| Summary: | Abstract
Publication in international, peer-reviewed, academic journals is increasingly characterized by the
dominance of English as the language of research dissemination. Multiple studies attest to the
disadvantages perceived and encountered by NNES (non-native English speaking) scholars as a result;
yet, only a limited number have addressed the ‘gatekeeper’ side of the editorial process, with an
exclusive focus on publication within social science journals (Belcher, 2007; Flowerdew, 2001).
Recent evidence, highlighting significant disciplinary differences in publication practices (Gnutzmann
and Rabe, 2014), points towards a lack of knowledge of editorial practices and perceptions of NNES
scholars’ submissions in the ‘hard sciences’. This dissertation presents the results of an interview
case study with the editors of a top-ranked, international chemistry journal. The purpose was to find
out how these editors assess and perceive the role of language in the scientific editorial process and
to gain insight into how to enhance the chances of successful publication by NNES authors. Analysis
of the data suggests that language assessment is based on overall comprehension instead of quality,
with a clear precedence given to the value of the scientific content over the way in which it is
linguistically presented. Moreover, the results highlight the incidence of problematic linguistic errors
and unfamiliarity with academic discourse from both NES (native English speaking) and NNES
scholars. Recommendations include the need for NNES authors working in the ‘hard science’
disciplines to pay more specific attention to clear and comprehensible language in order to achieve
success in publishing.
|
|---|