.
Notes
- The journal list of the Autonomous University of Barcelona can be accessed through the following link: https://www.bib.uab.cat/human/acreditacions/planes/publiques/revistes/revistescercaetieng.php#. ⮭
- Q1 journals are those that occupy the first quartile in the journal rankings and thus are considered the most prestigious; Q2 journals occupy the second quartile, and so on. ⮭
- The 28 countries are Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ⮭
- According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, a balanced bilingual is a person who has proficiency in two languages such that their skills in each language match those of a native speaker of the same age. ⮭
- C1 and C2 refer to advanced and mastery language proficiency, respectively, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). ⮭
- This outcome resonates with the findings of Erwin Krauskopf, Fernanda Garcia, and Robert Funk (2017) in their examination of veterinary journals. They found that publications in Q1 journals were predominantly in English, accounting for an average of 99.2%, while Q2 journals exhibited a slightly lower percentage in English at 93.1%. ⮭
References
Abadal, Ernest, Remedios Melero, Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues, and Miguel Navas-Fernández. 2015. “Spanish Scholarly Journals in WoS and Scopus: The Impact of Open Access.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47, no. 1: 77–96. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.04.https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.47.1.04
Agost, Rosa. 2015. “Translation Studies and the Mirage of a Lingua Franca.” Perspectives 23, no. 2:249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1024695.https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1024695
Amano, Tatsuya, Valeria Ramírez-Castañeda, Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, Israel Borokini, Shawan Chowdhury, Marina Golivets, Juan David González Trujillo, et al. 2023. “The Manifold Costs of Being a Non-Native English Speaker in Science.” PLoS Biology 2, no. 7: e3002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
Antunes, Maria Alice. 2022. “La autotraducción académica: El caso de la producción publicada por la revista académica periférica plurilingüe Ecos de Linguagem.” Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 15, no. 1: 167–88. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.mut.v15n1a10.https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.mut.v15n1a10
Curry, Mary Jane, and Theresa Lillis. 2004. “Multilingual Scholars and the Imperative to Publish in English: Negotiating Interests, Demands, and Rewards.” TESOL Quarterly 38, no. 4: 663–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284.https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284
Curry, Mary Jane, and Theresa Lillis. 2019. “Unpacking the Lore on Multilingual Scholars Publishing in English: A Discussion Paper.” Publications 7, no. 2: 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020027.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020027
Di Ferrante, Laura, Katie A. Bernstein, and Elisa Gironzetti. 2019. “Towards Decentering English: Practices and Challenges of a Multilingual Academic Journal.” Critical Multilingualism Studies 7, no. 1: 105–23. https://cms.arizona.edu/index.php/multilingual/article/view/177/282.https://cms.arizona.edu/index.php/multilingual/article/view/177/282
Edo-Marzá, Nuria. 2021. “Academic Writing and Publishing: A Focus on Spanish English-Linguistics Scholars’ Self-Reported Attitudes, Practices and Perceptions as Regards Academic Life and the Creation and Publication of Their Research Articles.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 34, no. 1: 83–118. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.18037.edo.https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.18037.edo
Flowerdew, John. 2001. “Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions.” TESOL Quarterly 35, no. 1: 121–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862.https://doi.org/10.2307/3587862
Flowerdew, John. 2008. “Scholarly Writers Who Use English as an Additional Language: What Can Goffman’s ‘Stigma’ Tell Us?” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7, no. 2: 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
Gnutzmann, Claus, and Frank Rabe. 2014. “ ‘Theoretical Subtleties’ or ‘Text Modules’? German Researchers’ Language Demands and Attitudes across Disciplinary Cultures.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 13:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.003.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.003
Gradim, Anabela, and Valeriano Piñeiro-Naval. 2019. “Policies for Portuguese and Spanish: The World’s Second Publication Language in Web of Science.” Informação & Sociedade 29, no. 2: 145–60. https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2019v29n2.38279.https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2019v29n2.38279
Hyland, Ken. 2016. “Academic Publishing and the Myth of Linguistic Injustice.” Journal of Second Language Writing 31:58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
Krauskopf, Erwin, Fernanda Garcia, and Robert Funk. 2017. “Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-language Veterinary Journals.” Transinformação 29, no. 3: 343–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892017000300011.https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892017000300011
Kulczycki, Emanuel, Raf Guns, Janne Pölönen, Tim C. E. Engels, Ewa A. Rozkosz, Alesia A. Zuccala, Kasper Bruun, et al. 2020. “Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven-Country European Study.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 71, no. 11: 1371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336.https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336
Kuteeva, Maria, and Anna Mauranen. 2014. “Writing for Publication in Multilingual Contexts: An Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 13:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.002.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.11.002
Lillis, Theresa, and Mary Jane Curry. 2006. “Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars: Interactions with Literacy Brokers in the Production of English-Medium Texts.” Written Communication 23, no. 1: 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754.https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754
Lillis, Theresa, and Mary Jane Curry. 2015. “The Politics of English, Language and Uptake: The Case of International Academic Journal Article Reviews.” AILA Review 28, no. 1: 127–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil.https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil
Martín, Pedro, Jesús Rey-Rocha, Sally Burgess, and Ana I. Moreno. 2014. “Publishing Research in English-Language Journals: Attitudes, Strategies and Difficulties of Multilingual Scholars of Medicine.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.001.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.001
Navas-Fernández, Miguel, Ernest Abadal, and Rosângela S. Rodrigues. 2018. “Internationality of Spanish Scholarly Journals Indexed in Web of Science and Scopus.” Revista Española de Documentación Científica 41, no. 3: e209. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.3.1498.https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.3.1498
Nolde-Lopez, Bianca, Joanna Bundus, Henry Arenas-Castro, Didac Román, Samantha Chowdhury, Tatsuya Amano, Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, and Susana M. Wadgymar. 2023. “Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?” Integrative Organismal Biology 5, no. 1: obad003. https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obad003.https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obad003
Nygaard, Lynn P. 2019. “The Institutional Context of ‘Linguistic Injustice’: Norwegian Social Scientists and Situated Multilingualism.” Publications 7, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010010.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010010
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2007. “Native and Non-Native English Scholars Publishing Research Internationally: A Small-Scale Study on Authorial (In)Visibility.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, no. 2: 217–38. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i2.217.https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i2.217
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen, Ramón Plo, and Gibson R. Ferguson. 2011. “ ‘You Don’t Say What You Know, Only What You Can’: The Perceptions and Practices of Senior Spanish Academics Regarding Research Dissemination in English.” English for Specific Purposes 30, no. 1: 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes. 2019. “Self-Translation of Academic Discourse: The Attitudes and Experiences of Authors-Translators.” Perspectives 27, no. 6: 846–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1538255.https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1538255
Politzer-Ahles, Stephen, Teresa Girolamo, and Samantha Ghali. 2020. “Preliminary Evidence of Linguistic Bias in Academic Reviewing.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 47:100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895
Pym, Anthony, François Grin, Claudio Sfreddo, and Andy L. J. Chan. 2012. The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union: Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2782/63429.https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2782/63429
Ramírez-Castañeda, Valeria. 2020. “Disadvantages in Preparing and Publishing Scientific Papers Caused by the Dominance of the English Language in Science: The Case of Colombian Researchers in Biological Sciences.” PloS ONE 15, no. 9: e0238372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372
Sadeghi, Karim, and Mahsa Alinasab. 2020. “Academic Conflict in Applied Linguistics Research Article Discussions: The Case of Native and Non-Native Writers.” English for Specific Purposes 59:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.001.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.001
Salö, Linus. 2015. “The Linguistic Sense of Placement: Habitus and the Entextualization of Translingual Practices in Swedish Academia.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 19, no. 4: 511–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12147.https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12147
Sapiro, Gisèle, and Hélène Seiler-Juilleret. 2016. “Disseminating the Social Sciences and Humanities.” European Policy Brief. INTERCO-SSH. https://hal.science/INTERCOSSH/halshs-01659501v1.https://hal.science/INTERCOSSH/halshs-01659501v1
Schäffner, Christina. 2013. “Women as Translators, as Translation Trainers, and as Translation Scholars.” Women’s Studies International Forum 40:144–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.06.005.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.06.005
Shchemeleva, Irina. 2021. “ ‘There’s No Discrimination, These Are Just the Rules of the Game’: Russian Scholars’ Perception of the Research Writing and Publication Process in English.” Publications 9, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010008.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010008
Sivertsen, Gunnar. 2018. “Balanced Multilingualism in Science.” BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, no. 40. https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.25.https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.25
Soler, Josep. 2019. “Academic Publishing in English: Exploring Linguistic Privilege and Scholars’ Trajectories.” Journal of Language, Identity and Education 18, no. 6: 389–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1671193.https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1671193
Zheng, Yongyan, and Xiaoyan Guo. 2019. “Publishing in and about English: Challenges and Opportunities of Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Language Practices in Academic Publishing.” Language Policy 18, no. 2: 107–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9464-8.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9464-8