English as the International Language of Science: A Case Study of Mexican Scientists' Writing for Publication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global dissemination of scientific findings is imperative for scientific advancement. However, the domination of English as an international language of science (EILS) has placed a potentially inequitable burden on multilingual periphery scholars attempting to disseminate their research findings in indexed scientific journals. While such scholars have been the focus of much recent research into this English for research publication purposes (ERPP), little empirical research has taken place in Latin America. This instrumental case study examines the experiences of Mexican scientists via an academic writing for publication course (AWC) delivered in Canada and Mexico between 2011 and 2013. This study attempts to better understand scientists’ perspectives on the growing expectations of publishing their research in English, their challenges to achieving publication of research articles in indexed scientific journals, and their perceptions of the efficacy of an AWC at addressing these challenges. Rich, triangulated survey and interview data point to a grudging acceptance of the growing expectations for publishing in English as well as a widespread perception among Mexican scientists of bias against them at international scientific journals. Further findings include a comprehensive list of emerging (PhD student) and established (faculty) scientists’ ERPP challenges as well as improved scholar confidence following an intensive AWC. Critical interpretation of findings leads to discussion of participant perceptions of EILS and ERPP within a market of linguistic exchange where asymmetrical power relations and pervasive ideologies of language underscore significant barriers to multilingual scholars achieving a fuller connection to their desired scientific discourse communities. Implications stemming from the study findings include critical, pragmatic suggestions for those involved in the support, production, revision, and adjudication of scientific writing for publication at Mexico University (pseudonym) as well as suggestions for future research avenues into the complex role(s) of English and ERPP instruction in the global production of scientific knowledge.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".