Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Woravut Jaroongkhongdach, R. Todd, Sonthida Keyuravong, D. Hall (2012)
Differences in Quality between Thai and International Research Articles in ELT.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11
M. Curry, T. Lillis (2013)
Introduction to the thematic issue: participating in academic publishing—consequences of linguistic policies and practicesLanguage Policy, 12
F. Salager-Meyer (2014)
Writing and publishing in peripheral scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of multilingual scholars?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13
B. Reynolds, T. Anderson (2015)
Extra-Dimensional In-Class Communications: Action Research Exploring Text Chat Support of Face-to-Face WritingComputers and Composition, 35
T. Fox, A. Canagarajah (2002)
A Geopolitics Of Academic Writing
K. Mok, Ian Wei (2008)
Contested Concepts, Similar Practices: The Quest for the Global UniversityHigher Education Policy, 21
F. Tien (2007)
To what degree does thepromotion system reward faculty research productivity?British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28
M. Cargill, Patrick O'Connor (2006)
Developing Chinese scientists' skills for publishing in English: evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysisJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 5
A. Frankenberg-Garcia (2014)
The use of corpus examples for language comprehension and productionReCALL, 26
Gibson Ferguson (2007)
The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain lossIberica, 13
J. Huang (2014)
Learning to write for publication in English through genre-based pedagogy: A case in TaiwanSystem, 45
C. Aitchison, Janet Catterall, P. Ross, S. Burgin (2012)
‘Tough love and tears’: learning doctoral writing in the sciencesHigher Education Research & Development, 31
J. Flowerdew, Yongyan Li (2009)
English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciencesJournal of Second Language Writing, 18
Seonhee Cho (2004)
Challenges of Entering Discourse Communities Through Publishing in English: Perspectives of Nonnative-Speaking Doctoral Students in the United States of AmericaJournal of Language, Identity & Education, 3
Yongyan Li (2016)
Chinese Postgraduate Medical Students Researching for PublicationPubl., 4
M. Ge (2015)
English Writing for International Publication in the Age of Globalization: Practices and Perceptions of Mainland Chinese Academics in the Humanities and Social SciencesPubl., 3
A. Frankenberg-Garcia (2018)
Investigating the collocations available to EAP writersJournal of English for Academic Purposes
Yongyan Li, J. Flowerdew (2009)
International engagement versus local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities and social sciences writing for publicationJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 8
J. Huang (2017)
What do subject experts teach about writing research articles? An exploratory studyJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 25
Jim McKinley, H. Rose (2018)
Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelinesJournal of Second Language Writing
G. Nicholls (2005)
The Challenge to Scholarship: Rethinking Learning, Teaching and Research
Sedef Uzuner (2008)
Multilingual Scholars' Participation in Core/Global Academic Communities: A Literature Review.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7
J. Huang (2011)
Attitudes of Taiwanese scholars toward English and Chinese as languages of publicationAsia Pacific Journal of Education, 31
Yongyan Li (2006)
Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publicationJournal of Second Language Writing, 15
Yongyan Li (2016)
“Publish SCI papers or no degree”: practices of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publication pressure on science studentsAsia Pacific Journal of Education, 36
Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor, J. Rey-Rocha, A. Moreno (2014)
Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of Spanish scholars' academic writing needs in the social sciencesEnglish for Specific Purposes, 36
L. Anderson (2013)
Publishing strategies of young, highly mobile academics: the question of language in the European contextLanguage Policy, 12
J. Huang (2010)
Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in scienceJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 9
Daniela Torre, Ryan Wells (2014)
Evolving statewide transfer policies: persistent efforts in tension with workforce development among Massachusetts community collegesEducation Policy Analysis Archives, 22
D. Hanauer, Cheryl Sheridan, K. Englander (2018)
Linguistic Injustice in the Writing of Research Articles in English as a Second Language: Data From Taiwanese and Mexican ResearchersWritten Communication, 36
J. Flowerdew, Yongyan Li (2007)
Language Re-use among Chinese Apprentice Scientists Writing for PublicationApplied Linguistics, 28
Melissa Anderson, Emily Ronning, R. Vries, B. Martinson (2007)
The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and RelationshipsScience and Engineering Ethics, 13
L. Mureșan, Carmen Pérez-Llantada (2014)
English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academicsJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 13
Yongyan Li (2006)
A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case studyEnglish for Specific Purposes, 25
S. Merriam (2002)
Merriam, Sharan B., ed., Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
M. Curry, T. Lillis (2010)
Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishingEnglish for Specific Purposes, 29
Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Ramón Plo, Gibson Ferguson (2011)
“You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in EnglishEnglish for Specific Purposes, 30
N. Luo, Ken Hyland (2016)
Chinese academics writing for publication:English teachers as text mediatorsJournal of Second Language Writing, 33
N. Luo (2015)
Two Chinese Medical Master's Students Aspiring to Publish Internationally: A Longitudinal Study of Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Their Communities of PracticePubl., 3
W. Chu (2009)
Knowledge production in a latecomer: reproducing economics in TaiwanInter-Asia Cultural Studies, 10
A. Frankenberg-Garcia, R. Lew, Jonathan Roberts, G. Rees, Nirwan Sharma (2013)
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Mei-ching Ho (2017)
Navigating scholarly writing and international publishing: Individual agency of Taiwanese EAL doctoral studentsJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 27
Pedro Martín, J. Rey-Rocha, S. Burgess, A. Moreno (2014)
Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicineJournal of English for Academic Purposes, 16
Rey-Rocha Jesús, Martín-Sempere José (2004)
Patterns of the foreign contributions in some domestic vs. international journals on Earth SciencesScientometrics, 59
C. Kao, Hwei-Lan Pao (2007)
An evaluation of research performance in management of 168 Taiwan universitiesScientometrics, 78
Yongyan Li, J. Flowerdew (2007)
Shaping Chinese novice scientists' manuscripts for publicationJournal of Second Language Writing, 16
S. Burgess (2017)
Accept or contest: A life-history study of humanities scholars’ responses to research publication policies in SpainEnglish
L. Buckingham (2014)
Building a Career in English: Users of English as an Additional Language in Academia in the Arabian Gulf.TESOL Quarterly, 48
Yongyan Li (2007)
Apprentice Scholarly Writing in a Community Of Practice: An Intraview of an NNES Graduate Student Writing a Research ArticleTESOL Quarterly, 41
B. Reynolds (2013)
A Web-based EFL writing environment as a bridge between academic advisers and junior researchers: A pilot studyBr. J. Educ. Technol., 44
M. Bardi (2015)
Learning the practice of scholarly publication in English – A Romanian perspectiveEnglish for Specific Purposes, 37
The present study investigates Taiwanese researchers’ perceptions, problems, and strategies of trying to get published in English in the field of English teaching. This discipline presents an interesting case for publishing, as in Taiwan, this group of researchers is highly expected to use English as a medium in writing for research. Through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 21 researchers, the findings show that regarding the role of English, all participants regarded it as an indispensable tool in their academic careers. They valued the significance of English journals and were keen to promote their ideas in the international market by using English as the medium. Most researchers reported that they had writing problems. However, if they were well-prepared, they would not be trapped into them. Except for language use, researchers were confident in their research topic. Because of Greater China’s rapid growth, people may want to know more about it. They also reported different strategies to solve problems in English publication. Implications of this study are discussed and concluded. Keywords writing, scholarly publication, Taiwanese researcher, English teaching In the past, although there are many reports in English Introduction writing for scholarly publication research in different disci- With the expansion of the higher education worldwide in the plines (e.g., Aitchison, Catterall, Ross, & Burgin, 2012; past few decades, to meet the requirements for interna- Bardi, 2015; Buckingham, 2014; Cho, 2004; Curry & Lillis, tional competitiveness has become an important issue. 2014; Ge, 2015; Gea-Valor, Rey-Rocha, & Moreno, 2014; Consequently, many governments, policy makers, university Ho, 2017; Huang, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2017; Li, 2006a, 2006b, teachers, and researchers have devoted a great deal of 2007, 2014, 2016a, 2016b; Li & Flowerdew, 2007, 2009; Li resources and energies to look for ways in boosting univer- & Hu, 2017; Luo, 2015; Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess, & sity research to rank higher in the world university league Moreno, 2014; Muresan & Pérez-Llantada, 2014; Pérez- tables (Mok & Wei, 2008). Competitive funding and univer- Llantada, Plo, & Ferguson, 2011), to date there is a lack of sity rankings are greatly emphasized, and research outcomes understanding on researchers working in the field of English need to be internationalized. teaching. The motivation for this study comes from the In academia, academic achievement is highly associated largely unexplored field in English teaching. Unexplored with publications (Nicholls, 2005). University rankings, issues include how researchers in the field of English teach- public funding, and prestige are generally intertwined with ing perceive the issues and problems of writing for scholarly the number of research articles published in some journals publication along with the factors contributing to successful and their following citations by researchers (M. Anderson, publication in English. The present study, being exploratory Ronning, De Vries, & Martinson, 2007). The ideology of in nature, aimed to address these gaps in the literature. publish or perish, which denotes the value of publication, has greatly influenced academia in Taiwan (e.g., Chu, 2009; Mok, 2016). Thus, researchers in Taiwan are under increas- National Taipei University of Business, Taipei ing pressure to have their work published in international journals. Most important of all, the main reason behind the Corresponding Author: pursuit of world-class universities and global university Shih-Chieh Chien, Center for General Education, National Taipei ranking is that the more publication in international jour- University of Business, No. 321, Sec. 1, Jinan Rd., Zhongzheng District, nals, the more resources and social prestige universities will Taipei 100, Taiwan. obtain. Email: chien.paul@gmail.com Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open This article starts by providing a literature review on three inequalities to the greater politico-economic inequalities major areas of research concerning writing for scholarly pub- which are constructed, legitimized, and reproduced under lication in English: the hegemony of English, the domain capitalist imperialism. loss of national languages, and the dilemma about publishing Specifically, in terms of writing for scholarly publication, in local versus international journals. Then, I outline and he argues that the dominance of English as an international describe some important issues in the research design, language of scientific communication and scholarly publish- including the procedures of data collection and analysis. ing results directly in the ideological hegemony of the West Next, results related to researchers’ perceptions of publishing and marginalization of the knowledge of Third World coun- in English, problems of publishing in English, and factors tries. This poses challenges for researchers from the periph- contributing to successful publication in English are reported ery, such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America in getting their and discussed. Finally, the article concludes with implica- work into center journals and books. Periphery researchers tions and future directions for researching writing for schol- may encounter many difficulties in bringing their research to arly publication in English. light. In view of this, Canagarajah asks real changes to be made in scholarly publication. For instance, he suggests that periphery researchers should continue questioning knowl- Literature Review edge constructed by the center. The uncritical acceptance of dominance of the English language could have negative Concept of Hegemony and Domain Loss impacts on researchers from different origins, and center Under the influence of globalization, English has almost journals should democratize participation, especially if they become “the main lingua franca for research networking and claim to be international journals. scientific communication across different cultural contexts Despite the fact that it is impossible to entirely avoid out- and different languages” (Pérez-Llantada, 2012, p. 2). As the side influence, language awareness should be raised among culture-independent nature of research may lead to research- researchers (Gunnarsson, 2001; Hanauer, Sheridan, & ers’ preference for using one common language, relying too Englander, 2019). Publication in English indeed has its mer- much on one language may cause researchers’ negative atti- its but also has various problems, including disadvantages tudes toward their national languages and limit their use of for inadequate language proficiency and lack of understand- these languages in writing for scholarly publication. ing of different cultures. In addition, in terms of national Undeniably, the portrait painted above has to be qualified. identity, a nation may be afraid of being colonized by the Researchers all over the world, no matter the field where English language and its culture (Fischer, 2008). The conclu- they are, face many challenges to get their work published sion suggested here is that linguistic Englishization in writ- internationally (Ferguson, 2007; Flowerdew, 2013; Luo & ing for scholarly publication is a complex process, and there Hyland, 2016; McKinley & Rose, 2018). They usually have exist important driving forces, such as reputation, visibility, to struggle and negotiate various aspects of writing research internationality, pressure to publish, and high impact factor papers in English (Curry & Lillis, 2013; McKinley & Rose, due to the hegemony of English. 2018; Uzuner, 2008). Most importantly, they have to “bring Researchers need to strive for overcoming English lan- their discourse into line with Anglo-Saxon norms” (Bennett, guage hindrances and obstacles to get their work published 2010, p. 193). For example, in his study, Ferguson (2007) in international journals. As Flowerdew (2013) suggested, addressed the impacts of hegemony of English, which are (a) the hegemony of English in scholarly publication has become global diglossia and domain loss as English may relegate pervasive worldwide. Researchers in different regions should other languages to a minor role and (b) the inequality of sci- be encouraged to voice their publication problems. entific communication between English-speaking research- ers and non-English-speaking researchers who may be disadvantaged particularly when they submit their research Problems of Writing in English Publication work in reputed international journals. He concludes that for Non-Native Researchers “the risk of domain loss is very real, but that recent language Jaroongkhongdach, Todd, Keyuravong, and Hall (2012), planning interventions may help avert the danger” (p. 7) and based on Uzuner’s (2008) review, identify eight problems for that English language may be an obstacle but not really a big researchers from different countries and disciplines to get disadvantage in scholarly publication. At least, it is a disad- published in the international journals as follows: vantage that can still be ameliorated. The concept of hegemony and domain loss is also closely related to Canagarajah’s (2002) critiques on scholarly •• lack of time publishing practices, in which he outlines the existing •• lack of resources or funds inequalities between center and periphery researchers regard- •• lack of connections with the academic community in ing their access to academic knowledge production and aca- core countries demic knowledge dissemination. He further relates such •• bias against scholars from peripheral countries Chien 3 •• parochialism It is noted that although from the literature we have •• problems with language already known a lot about the problems of publishing in •• problems with the literature review and discussion English, it remains unclear about how teachers particularly sections of research articles in the field of English teaching cope with problems of pub- •• problems with research methodology lishing in English and whether they still have such problems, as they are usually required to get their works published in The problems stated above offer insights into the complexi- English and English is normally a default language for them ties that second language (L2) researchers encounter in their to use in academic writing. attempts to get their works published internationally. International publication could be considered an immense The Need for Non-Native English Researchers challenge to L2 researchers. It is also important to note that the problems identified by Jaroongkhongdach et al. (2012) in Publication and Uzuner (2008) should not be regarded as problems only To solve these problems, non-native researchers are reported specific to L2 researchers in response to the demands of writ- to employ strategies and resources that facilitate the schol- ing for scholarly publication. Some of these problems may arly publication process (e.g., Cargill & O’Connor, 2006; also be experienced by researchers from English-speaking Curry & Lillis, 2010; Jaroongkhongdach et al., 2012). countries, particularly among those who are at the early stage For example, from the institutional aspect, Cargill and of their research careers. O’Connor (2006) described collaborating-colleague work- In addition to these problems, more importantly, shops to develop Chinese researchers’ skills for publishing in Jaroongkhongdach et al. (2012) pointed out that some practi- English. The workshops include four features: task-based cally oriented research does not easily get published in the approach (e.g., a draft that can be brought and revised in the international journals because of its context-specific nature workshop), genre pedagogy (e.g., introduction of academic and thus cannot contribute much to knowledge in the field. writing structures such as Introduction, Method, Results, and “There therefore appears to be a conflict between the internal Discussion), referee criteria for reference (e.g., a set of crite- practically-oriented motivations to conduct research and the ria that is presented), and discourse strategies for expressing external pressure to publish” (Jaroongkhongdach et al., 2012, researchers’ intended meaning (e.g., passive voice and verb p. 202). tense in different sections). Another major problem is related to researchers’ knowl- From the national aspect, Jaroongkhongdach et al. (2012) edge construction restrained by their own culture that may indicated that to increase the number of scholarly publica- play a role for non-native speakers to get published in inter- tions in international journals, Thailand adopted some strate- national journals. Jaroongkhongdach et al. (2012) argued gic plans, such as the establishment of the National Research that for people in Anglophone countries, knowledge is to be Fund, the Royal Golden Jubilee Program, and the Office for challenged. However, in other countries such as Thailand, National Education Standards Quality Assurance. knowledge should be respected and this may lead Thai As suggested by Lillis and Curry (2010), such participa- researchers to make little critical comments on literature. tion is considered essential in English publishing regardless These problems of writing in English publication for non- of language proficiency and academic writing experience. native researchers may lead them to struggle in publishing What researchers need is not only how to design their international or local journals. For example, Flowerdew and research but also how to present their research in an accept- Li (2009) examined 20 Chinese researchers from humanities able standard of English. It involves not only research skills and social science disciplines to identify how and to what but also language and writing skills. extent they used English and Chinese in publishing local and Since 2006, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan has initi- international publications. The finding indicates that although ated a number of policies to augment academic excellence the importance of English as an international language was and boost international visibility in universities. For exam- acknowledged, participants’ limited English proficiency was ple, the government has forged a link between research eval- seen as the major barrier in publishing in English. In addi- uation outcomes and funding allocation in the “five-year 50 tion, many participants did not find particularly necessary to billion” plan such as “Aim for the Top University Project,” publish in English. Resistance was found to publishing in aiming to select and fund potential universities toward top English. The reasons behind include universities in the future. Specifically, the number of publications appearing in assessment criteria encouraging publication in Chinese, the fact A&HCI (Arts & Humanities Citation Index), SCI (Science that Chinese and international (Anglo-American) academia Citation Index), and SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) belong to separate discourse communities, a desire to avoid has been adopted as one of the main criteria for govern- pandering to “orientalist” discourses, and resistance towards the “internationalizing” implications of the government policy. (p. 8) ment funding, research project approval, job seeking and 4 SAGE Open promotion, and global university ranking (Kao & Pao, community compared with many others, the objective of this 2009). Research performance is thus much focused on the study is twofold: first, to explore perceptions of publishing in number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals and English by Taiwanese scholars in the field of English teach- their associated journal impact factors (Tien, 2007). The ing, along with the problems when publishing in English, overall objective of the “five-year 50 billion” plan is to and second, to identify factors contributing to successful make Taiwanese universities enter the top 100 world uni- publication in English. The overall aim is to better under- versities and become premium international research insti- stand how these scholars cope with the challenge of dissemi- tutions in higher education. nating research in English with a view to formulating realistic Continued attention needs to be given to the problems of and appropriate ways to support them in academic English writing for scholarly publication in English if researchers in writing. This article is a contribution to an expanding litera- Taiwan hope to contribute and disseminate their knowledge in ture on the challenges non-Anglophone scholars confront in the global world. Although Taiwanese researchers have disseminating their research in English, the major language received some attention, most notably in the studies conducted of international communication. The present study seeks to by (Ho, 2017) and Huang (2010, 2011, 2014, 2017), research- answer the following research questions: ers in the field of English teaching have not been the focus. There were other studies conducted in different countries Research Question 1: For Taiwanese researchers in the showing an increasing need of international publishing, but field of English teaching, what are their perceptions of still they were also mainly in hard sciences (Aitchison et al., publishing in English? 2012; Cho, 2004; Li, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2016a, 2016b; Li Research Question 2: What are their problems of pub- & Flowerdew, 2007; Luo, 2015; Martín et al., 2014; Pérez- lishing in English? Llantada et al., 2011), except comparatively few studies in Research Question 3: What are the factors contributing soft sciences (Bardi, 2015; Ge, 2015; Gea-Valor et al., 2014; to successful publication in English? Li, 2014; Li & Flowerdew, 2009; Li & Hu, 2017; Muresan & Pérez-Llantada, 2014) or in both hard and soft sciences Research Method (Buckingham, 2014; Curry & Lillis, 2014). Nonetheless, it should be noted that the research area falling within either Participants hard sciences or soft sciences may vary a lot. Even the sub- disciplines in soft sciences could be heterogeneous. Most Via looking through the university official websites of previous studies, except case study, did not take this impor- Taiwanese researchers in the field of English teaching from tant factor into consideration. For example, in the Li and five research-oriented universities, I sent emails to 25 Flowerdew (2009) study, although their 15 participants were researchers who have published at least one article written in all under the category of humanities and social sciences, they English-medium journals or books. Twenty-one researchers were from social sciences, linguistics, translation studies, returned responses, yielding a response rate of 84%. musicology, comparative literature, applied linguistics, his- Researchers’ participation was entirely voluntary and ano- tory, English literature, and education. A synthesis of these nymity was ensured. The investigation consisted of in-depth previous empirical studies in writing for scholarly publica- semi-structured individual interviews with 21 researchers. tion in English is shown in Table 1. As English is a foreign language in Taiwan, at university, the The above prior studies indeed have enhanced our under- study of English teaching is generally in the department of standing of the complexity of researchers’ endeavors in writ- English or foreign languages and literature. The department ing for scholarly publication. However, none of these studies aims to prepare students to be teachers of English or foreign centered on exploring academic publishing activities in the languages in elementary schools, junior and senior high field of English teaching. English especially plays an impor- schools, and universities, and to enter other professions that tant part for these researchers as they are normally required need a good command of English or foreign languages. to write and get published in English. In addition, as English Table 2 summarizes the researchers’ profiles. It shows is a major international language of research, there is a need that about half of them were associate professors, while the to explore issues of writing for scholarly publication in other half were full and assistant professors. It also shows English for non-native researchers, particularly those who that half of them earned their highest degree in Taiwan, while are mainly using English to write and publish their work. the other half were in the United States or the United Unlike other fields of study, English is generally regarded as Kingdom. All of them had experiences of publishing their a default language for researchers in the field of English papers in local and international journals. Those who were teaching. It would be interesting to explore what concerns able to and/or likely to publish papers in international jour- and problems they may encounter when they write for schol- nals tended to have been educated abroad, for example, in arly publication. the United States or in the United Kingdom. Compared with Specifically, drawing on interviews with Taiwanese assistant professors, associate and full professors were more scholars, who remain a relatively little researched academic productive in publications. This suggests that their success in Chien 5 Table 1. Previous Empirical Studies in Writing for Scholarly Publication in English. Researcher(s) Participants’ research area(s) and origin(s) Domain(s) Aitchison, Catterall, Ross, and Burgin Science, health, and technology (Australia) Hard sciences (2012) Bardi (2015) Economics and business (Romania) Soft sciences Buckingham (2014) Natural sciences, information technology, and Hard and soft sciences economics (Oman, Arabian Gulf) Cho (2004) Natural sciences (Korea) Hard sciences Curry and Lillis (2014) Education and psychology (Hungary, Slovakia, Spain, Hard and soft sciences and Portugal) Ge (2015) Archaeology, economics, and sociology (China) Soft sciences Gea-Valor, Rey-Rocha, and Moreno Education, psychology, and sociology (Spain) Soft sciences (2014) Ho (2017) Medical science, clinical medicine, biochemistry, life science, Hard sciences computer science and information engineering, materials engineering, microbiology, bioinformatics, electronic engineering, aerospace engineering, photonics, and environmental science (Taiwan) Huang (2010) Natural sciences (Taiwan) Hard sciences Huang (2011) Natural sciences (Taiwan) Hard sciences Huang (2014) Exercise physiology (Taiwan) Hard sciences Huang (2017) Maritime science and ocean science (Taiwan) Hard sciences Li (2006a) Physics (China) Hard sciences Li (2006b) Computer science (China) Hard sciences Li (2007) Chemistry (China) Hard sciences Li (2014) Management (China) Soft sciences Li (2016a) Medicine (China) Hard sciences Li (2016b) Biochemistry (China) Hard sciences Li and Flowerdew (2007) Natural sciences (China) Hard sciences Li and Flowerdew (2009) Social sciences, linguistics, translation studies, Soft sciences musicology, comparative literature, applied linguistics, history, English literature, and education (China) Li and Hu (2017) Management (China) Soft sciences Luo (2015) Medicine (China) Hard sciences Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess, and Medicine (Spain) Hard sciences Moreno (2014) Muresana and Pérez-Llantada (2014) Social sciences (Romania) Soft sciences Pérez-Llantada, Plo, and Ferguson Natural sciences (Spain) Hard sciences (2011) publishing papers played an important role in their career arrived at the interview questions by asking 247 researchers development. In addition, based on seniority of the research- in the field of English teaching to fill out an online question- ers, there are two clearly defined groups: relative novices naire (179 researchers responded; response rate: 72.5%) and with 7 or fewer years teaching (and presumably research) by consulting Flowerdew’s interview questions (2007, 2009), experience and senior scholars with 10+ years experience. which served as a basic guide to the data collection. The for- In view of this, the present study includes both junior and mat of interviews, as specified in Supplemental Appendix 1, senior researchers. consisted of four parts. Questions 1 to 6, related to the first principal research question, focused on researchers’ perceptions of publishing Data Collection in English in general, such as advantages and disadvantages The interviews were designed to understand researchers’ for Taiwanese researchers to publish their English papers in perceptions of writing for scholarly publication in English in the global world, role of English perceived by researchers, Taiwan. Specifically, the purpose of the interviews sought to strengths and weaknesses in writing English papers, and discover what issues and problems that researchers in the perceived differences in the field of English teaching and field of English teaching faced and how they handled them. I other disciplines. Questions 7 to 10, related to the second 6 SAGE Open Table 2. Participants. Publications Teaching experience Total number Local International No. Title Highest degree (years) of publications journals journals Book chapters R1 Professor PhD (Taiwan) 26 22 14 6 2 R2 Professor PhD (Taiwan) 24 24 12 4 R3 Professor PhD (Taiwan) 23 21 11 6 4 R4 Professor PhD (Taiwan) 23 21 15 6 0 R5 Professor PhD (the United States) 22 20 5 14 1 R6 Professor PhD (Taiwan) 21 19 10 5 4 R7 Associate professor PhD (the United States) 16 14 3 7 4 R8 Associate professor PhD (the United Kingdom) 15 13 4 8 1 R9 Associate professor PhD (the United States) 14 11 4 7 0 R10 Associate professor PhD (the United States) 13 11 3 7 1 R11 Associate professor PhD (Taiwan) 13 10 8 2 0 R12 Associate Professor PhD (the United States) 13 10 7 2 1 R13 Associate professor PhD (Taiwan) 12 9 5 2 2 R14 Associate Professor PhD (the United Kingdom) 11 10 2 6 2 R15 Associate professor PhD (the United States) 10 12 2 7 3 R16 Associate professor PhD (the United States) 10 8 2 6 0 R17 Assistant professor PhD (the United States) 7 6 1 4 1 R18 Assistant professor PhD (Taiwan) 5 5 4 1 0 R19 Assistant professor PhD (the United Kingdom) 3 3 1 2 0 R20 Assistant professor PhD (the United States) 3 3 1 2 0 R21 Assistant professor PhD (Taiwan) 3 3 2 1 0 principal research question, focused on academic writing English in the field of English teaching in higher education in difficulties encountered by researchers in language, content Taiwan over the course of time. development, organization, structure, and writing different sections in a research paper. Questions 11 to 13, related to Data Analysis the third principal research question, involved researchers’ strategies for success in publishing in English. It is noted The nature of qualitative data makes it difficult, if not impos- that some questions are overlapped, such as “Do you have sible, for the person doing the analysis to separate himself or any strategies that can make your English papers better?” herself from the data. In this study, I, however, tried to main- and “What are your strategies for success in publishing in tain objectivity and avoid bias with qualitative data analysis, English?” Similar questions were asked in different ways. including having participants review transcribed interview This is due to the consideration of collecting more data and document to see whether interpretations were representative gaining more in-depth response. In case researchers did not of their beliefs, and having an additional person (research answer adequately, another similar question could help them assistant) to code the data to ensure consistency between my rethink and approach the question from another angle and interpretation and that of the other. perspective. To illustrate, to make the study credible and rigorous, two The interviews approximately lasted for 1 hr. All interviews different techniques were achieved using participation were carried out in Chinese by my research assistant and I, review and consistency check. First, participation review recorded digitally, and then transcribed verbatim. Selected was achieved by presenting researchers’ voices under each excerpts considered closely relevant to answering research theme and by providing detailed description of each of the questions were later translated into English. The translated cases. Triangulation will be used consistently with research excerpts were checked for accuracy by an experienced English assistant and me in general. Each of the researchers inter- educator. As shown in the interview data, the use of Chinese viewed were asked to review the transcribed interviews to enabled the researchers to express themselves freely and cor- add, delete, or amend any statements made. The transcribed rectly. Although each researcher demonstrated a story of his or interview documents were then emailed to each researcher her experience of writing for scholarly publication in English, and requested an email response with any comments included these stories, from different perspectives, informed these in their interview document. To make sure validity and reli- researchers’ perceptions of writing for scholarly publication in ability (Merriam, 2002), member checks were used by Chien 7 sending interpretations back to researchers by email or via 99.1%, respectively. These results show that inter and intra- hardcopy to ensure that they are accurate. In this return rater agreement were satisfactory. email, each researcher was asked to give consent that the The major themes in this study are as follows: (a) research- information provided in the transcribed interview document ers’ perceptions of publishing in English in general, includ- was accurate and aligned with their views and opinions. In ing advantages and disadvantages for Taiwanese researchers addition, the research assistant and I conducted a consistency to publish internationally, role of English perceived by check. A necessary ethical practice was the analysis being researchers, strengths and weaknesses in writing English faithful to the data collected, accurately reflecting the papers, and perceived differences in the field of English researchers’ explanations. The study aimed to take their teaching and other disciplines; (b) problems of publishing in explanations from an open-minded perspective and analyze English; and (c) factors contributing to successful publica- the data systematically. tion in English. The results are mainly presented in the form The data analysis focused on locating common threads of qualitative comments by the participants. When the data in and themes while listening to the audio recordings and then an interview are reported, they are indicated by the pseud- transcribing the relevant sections/phrases. In the interview onym of the interviewee (e.g., R15). data analysis, the research assistant and I followed the proce- dures of analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) and Results constant comparison (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Miles and Huberman (1994) stated that qualitative data analysis con- Researchers’ Perceptions of Publishing in English sists of “three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification” (p. 10). An initial question concerns why participants should publish Specifically, the research assistant and I were involved in in English. Most researchers could find more advantages the analysis of the data, which was a continuous process in than disadvantages. For example, 21 out of 23 researchers search of possible themes for different sections. After a prac- stressed the visibility of Taiwanese researchers in the tice coding session and each coder (researcher/research world—a strong backup to get promotion. Foreigners would assistant) had completed his or her individual coding inde- know more about Taiwanese or Chinese perspectives, and pendently, we came together to discuss the appropriate researchers who could publish in international journals themes and defend data points. We reduced and condensed would get more credits than in local ones. It is noted that two data, and thereby began to seek meaning, as the study contin- researchers with local PhDs (R1 and R2) indicated that the ued throughout data collection. To illustrate, based on a ability to conduct research is the major advantage for grounded-theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 2008), the Taiwanese researchers mainly due to their solid research procedure involved looking for possible themes for sections training during doctoral studies in Taiwan. of the interview protocol, and more deeply for new possible When it comes to disadvantages, although nearly half of themes in this recursive process. In other words, the research the researchers stated that there is no disadvantage for assistant and I reviewed data for possible themes for sections Taiwanese researchers to publish internationally, there are of the interview protocol, including defining sets of relation- still some disadvantages indicated by other researchers. For ships, developing possible themes, continually examining instance, seven researchers pointed out the problems of lan- more data for examples of similar or recurring themes, and guage use. Interestingly, these researchers with more than 13 refining themes to build a picture and tell a story to describe years of teaching experiences tended to regard that although what happened. Well-designed qualitative data analysis the contents of research writing are critical, the importance should be systematic, aiming for “saturation” of data, which of language use still cannot be neglected. R14 mentioned the involves analyzing data in an iterative process until no new decrease in the number of papers submitted in local journals information arises and provides a degree of insight into com- in Taiwan. R15 cared about the validity of the papers submit- plex phenomenon. Data analysis ceased when there was no ted to foreign countries as the procedures would take much new theme. longer than the local journals. Other concerns also include In addition, comparisons were made among all the themes whether different research topics or theory development for sections of the interview protocol according to different would fit in an international context. researchers’ perceptions and checked whether there was Second, regarding the role of English, all researchers con- agreement about the themes. Inter-rater percent agreement sidered it an indispensable tool in their academic careers. For between the research assistant and I was 95.2%. The research example, R15 indicated her experience of using English assistant and I read the data sources repeatedly and intersub- extensively since graduate school, including reading and jectively against each other so as to arrive at a documented writing materials, paper, thesis, and even doing presenta- report. The measure of intra-rater reliability was reached as tions. Thus, English was internalized in her repertoire. She the research assistant and I coded the same data subset again said, “I did not really think about this question due to fre- about 2 weeks after the inter-rater reliability measure was quent use of English since graduate school. So when I talk reached. Intra-rater percent agreements were 98.7% and about the importance of English, it is already internalized in 8 SAGE Open Table 3. Advantages for Taiwanese Researchers to Publish Internationally. Advantages Researchers % of 21 Issues related to Greater China R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, 90.48 R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 Ability to conduct research R1, R2 9.52 Table 4. Disadvantages for Taiwanese Researchers to Publish Internationally. Disadvantages Researchers % of 21 No disadvantage R3, R4, R12, R13, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 47.62 Language use R1, R5, R6, R7, R9, R10, R11 33.33 Decrease in the number of papers submitted R14 4.76 in local journals in Taiwan Validity of papers R15 4.76 Research topics R2 4.76 Theory development R8 4.76 Table 5. Role of English Perceived by Researchers. Role of English perceived by researchers Researchers % of 21 Part of the knowledge and skills in writing R10, R12, R13, R14, R15, R17, R18, R20, R21 42.86 Instrument of conveying ideas to the international R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R9 28.57 world Instrument of understanding different international R1, R6, R8, R10, R11 23.81 research Only for promotion R16, R19 9.52 If you want to gain reputation within Taiwan, you have to my language use.” She further pointed out that she is so publish in Chinese. People would know more about you if you accustomed to using English that it has become unproblem- disseminate your ideas in the first language. On the other hand, atic for her. Researchers from not only English department if you want to get promotion, you ought to publish in English, as but also non-English department should be familiar with English counts more than Chinese. In academia, journals English to keep up with the latest trends in their discipline published in English are generally well respected, especially because materials are mostly in English. R17 gave another those which are international journals. example. She mentioned that the trend had been changing throughout the decade—the revival of English as a medium Interestingly, she further indicated, of writing promoted by Taiwan Ministry of Education and National Science Council. This may reflect that first, the Why I want to get published in English is not because of this exposure of English plays a crucial role in writing for schol- language, but because of its value of getting my work to be arly publication in English and second, that in Taiwan, visible and internationally recognized. It is through publishing English has already become an important tool for interna- in international indexed journals that drive my choice of tionalization in the era of globalization and is more or less English over Chinese. In addition, English is almost a default endorsed by the Taiwanese government. language in my field. Nonetheless, this choice has resulted in my minimal use of Chinese in writing for scholarly On the issue of publishing in local/international journals publication. and on the language choices, in response to the current situa- tion of the non-Anglophone scholars and the pressures on The result is to some extent in line with Rey-Rocha and scholars to publish in English, Chinese as a language of Martín-Sempere’s (1999) and Salager-Meyer’s (2014) research publication is in fact one of the most robust com- studies, suggesting that both English and local languages petitors with English. Chinese is surely now a viable alterna- offer options for publication, but one or the other depends tive also for Taiwanese scholars. However, for instance, R11 on the specific purpose and research field. stated the dilemma that researchers are facing. She said, Chien 9 Table 6. Strengths in Writing English Papers. Strengths Researchers % of 21 No strength R1, R2, R9, R10, R13, R14, R15, R16, R19, R20, R21 52.38 Originality of ideas R3, R7, R8, R11, R12, R17, R18 33.34 Theory integration R5, R6 9.52 Textual analysis R4 4.76 Table 7. Weaknesses in Writing English Papers. Weaknesses Researchers % of 21 Language use R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R14, R15, 90.00 R16, R17, R19, R20, R21 Not hardworking R12 5.00 Procrastination R18 5.00 Table 8. Perceived Differences in the Field of English Teaching and Other Disciplines. Differences Researchers % of 21 Language use and technical terms R1, R3, R6, R12, R16, R17, R20, R21 38.10 Quantity of publication R10, R11, R13, R18, R19 23.80 Different focus in research writing R2, R8, R15 14.29 Research method R5, R7, R14 14.29 Reviewing period R4, R9 9.52 Table 9. Sections of a Research Paper That Researchers Find Problematic and Other Aspects of the Publication Process Before Review. Problems before review Researchers % of 21 No problem R3, R11, R12, R14, R16, R17, R19 33.33 Readership R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R15 28.57 Literature review R4, R6, R18, R20 19.05 Logic in writing R2, R13 9.52 Introduction R18 4.76 Discussion R1 4.76 Conclusion R21 4.76 In addition, in Taiwan, whether to publish in English or in Moreover, all researchers concurred that they were Chinese, in fact, may depend on the researcher’s preference restricted and expected to use English to publish their papers. and discipline. For instance, R20 said, However, it is noted that two researchers (R16 and R19) per- ceived English as a mere tool of promotion, with no other functions. For example, R16 stated that people from Taiwan Sometimes I’d like my article to be read by colleagues whose were interested in the research conducted in Chinese, but not command of English might not be so good. Then I publish in otherwise. R19 also said, “English is just a tool which is only Chinese. Sometimes I find it hard to create Chinese terms for linguistic phenomena that have mostly been dealt with in used for promotion.” In such sense, English journals, in English language publications. Then I choose English as the R16’s and R19’s perceptions, were just a waste unless they language of publication. This may also happen in other fields were submitted abroad. such as medicine and engineering. As a final remark, it is noted that senior researchers (with more than 13 years of teaching experiences) tended to regard This shows that to have a wider appeal in Taiwan and edu- English as an instrument of conveying ideas to the interna- cate Taiwanese, publishing in Chinese is one of the important tional world and understanding different international strategies. research, while junior researchers were inclined to consider 10 SAGE Open Table 10. Sections of a Research Paper That Researchers Find Problematic and Other Aspects of the Publication Process After Review. Problems Researchers % of 21 No problem R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R12, R14, R17, R18, R20 47.62 Divergence of reviewers’ comments R5, R7, R8, R9, R13, R15, R16, R19 38.09 Reviewers’ hostility R10, R11, R21 14.29 Table 11. Factors Contributing to Successful Publication in English. Factors Researchers % of 21 Review and revise the manuscript after a period R2, R5, R10, R11, R12, R13, R18, R21 38.09 Read more paper R1, R9, R14, R15, R16, R20 28.57 Proofread by peers or native speakers R3, R6, R8, R17 19.05 Check grammar or academic writing reference R4, R7, R19 14.29 books English to be part of the knowledge and skills in writing and regarded that research output is indeed important. only for the purpose of promotion. Nevertheless, due to different natures between hard and soft Third, commenting on their strengths and weaknesses in sciences, researchers in soft sciences are generally less pro- writing English papers, most participants focused mainly on ductive in comparison with those in hard sciences. For language proficiency, while others mentioned about various instance, R10 said, “One of my friends, a teacher in the features. Specifically, for strengths, more than half of the Department of Physics, can publish 4 papers in a year, while researchers stated none. Seven researchers replied the origi- I can only publish one per year.” Another example given by nality of ideas, which is the ability to come up with fresh or R11 is as follows: novel thoughts. Two researchers were talented in theory inte- gration, whereas one researcher was good at textual analysis. I might have to spend 1-2 years or even more years conducting For weaknesses, 16 researchers indicated weaknesses on a research, particularly if it is a longitudinal research. Also, in terms of the length of the paper, the paper in my field tends to be language use and proficiency as English was their L2. R12 longer because it is more discursive than other fields. In the field considered herself not hardworking enough to read materi- of English teaching, the paper requirement is usually around als, and R18’s weakness would be procrastination, which 8000-9000 words, but it would be fewer in natural sciences. relates to her personal habit. These two researchers appar- ently blamed themselves for their failure to write and publish Moreover, R13 said, “Researchers in natural sciences often in English. They considered themselves having few strengths cooperate with others and work as a team, but researchers in when preparing a manuscript for publication in English. the field of English teaching tend to work individually. When asked about when publishing in Chinese, they also Naturally researchers in natural sciences could publish more mentioned that they had the similar problem. It seems this is papers.” In view of this, for researchers in soft sciences, it not because of language, but more importantly, because of would be unfair to compete for tenure and promotion on the their personal habits. basis of the same criteria applied to researchers in hard sci- Finally, participants commented widely on the differences ences. Other than differences in language use and quantity of between publishing in different academic disciplines. For publication, researchers’ perceived differences in the field of instance, eight researchers found that the language profi- English teaching and other disciplines include different focus ciency and difficulty were much higher in the field of English in research writing, research method, and reviewing period. teaching. R12 said, “The language in natural sciences is much easier. These researchers are only required to write smooth English. However, researchers in the field of English Problems of Publishing in English teaching are required to use different rhetorical techniques.” This brings out an important issue of publishing experiences Regarding problems in publishing in English, before review, for English as an additional language (EAL) researchers, seven participants remarked rather surprisingly, stating that namely, the greater demands regarding literacy and literary they did not have any major personal problem in writing skills placed on researchers writing in the humanities. In papers, while 14 researchers had difficulty in language, con- addition, the other main difference is about quantity of pub- tent development, and organization. They considered writing lication. Five researchers agreed with the slow publication English papers part of their research process. If they were speed in the field of English teaching. It is noted that these well-prepared, they would not be trapped in the problems. researchers with 13 or fewer years of teaching experiences For example, they might have difficulty in language because Chien 11 of the target readers. R15 said that she has to think of the United States to help proofread their papers. On the contrary, Anglophone readers before writing her paper. She needs to those with local PhDs (R3, R6) generally sought assistance pay close attention to the tone and the way that she writes. from native English speakers who are more linguistically R10 gave her explanation as follows: “Compared with proficient and regularly provide editing service in Taiwan. Chinese writing, English writing tends to be more precise While some researchers who did their PhDs in the United and reader-oriented. When writing in English, I am more Kingdom or United States reported turning to their native self-conscious and self-censoring my own work, fearing that English-speaking colleagues in similar fields for editorial it is written like a Chinese translation.” Moreover, some par- assistance, native English-speaking “peer editors” usually ticipants (R2, R13) find it difficult in content development may not be locally accessible for those with local PhDs in because its content should be convincing and logical, which Taiwan. would be the most difficult part for them. Other problems are about discourse organization, including how to write a good Discussion introduction, literature review, discussion, or conclusion. After review, nearly half of the researchers in this study Hegemony and Englishization claimed that there would be no problem for Taiwanese First, in line with some other studies in Europe (e.g., L. researchers to get their papers published in English journals, Anderson, 2013; Bocanegra-Valle, 2013), the results of the while the other half said the main obstacles would be the present study show an irreversible hegemony of English in divergence of reviewers’ comments and reviewers’ hostility. writing for scholarly publication and the indifference of edu- For those who stated the major obstacles, for instance, R16 cational authorities against it. It is also noted that more pub- explained one of her experiences that she was accepted by lication in English results in less publication in national one reviewer, but the other one rejected her word choice with language. This may cause domain loss in scientific publica- emotional comment. The reviewer challenged her vocabu- tion and a negligence of the national language (Gunnarsson, lary and sentence structure. On the contrary, R21 pointed out 2001). The policy that privileges English-medium publish- that good content would make the paper publishable. If prob- ing can be negative for the local language in the development lems arose, the main reason would be from the reviewers. of its academic registers. It can lead to less research being Interestingly, it is noted that before review, only one senior disseminated in local society (Lillis & Curry, 2010). researcher indicated having no problem. However, after Moreover, in terms of how globalization affects scientific review, six senior researchers (with 13 years of teaching knowledge production in national and university policies in experiences and more) stated so. This could be due to the Taiwan, the results show that the impact of globalization on reasons that senior researchers tended to be cautious and higher education policy may cause tensions for both nation foresaw that some problems might arise before review. and individual researchers. Although some researchers may prefer to work in other languages, nonetheless, the use of Factors Contributing to Successful Publication English as the medium of scholarly exchange is strongly felt in English in the Taiwanese context. Specifically, despite the impact of national research policy and its shift toward encouraging To improve their writing in English, more than half of the researchers to publish in English journals and ensuring that researchers espoused the importance of reading, including their knowledge is globally accessible, it shows Taiwanese reviewing and revising the manuscript after a period and researchers’ dilemma and decision making in response to reading more paper, because reading would help them with internationalization, particularly in choosing to get published their organization skill and word diction by comparing and in English or Chinese. On the contrary, it can also be argued contrasting the style and the organization of different jour- that Taiwanese researchers benefit from the viewpoints nals. More specifically, eight researchers focused on repeti- gained from English journals, and bi-directionally societies tious amendment such as checking all the details to amend worldwide could reap the benefits of scholarship from the unclear ideas and arguments so as to get published. Six Taiwanese researchers as well with a view to communicating researchers promoted the idea of extensive and intensive the results of their research to the international academic reading, such as developing their ideas by abundant reading community. and then sorting out all theme-related resources. In addition, four researchers found peers or native speakers for assis- tance, and three researchers relied on dictionary and gram- Problems of Writing in English Publication mar books. for Non-Native Researchers It noted that in terms of proofreading by peers or native In the interview data, most researchers reported that they had speakers, researchers with local and foreign PhDs had differ- problems in language use when writing English research ent strategies. Those with foreign PhDs (R8, R17) tended to papers. This finding is consistent with that of some previous have native English speaking peers in their own fields who studies (Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Hanauer et al., 2019; Huang, they had known when they studied in the United Kingdom or 12 SAGE Open 2010, 2017; Luo & Hyland, 2016; Uzuner, 2008). Non-native resources help researchers in their English publication, researchers’ limited English proficiency is a disadvantageous including (a) linguistic or rhetoric aspect and (b) material, factor in scholarly publication. Their problems in language financial, and social aspect. It seems that researchers in the use may further limit them to publish academic papers in field of English teaching mainly used more strategies related international journals. to the first linguistic aspect to deal with their L2 problems. Another researchers’ major language problem tends to be For example, they checked grammar or academic books or socio-pragmatic, such as how to address readership appropri- made self-revision after a period of time. However, strategies ately in the hope of being accepted by the readers in the related to the second type were seldom mentioned by these English world. Moreover, some researchers in this study researchers, except manuscripts proofread by peers or native reported that they had problems in different sections of a speakers. research paper, which is to some extent in line with Uzuner’s In addition, unlike Huang’s (2010) in Taiwan and Ge’s (2008) review, indicating “the stylistic differences arising (2015) studies in Mainland China, showing that researchers from the mismatches between the discursive traditions and were reluctant to address their writing problems or mostly cultural values of multilingual scholars and those of the played a passive role rather than an active one in interna- English-based core disciplinary communities” (p. 256). tional publications, researchers in the present study tried to However, interestingly, particularly in the field of English use different strategies to improve their English language teaching, four of them found it difficult in writing literature when writing for publication. One possible explanation for review. Unlike other disciplines, this is likely due to the need this difference is that researchers in Huang’s (2010) study in the field of English teaching placing a heavy emphasis on were mainly from natural sciences and were more concerned synthesizing and integrating different and a large amount of about experimental results than language itself, as “English sources to carve out a research space providing a compelling plays only a secondary role in scientific research” (p. 33). As rationale for the research. for Ge’s (2015) study, participants belonged to the fields of It should be noted that one of the problems mentioned by humanities and social sciences (including archeology, eco- researchers in the present study but not documented in litera- nomics, and sociology) and “English writing and publishing ture is logic in writing. Two researchers in this study pointed is still far from being the institutionalized practice in these out that they had problems in making logical arguments no disciplinary areas” (p. 59). By contrast, researchers in the matter what language was used. In this regard, some non- present study came from English teaching and English is native researchers’ problems of writing in English publica- generally a default language required by the department. tion are related to language itself, while other problems are Therefore, a good command of language use in academic related to writing skills, such as logical reasoning in aca- writing is essential for them. demic writing. Moreover, in addition to reading academic texts within In addition, researchers in this study reported their prob- their field, direct attention to mastering English language lems in the review process, which is important but was may help researchers achieve the standards required in largely neglected in previous studies (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, English for Research Publication Purposes. For researchers 2009; Luo & Hyland, 2016; Uzuner, 2008). About half of the in EAL countries such as Taiwan turning to local native researchers in the present study found divergence of review- English editors who in spite of being unfamiliar with specific ers’ comments very problematic after receiving reviewers’ disciplinary knowledge are willing to work “closely with comments probably because they may not be able to make [writers] to shape their desired meanings” could potentially satisfactory revisions. This finding suggests the role of be one of the solutions (Luo & Hyland, 2016, p. 48). This reviewers in English publication for researchers and how point becomes even more pertinent when considering that their comments are sometimes problematic to non-native peers in academics could offer more comprehensive, con- researchers. In fact, diverging reviewer comments could structive, and professional comments than native English pose a challenge for all prospective researchers, regardless of speakers who mainly focus on language use in general. Peer their language background. comments could be helpful and increase a researcher’s out- puts, especially if the peer is familiar with the nuanced pub- lication culture of the given academic field. Strategies Used by Non-Native English Researchers in Publication Potential Obstacles to and Benefits of Publishing Third, researchers in the study reported different strategies to Research Related to Greater China solve problems in English publication. These strategies include “review and revise the manuscript after a period,” Finally, as indicated by the participants in the present study, “read more paper,” “proofread by peers or native speakers,” the main obstacle in writing English papers is language use and “check grammar or academic writing reference books.” and the main benefit of it is values of publishing research As suggested by Curry and Lillis (2010), two types of related to Greater China. Although most of them regard Chien 13 language use as the main obstacle, they seek to find ways to publication, it is therefore suggested that university or compensate their own weaknesses and are keen to promote research institutions should hold workshops or courses regu- their ideas in the international market by using English as the larly to help researchers’ academic writing skills and increase medium, as English is indispensable to make their work vis- opportunities for network participation. ible internationally. Also, unlike other humanities disciplines In terms of further research, as researchers encounter dif- “such as history, literary and cultural studies and even lin- ferent kinds of difficulties, some of them can be pinpointed. guistics—which represent sites of potential resistance to the For example, the scope and requirements for publication in implicit privileging of publication in English” (Burgess, different journals are dissimilar. How these scope and 2017, p. 15), because participants in this study are from requirements affect researchers’ incentives and ways in pre- English teaching, they are used to this language instrument paring for publication can be analyzed. Moreover, the publi- and English has become part of their linguistic repertoire in cation process is also an interesting topic to explore because writing for scholarly publication. it causes a lot of troubles for researchers, such as the diver- In addition, despite the fact that only a small number of gence of reviewers’ comments. Furthermore, researchers participants indicated the practicality of English writing— may encounter difficulties before and after peer review, promotion—it is still worthwhile to mention it. It is likely not which is also a worthwhile topic to be investigated. In addi- English language itself but the value which is accumulated tion to professional editing services, researchers may seek through publishing in international journals for researchers to input from colleagues who can play an important role in get promoted that leads to the choice of English over Chinese shaping the final product. As such, when preparing manu- or other languages. Nonetheless, except for language use, scripts for publication, researchers may potentially engage they were confident in their research topic. As reported by with literacy brokers (i.e., academic brokers and language them, because of Greater China’s rapid growth, people may brokers) who influence the texts in content and language use. want to know more about it. In view of this, they can conduct Further understanding these and hitherto benefits and input research based on issues related to this region, which could be from literacy brokers remains an area open for more investi- the major advantage in disseminating their research. gation regarding their roles in shaping writing for scholarly publication research. In addition, it is noted that despite the fact that partici- Conclusion pants in this study do not mention how technology use influ- To conclude, the study investigated perceptions of English ences their writing for scholarly publication, past research publication by Taiwanese researchers in the field of English (e.g., Reynolds, 2013; Reynolds & Anderson, 2015) has teaching. The results showed that these researchers reported shown that several online language tools such as IWiLL2.0 some problems in English publication. In line with reports and online text chat have been created for academic pur- from several other studies (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2009; poses. More research would be beneficial to explore to what Huang, 2010, 2017; Uzuner, 2008), the main problem for extent do technological devices enhance students’ academic these researchers in the present study is language use in English writing skills as well as what teachers’ and students’ English writing. Unlike other studies (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, perceptions are in the use of such technological devices. 2009; Luo & Hyland, 2016; Uzuner, 2008), participants in Similarly, although participants in this study do not indi- this study mentioned problems in the review process, includ- cate how collocations/chunks influence their writing for ing reviewers’ divergent comments and possible hostility to scholarly publication, the uses of collocation and chunk in the author(s). To solve these problems, these participants academic writing have been emphasized in past research adopted strategies in English publication, including strate- (e.g., Frankenberg-Garcia, 2014, 2018; Frankenberg-Garcia, gies related to both linguistic aspect and social aspect. In Lew, Roberts, Rees, & Sharma, 2019) and are therefore addition, these researchers in the present study clearly pin- worth further exploration. For instance, due to the consider- pointed that they were in a more disadvantaged position than ation of the wide range of collocational choices available for an advantaged position in the global world when compared researchers to choose from, how lexicographic resources with native researchers; the main disadvantage was language such as in corpora could effectively facilitate them for com- use in English publication. Generally speaking, these non- prehension and production in academic writing, and cater native researchers were aware of their problems, weaknesses, their needs to maximize the potential use remains an impor- strengths, and possible solutions to their problems. tant issue. In light of the findings, language use is the focal point. Last but not least, while the present study extends the The study, therefore, provides two implications. First, non- extant literature on writing for scholarly publication in native researchers are encouraged to improve their language Taiwan, the major limitation is that each teacher was inter- use in academic writing as language use was considered by viewed only once. Future research may extend this study by these researchers as the main problem and disadvantage in using multiple interviews to explore researchers’ perceptions academic writing. Second, researchers in the present study of publishing in English in their professional development seldom had workshops or courses to improve their English over time. 14 SAGE Open Declaration of Conflicting Interests Chu, W. W. (2009). Knowledge production in a latecomer: Reproducing economics in Taiwan. Inter-Asia Cultural The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Studies, 10, 275-281. to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Curry, J., & Lillis, T. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English Funding for Specific Purposes, 29, 281-295. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support Curry, J., & Lillis, T. (2013). Introduction to the thematic issue: for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Participating in academic publishing-consequences of linguis- study was funded and regulated by the Ministry of Science and tic policies and practices. Language Policy, 12, 209-213. Technology, Taiwan (formerly National Science Council, Taiwan; Curry, J., & Lillis, T. (2014). Strategies and tactics in academic NSC 101-2410-H-038-005). knowledge production by multilingual scholars. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 1-28. Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific com- ORCID iD munication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain Shih-Chieh Chien https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8038-2728 loss. Ibérica, 13, 7-38. Fischer, R. (2008). Introduction: Studying anglicisms. In R. Fischer Supplemental Material & H. Pulaczewska (Eds.), Anglicisms in Europe linguistic diversity in a global context (pp. 1-15). Newcastle upon Tyne, Supplemental material for this article is available online. UK: Cambridge Scholars. Flowerdew, J. (2013). English for research publication purposes. References In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). Tough for specific purposes (pp. 301-321). Oxford, UK: John Wiley. love and tears: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 435-447. apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Anderson, L. (2013). Publishing strategies of young, highly mobile Linguistics, 28, 440-465. academics: The question of language in the European context. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade- Language Policy, 12, 273-288. off between local and international publication among Chinese Anderson, M., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16. work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2014). The use of corpus examples for 437-461. language comprehension and production. Recall, 26, 128-146. Bardi, M. (2015). Learning the practice of scholarly publication Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2018). Investigating the collocations in English—A Romanian perspective. English for Specific available to EAP writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 98-111. Purposes, 35, 93-104. Bennett, K. (2010). Academic writing practices in Portugal: Survey Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Lew, R., Roberts, J. C., Rees, G. P., & of humanities and social science researchers. Diacrítica, 24, Sharma, N. (2019). Developing a writing assistant to help EAP 193-209. writers with collocations in real time. Recall, 31, 23-39. Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2013). The perceived value of English for Ge, M. (2015). English writing for international publication in academic publishing among ESP multilingual scholars in the age of globalization: Practices and perceptions of main- Europe. ESP Today—Journal of English for Specific Purposes land Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. at Tertiary Level, 1, 5-25. Publications, 3, 43-64. Buckingham, L. (2014). Building a career in English: Users of Gea-Valor, M. L., Rey-Rocha, J., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). English as an additional language in academia in the Arabian Publishing research in the international context: An analysis Gulf. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 6-33. of Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sci- Burgess, S. (2017). Accept or contest: A life-history study of ences. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 47-59. humanities scholars’ responses to research evaluation poli- Gunnarsson, B. (2001). Swedish tomorrow—A product of the cies in Spain. In M. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing linguistic dominance of English? In S. Boyd & L. Huss research in English as an additional language: Practices, (Eds.), Managing multilingualism in a European nation- pathways and potentials (pp. 13-32). Adelaide, Australia: state: Challenges for Sweden (pp. 51-69). Clevedon, UK: University of Adelaide Press. Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. design in educational research. New York, NY: Academic Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2006). Developing Chinese scientists’ Press. skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-col- Hanauer, D. I., Sheridan, C. L., & Englander, K. (2019). Linguistic league workshops based on genre analysis. Journal of English injustice in the writing of research articles in English as a sec- for Academic Purposes, 5, 207-221. ond language: Data from Taiwanese and Mexican researchers. Cho, S. (2004). Challenges of entering discourse communities Written Communication, 36, 136-154. through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative- Ho, M. (2017). Navigating scholarly writing and international speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. publishing: Individual agency of Taiwanese EAL doctoral stu- Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3, 47-72. dents. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 1-13. Chien 15 Huang, J. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publica- McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language tion in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 33-44. publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guide- Huang, J. C. (2011). Attitudes of Taiwanese scholars toward lines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1-11. English and Chinese as languages of publication. Asia Pacific Merriam, S. B. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative Journal of Education, 31, 115-128. research. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in prac- Huang, J. C. (2014). Learning to write for publication in English tice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 18–33). San through genre-based pedagogy: A case in Taiwan. System, 45, Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 175-186. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An Huang, J. C. (2017). What do subject experts teach about writing expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. research articles? An exploratory study. Journal of English for Mok, K. H. (2016). The quest for world-class university status: Academic Purposes, 25, 18-29. Implications for sustainable development of Asian universities Jaroongkhongdach, W., Todd, R. W., Keyuravong, S., & Hall, D. (Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper Series (2012). Differences in quality between Thai and international 8) (pp. 1-26). London, England: Centre for Global Higher research articles in ELT. Journal of English for Academic Education, UCL Institute of Education. Purposes, 11, 194-209. Mok, K. H., & Wei, I. P. (2008). Contested concepts, similar prac- Kao, C., & Pao, H. L. (2009). An evaluation of research performance tices: The quest for world-class universities in Europe and in management of 168 Taiwan universities. Scientometrics, 78, Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21, 429-438. 261-277. Muresan, L. M., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research Li, Y. (2006a). A doctoral student of physics writing for interna- publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environ- tional publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. ments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English English for Specific Purposes, 25, 456-478. for Academic Purposes, 13, 53-64. Li, Y. (2006b). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple dis- Nicholls, G. (2005). The challenge to scholarship: Rethinking course communities: A doctoral student of computer science learning, teaching and research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, Pérez-Llantada, C. (2012). Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of 15, 159-178. globalization. London, England: Continuum. Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of prac- Pérez-Llantada, C., Plo, R., & Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t tice: An “intraview” of an NNES graduate student writing a say what you know, only what you can”: The perception and research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 55-79. practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dis- Li, Y. (2014). Chinese medical doctors negotiating the pressure of semination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 18-30. the publication requirement. Ibérica, 28, 107-128. Reynolds, B. L. (2013). A web-based EFL writing environment as a Li, Y. (2016a). Chinese postgraduate medical students researching bridge between academic advisers and junior researchers: A pilot for publication. Publications, 4(3), Article 25. study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, E77-E80. Li, Y. (2016b). “Publish SCI papers or no degree”: Practices Reynolds, B. L., & Anderson, T. A. F. (2015). Extra-dimensional of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publica- in-class communications: Action research exploring text chat tion pressure on science students. Asia Pacific Journal of support of face-to-face writing. Computers and Composition, Education, 36, 545-558. 35, 52-64. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scien- Rey-Rocha, J., & Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2004). Patterns of the for- tists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language eign contributions in some domestic vs. international journals Writing, 16, 100-117. on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 59(1), 95-115. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2009). International engagement versus Salager-Meyer, F. (2014). Writing and publishing in peripheral local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities scholarly journals: How to enhance the global influence of mul- and social sciences writing for publication. Journal of English tilingual scholars? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, for Academic Purposes, 8, 279-293. 13, 78-82. Li, Y., & Hu, G. (2017). Chinese management academics’ English- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: medium scholarly experience: Comparative perspectives on Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). overseas-trained and home-trained scholars. Ibérica, 33, 71-96. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lillis, T., & Curry, J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: Tien, F. (2007). To what degree does the promotion system reward The politics and practices of publishing in English. London, faculty research productivity? British Journal of Sociology of England: Routledge. Education, 28, 105-123. Luo, N. (2015). Two Chinese medical master’s students aspiring Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/ to publish internationally: A longitudinal study of legitimate global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of peripheral participation in their communities of practice. English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263. Publications, 3, 89-103. Luo, N., & Hyland, K. (2016). Chinese academics writing for pub- Author Biography lication: English teachers as text mediators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 43-55. Shih-Chieh Chien is an associate professor in the Center for Martín, P., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., & Moreno, A. (2014). General Education at National Taipei University of Business. His Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, research interests include writing strategy use, contrastive/intercul- strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine. tural rhetoric, composition pedagogical guides for writing teachers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 57-67. and language teaching and learning in general.
SAGE Open – SAGE
Published: Aug 18, 2019
Keywords: writing; scholarly publication; Taiwanese researcher; English teaching
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.