Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10397/88352
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor | Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies | - |
dc.creator | Politzer-Ahles, S | en_US |
dc.creator | Girolamo, T | en_US |
dc.creator | Ghali, S | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-10-29T01:02:38Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-10-29T01:02:38Z | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10397/88352 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Pergamon Press | en_US |
dc.rights | © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | en_US |
dc.rights | The following publication Politzer-Ahles, S., Girolamo, T., & Ghali, S. (2020). Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 47, 100895, is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895 | en_US |
dc.subject | Academic publishing | en_US |
dc.subject | Implicit bias | en_US |
dc.subject | Linguistic injustice | en_US |
dc.subject | Peer review | en_US |
dc.title | Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing | en_US |
dc.type | Journal/Magazine Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 47 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895 | en_US |
dcterms.abstract | 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. | - |
dcterms.accessRights | open access | en_US |
dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Journal of english for academic purposes, 2020, v. 47, 100895 | en_US |
dcterms.isPartOf | Journal of english for academic purposes | en_US |
dcterms.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-85089416783 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1475-1585 | en_US |
dc.identifier.artn | 100895 | en_US |
dc.description.validate | 202010 bcma | - |
dc.description.oa | Version of Record | en_US |
dc.identifier.FolderNumber | OA_Scopus/WOS | - |
dc.description.pubStatus | Published | en_US |
dc.description.oaCategory | CC | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Journal/Magazine Article |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
PolitzerAhles_Preliminary_evidence_linguistic.pdf | 650.67 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Page views
67
Last Week
0
0
Last month
Citations as of Sep 22, 2024
Downloads
70
Citations as of Sep 22, 2024
SCOPUSTM
Citations
40
Citations as of Sep 26, 2024
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
31
Citations as of Jun 20, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.