Machine Translation in Scholarly Publishing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English occupies a central position in scholarly publishing, but using a lingua franca for scholarly publishing has consequences for scholars, science, and society. For instance, non Anglophone researchers may need longer to read and write in English and may face more manuscript revisions and rejections, potentially leading to a lower volume of research output, which could negatively affect career advancement. To what extent can machine translation (MT) tools (e.g., Google Translate) help to support a more multilingual scholarly publishing ecosystem? To find out, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to investigate how MT tools are being used for multilingual scholarly publishing. Following a multilingual search in nine bibliographic databases, 875 papers were retrieved and screened, and 39 were included for closer investigation. Analysis reveals that MT tools are being actively developed, tested, applied, and evaluated in the context of scholarly publishing. However, at present, these tools are not displacing English from its central position; the main use of MT tools currently is to reduce the burden of publishing in English for scholars with limited English proficiency. This suggests that technology alone cannot create or sustain a multilingual scholarly publishing ecosystem. Hence, meaningful policies, in addition to improved MT tools and language resources, are needed to create a more linguistically diverse and equitable scholarly publishing landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.111 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it