Awkwardwording.Rephrase :Linguisticinjusticein Ecological Journals

‘‘Awkwardwording.Rephrase’’:linguisticinjusticein ecological journals

Miguel Clavero

Grupd’Ecologia delPaisatge,A`readeBiodiversitat,CentreTecnolo`gicForestaldeCatalunya,Solsona,Catalonia, SpainandDepartament deCie`nciesAmbientals,UniversitatdeGirona,Girona,Catalonia,Spain

International scientificcommunicationis monolithically dominatedbyEnglish,particularly withinnaturalsciences [1,2].Theprofessionalcareerofindividualscientistsrelies ontheirabilitytopublishininternationallyrelevantjour- nals,andwritinginEnglishistheonlywaytoachievethis. Non-nativeEnglishspeakers(NoNES)seem tobeclearly disadvantagedwith respecttonativeEnglish speakers (NES)when tryingtogettheirworkpublished[3].Infact, Englishlanguageproficiencyhasbeenshowntobeastrong predictorofscientificoutput,bothatthelevelofindividual scientists[4]and nationally[5].

Journaleditorsselect acceptable manuscriptsbasedon whetherthe paperis ofinterest,the analysisis sound, the interpretationis consistent,and the presentationis adequate[6].Thus,for an equalqualityand interestof science, thereisanintrinsicdifferenceintheprobabilityof havingthe paperacceptedbetweenNES and NoNESdue to‘presentation’adequacy.This isbecauseachievingthe linguisticprecisionrequiredbyhigh-rankingpublications isextremelydifficult forNoNES,even when they are able toexpressthemselves ingrammaticallycorrectEnglish.It iscommonplaceforNoNESecologiststoreceiveeditorial decisionsstating that the submittedscience might be publishable,but thataNES shouldreview the text prior toacceptance. Then,tohave your publishablescience publishedyou shouldask aNES scientistfriendtohelp you (bearingthe risk of losing all your NES scientist friends)orpay tohave your work revisedand corrected. In fact, manyjournalseven recommendspecific scientific editingservicestobeusedattheauthor’sownexpenseand risk.

Thepresentsituationisaclear, unequivocalexampleof linguisticinjustice[7].Allthe costs ofhavingacommon international languagein science are borne by NoNES scientists,implyingunfaircooperationinobtainingacom- mon good(i.e.acommon language).Moreover,NES, who freely benefitfromhaving acommon language,tendto dominateallpossibleargumentswith NoNES,since NoN- ES’slanguageskills neverreachthoseofNES [8].NoNES ecologistsneed tofeelthattheirscience isjudgedonequal groundsto thatofAnglophonecolleagues.Itis not the dominanceofEnglishthatisbeingdiscussedhere; English itself itisnottheproblem,sinceweallbenefitfromhaving acommonlanguage.However,theprivilegeofbeingaNES shouldcome with a responsibilityto help NoNEScol- leagueswith linguisticissues[9],and thisresponsibility

Correspondingauthor:Clavero,M. ().

affects individuals(e.g.editorsand reviewers)as well as publishers.

Ibelieve thatpublishersshouldprovideadequatelin- guisticeditingadvice and eventuallycorrectthoseworks thatare consideredtocontainscience ofsufficientlyhigh qualityduringapeer-reviewprocess.Performing orsuper- vising languageeditingcanbeextremelytime-consuming and thusjournalsemployingfull-timeeditors(such asthe Trendsjournals)areprobablyinabetterpositiontooffera fairer publicationprocess,although all journals should work inthisdirection.Forexample,journalscouldcharge authorsasmall,flat feetoestablishagrant-likesystem (basedonlyonscientificmerit)topayforlanguageediting of selected manuscripts. In fact, open-accessjournals alreadycharge flat-feesthatcould beemployedtodefray text editing,thusimplyingthat both NES and NoNES could pay forsomethingthatwould only benefitNoNES. ThechancesforpublicationofNoNESwouldalsoincrease throughthe promotionofinternational partnerships[10], so thatNES would be involvedin productionofmanu- scripts.However,thiswouldbenefitNESjustbecausethey are speakersofthe dominantlanguage.

Whateverthe measuresadopted,thisshouldbeamat- ter ofdebate.But, first ofall,NES scientists,and particu- larly those involvedat any level in the peer-review processes,shouldbecome aware ofthe linguisticinjustice problem.Theywould thenprobablybemore tolerantwith the Englishlanguageinaccuracies ofNoNES;asimple changein attitudethatcould alone give rise to a fairer scenarioinscientificpublications.

Acknowledgements

This work benefited from discussions with P. Craze, L. Brotons, J. Calzada,M. de Ca´ceres, M. Delibes, D. Estany-Tigerstrom, V. Hermoso,P.Pons, E.Revillaand N.Roura-Pascual.MCheld aJuande la Cierva postdoctoral contract granted by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education.

References

1 Ammon,A.(2006) Languageplanningforinternationalscientific communication: an overview of questions and potential solutions. Curr.Iss. LanguagePlanning7,1–30

2 Hamel,R.E. (2008) The dominance of Englishin the international

scientificperiodicalliterature and the future of language use in science. AILARev.20,53–71

3 Meneghini,R.and Packer,A.L.(2007)Istherescience beyond English? Initiativesto increasethe qualityand visibilityofnon-English publicationsmighthelp tobreakdown languagebarriersin scientific communication.EMBO Rep.8,112–116

4 Vasconcelos,S.M.R. etal. (2008) Researchers’writing competence:a bottleneckinthe publicationof Latin-Americanscience? EMBO Rep.9,

700–702

552

5 Man,J.P.etal.(2004)Whydosomecountriespublishmorethanothers? Aninternational comparisonofresearchfunding,Englishproficiency and publicationoutputinhighlyrankedgeneralmedicaljournals.Eur. J.Epidemiol.19,811–817

6 Whittaker,R.J. (2008) Journalreview and genderequality:a critical commentonBuddenetal. TrendsEcol.Evol. 23,478–479

7 Van Parijs,P.(2002) Linguisticjustice.Polit. Philos.Econ. 1,59–74

8Waal, F.B.M. de(2003).Silentinvasion: Imanishi’sprimatologyand culturalbias inscience. Anim. Cogn. 6,293–299

9 Benfield,J.R. and Feak,C.B. (2006) How authorscan cope with the burdenofEnglishasan internationallanguage.Chest 129,1728–1730

10 Primack,R.B. et al. (2009) Dogender,nationalityor academicage affect review decisions?Ananalysis ofsubmissionstothe journal Biological Conservation.Biol.Conserv. 142,2415–2418

553