当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of English for Academic Purposes › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing
Journal of English for Academic Purposes ( IF 2.811 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895
Stephen Politzer-Ahles , Teresa Girolamo , Samantha Ghali

Recent years have seen a spirited debate over whether there is linguistic injustice in academic publishing. One way that linguistic injustice might occur is if gatekeepers (e.g., peer reviewers and editors) judge the scholarly quality of academic writing more harshly if the writing does not meet expectations for international academic English, even if the content is good. We tested this with a randomized control study in which scholars judged the scientific quality of several scientific abstracts. Each abstract had two versions with identical scientific content, such that the language in one version conformed to standards for international academic English, and the language in the other version did not (but was still comprehensible). While the data are preliminary and the effects statistically inconclusive, both pre-registered and exploratory analyses of the data suggest that scholars may give abstracts lower ratings of scientific quality when the writing does not conform to standards of international academic English. These results suggest that linguistic bias may occur in academic peer reviewing and motivate further study to better understand and address this phenomenon.

中文翻译:

学术评论中语言偏见的初步证据

近年来,学术出版中是否存在语言不公的问题引起了激烈的争论。语言不公正可能发生的一种方式是,如果学术写作不符合国际学术英语的期望,即使内容很好,看门人(例如,同行评审员和编辑)也会更严厉地判断学术写作的学术质量。我们通过一项随机对照研究对此进行了测试,在该研究中,学者们判断了几篇科学摘要的科学质量。每个摘要有两个版本,科学内容相同,一个版本的语言符合国际学术英语标准,另一个版本的语言不符合(但仍然可以理解)。虽然数据是初步的,影响在统计上没有定论,对数据的预注册和探索性分析都表明,当摘要不符合国际学术英语标准时,学者可能会给摘要的科学质量评分较低。这些结果表明,学术同行评审中可能会出现语言偏见,并促使进一步研究以更好地理解和解决这一现象。
更新日期:2020-09-01
down
wechat
bug