Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences.

The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers.

Introduction

At the same time that scientific articles became the measure of scientific productivity, English was imposed as the language of science, culture, and the global economy [1]. As a consequence, today 98% of publications in science are written in English, especially in the areas of natural and basic sciences, establishing English as the lingua franca of science [1]. This creates a disadvantage for scientists with English as a Foreign Language (EFL) because they must publish complex texts in a foreign language to advance their careers [2]. This disadvantage gives rise to global inequalities, especially in countries where the majority of the population receives minimal English training and bilingualism with English is very low [3]. Thus, English proficiency and socioeconomic level influence scientific success, access to knowledge and expatriation, among others.

One of the most important goals for modern society is to increase scientific production from Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and developing Asia. There is a strong correlation among English proficiency, economic development, and technological innovation in terms of number of articles, number of researchers and research and development expenditure [4]. Therefore, the prevalence of the English language in the sciences deepens the inequality in knowledge production between countries with high and low English proficiency [5], maintaining the gap in scientific production between the countries of the global south or peripheral and the countries of the global north (include the G8 countries and Australia), reducing the individual scientific contributions of EFL scientists [6]. Together these factors limit the advancement of the broad scientific communities within those countries [7].

Numerous studies have identified the use of English in academia as a source of inequality and segregation in science [8-12]. These inequities affect the scientific community at multiple levels. In local communities of EFL countries, scientific thinking is harmed, particularly in higher education, as learning depends on cultural attitudes derived from the native language spoken by the students, and science becomes alien to their own experiences [13-15]. Diversity in language promotes diversity in thinking, affecting creative process and imagination; thus, the maintenance of multilingualism in science could have an impact on scientific knowledge in itself [14].

Local journals are a refuge for communication of scientific research in languages other than English, nevertheless they are often perceived as low-quality, since the most important research work is often reserved for international journals. Therefore, readers with language barriers only have access to limited studies that the researchers consider not complete, important or broad enough to be published in an international journal. Local readers often are unaware of the most significant research being conducted in their region, which has resulted in a void in information important for political decision making, environmental policies, and conservation strategies [16-18]. In addition, despite the importance of local knowledge, the professional success of a scientist correlates to a greater extent with their "internationalization". This constant pressure could be influencing academic migration, known as "brain drain". English learning is one of the pressure factors of migration, as it is more difficult to achieve upper English proficiency for scientists who remain in EFL countries [15, 19, 20].

In periphery countries there is a strong relationship between English proficiency and socioeconomic origin, thus it is important to understand the publishing costs associated with the socioeconomic origin of researchers. Among Latin America, Colombia is the second most unequal territory: in 2018 it invested only 0.24% of its GDP (Sweden investment was 2.74% of its GDP) in science, technology and innovation [21], and it has one of the lowest levels of English proficiency among the world rankings [4]. In addition, for 2019, Colombia had only 58 researchers per million inhabitants [22, 23]. This study aims to determine if Colombian doctoral students of natural sciences face disadvantages when publishing scientific articles in English, compared to publications in their first language, and to quantify the extra work that these scientists put into writing, reading, and presenting their work in English. In addition, this study examines the impact of socioeconomic background on English proficiency and the costs it generates when publishing.

Materials and methods

In order to determine the costs of publishing in English experienced by Colombian researchers in biological sciences, 49 to academics were surveyed. These researchers completed their PhDs or are enrolled in doctoral studies and are attempting to publish. They participated in the “Implications of language in scientific publications” survey containing 44 questions in Spanish language (S3 and S4 Files). This survey was available for two months and shared directly to researchers and on Twitter under the hashtag “#CienciaCriolla” (used between Colombian researchers). Responses were anonymous. It must be mention that the researcher’s demography in Colombia is gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic biased. Only 30.21% of natural science researchers are women [24], researchers come primarily from big cities [25], and undergrad students come mainly from middle and high socioeconomic classes [26]. Therefore, it would not have been possible to completely control for bias in who took the survey. It must be also recognized that without specific numbers for total Colombian researchers in biological sciences, 49 may not be a representative sample size from which to draw accurate statistical inferences.

Additionally, the prices offered by prestigious scientific publishers for translation (Spanish to English) and editing of scientific texts were searched to measure the economic impact in relation to a Ph.D. student salary in Colombia [27-31].

Survey construction

The main survey of this work, entitled “Implications of language in scientific publications,” has 44 questions divided into three sections: basic data, writing articles in English, and learning English (S3 and S4 Files). This survey sought for the most quantitative approach as possible, however, each question is inevitably under some degree subjectivity due to human interpretation. The responses obtained were grouped for statistical analysis (Table 1).

Table 1

Grouping of survey questions in statistical analyses.

Group	Variable	Type of variable	Reference
Socioeconomic data	Differentiation between attending public and private education in the high school and university	Binary (public/private)	[32]
	Occupation of the father and mother to define socioeconomic status	Categorical	[33]
	Socioeconomic stratification in Colombia from him- or herself, father, and mother	Ordinal (1 to 6)	[34]
English proficiency	First language(s)	Categorical
	Language of the country in which they live	Categorical
	Proficiency in writing, oral expression, reading and listening in English	Ordinal (bad, regular, good, excellent)
	Age of beginning of English learning	Discrete quantitative
	Years studying English	Discrete quantitative
	Satisfactory experience in the English learning institution	Ordinal (1 to 5)
	Years lived in English-speaking country	Discrete quantitative
	Percentage of English speaking daily	Percentage quantitative
Publications	Number of scientific publications reviewed by academic peers	Discrete quantitative
	Percentage of those publications in English or in a language other than English	Percentage quantitative
Costs of writing in English	Payment or favors for editing or translating scientific publications	Binary (yes/no)
	Percentage of articles—payment or favors for editing or translating scientific publications	Percentage quantitative
	Number of rejections in scientific journals associated to English writing	Discrete quantitative
	Time spent writing a scientific article in English or Spanish (labor hours)	Continuous quantitative
	Preference between writing directly in English or translating to English	Binary (English/translating)
Writing difficulties in English or Spanish	Difficulty of writing scientific paper introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion	Ordinal (1 to 5)
Reading difficulties in English or Spanish	Difficulty in understanding general text / Understanding scientific terminology / Interpreting figures and tables	Ordinal (1 to 5)
Participation in conferences	Oral presentations in international conferences	Binary (yes/no)
	Level of anxiety in oral presentations in English or Spanish	Ordinal (1 to 5)

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed in R v.3.6.1 [35] and data were plotted with the ggplot package [36]. To compare reading and writing between English and Spanish, time investment and the level of anxiety in conferences participation, an ANOVA was performed (aov in package ‘stats’ v3.5.3). The margin of error was calculated with 95% confidence. An Analysis of Principal Components (PCA) was performed using the variables contained in the “English proficiency” and “Socioeconomic data” groups for reducing redundancy in the variables (PCA in package FactorMiner v2.2). The proportion of variance explained by each principal component was reviewed, and only the first principal component was retained for each dataset, as it described 51% and 62% correspondingly of the total variation. Subsequently, a linear regression was executed with the intention of comparing these two variables, English proficiency PC1 vs socioeconomic status PC1 (using lm in package ‘stats’ v3.5.3).

Editing and translation service costs

In order to visualize the prices of English editing and translation services for scientific texts, information was sought in five of the most relevant scientific publishers [27-31]. The information and costs of these services are public and can be obtained through the web pages of publishers. All data were taken with respect to prices for a text of 3000 words, as that is the average length of a scientific article; searches were performed in October 2018.

These publishers offer two types of editing services, a three-day service (premium) and a one-week service (standard); both prices were used for the analysis. Only the prices for Spanish—English translations were used. Finally, these prices were compared with an average doctoral salary in Colombia [25], 947 US dollars or 3 million Colombian pesos (1 US dollar = 3.166 Colombian pesos, exchange price on January 31, 2019).

Results

A total of 49 responses were obtained from Colombian doctoral students or doctorates in biological sciences whose first language is Spanish. From Colombians’ surveyed 92% (sd = 0.272) of their published scientific articles are in English and only 4% (sd = 0.2) of their publications were in Spanish or Portuguese. In addition, 43.5% of the doctoral students stated at least one rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar.

With regards to time investment, there was a significant increase in the time invested writing a scientific article in English in comparison to Spanish for survey participants (Fig 1). The process of writing in Spanish takes on average 114.57 (sd = 87.77) labor hours, while in English, 211.4 (sd = 182.6) labor hours. On average, these scientists spend 96.86 labor hours more writing in English. However, 81.2% of the doctoral students stated that they prefer to write directly in English in comparison to writing in Spanish and then translating into English.

Fig 1

Time invested writing a scientific article in English (EN) as a secondary language and in Spanish (ES) as a first language.

An ANOVA analysis was performed to compare the variables obtaining an F-value = 7.095 and p-value = 0.00951 **. The dotted line represents labor hours per month.

The need for editing or translation of scientific texts is widespread among Colombian doctoral students. Among the respondents, 93.9% have asked for favors to edit their English and 32.7% have asked for translation favors. Regarding the use of paid services, 59.2% have paid for editing their articles and 28.6% have paid for a translation.

The Premium editing total cost and the standard translation cost represent almost a half of an average doctoral monthly salary in Colombia (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Cost of translation and editing services of scientific articles from six publishers.

The Y axis is the price of the service in US dollars, the X axis represents the type of service, the standard or premium service corresponds to the delivery days. The dotted line represents an average Ph.D salary in Colombia ($ 947).

Reading comprehension is also affected by the language of the text (Fig 3). However, only 18% of respondents prefer to read scientific articles in Spanish than in English. On the other hand, neither the interpretation of figures nor the understanding of scientific terminology is affected by the reading language.

Fig 3

Reading comprehension, interpretation of figures, scientific terminology in English (EN) vs. Spanish (ES).

A Poisson regression was used to analyze these discrete ordinal variants (Qualification from 1 to 5). A Chi-squared test was performed between languages for each category: interpretation of figures (Z-value = 0.756, Pr (Chi) = 0.09754), understanding of scientific terminology (z-value = 0.143, Pr (Chi) = 0.4619) and reading comprehension (z-value = 1.427, Pr (Chi) = 0.01209 *).

To analyze the difficulty of writing scientific articles in two languages, survey participants were also asked how they found it difficult to write different sections of articles: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. In all cases, survey participants found the discussion was the most difficult section to write, while the methods were perceived as "easier" (Fig 4). Overall, all sections except methods are perceived as significantly "more difficult" to write in English than in the participant’s first language.

Fig 4

Difficulty of writing the different sections contained in a scientific article in English (EN) and Spanish (ES).

A Poisson regression and Chi-square test was carried out: Introduction (z-value = 9.325, Pr (Chi) = 0.0158 *), methods (z-value = 3.046, Pr (Chi) = 0.07057), results (z-value = 4.899, Pr (Chi) = 0.04397 *), discussion (z-value = 11.732, Pr (Chi) = 0.02384 *), and conclusion (z-value = 7.688, Pr (Chi) = 0.03956 *).

With regard to the use of English in oral presentations at international events and conferences, 33% of respondents stated that they have stopped attending due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Additionally, greater anxiety was perceived when presenting papers orally in English than in Spanish (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Anxiety level when making oral presentations in English (EN) vs. Spanish (ES).

A Poisson regression was used to analyze discrete ordinal variants (Anxiety level from 1 to 5). A Chi-square test was carried out (z-value = 8,882, Pr (Chi) = 0.005419 **).

In order to determine whether or not the socioeconomic origin of doctoral students affects their proficiency in English and in turn increases the costs of publishing in English, an analysis of principal components was used reduce survey data related to socioeconomic background or English proficiency into single variables because both represent more than the 50% of the whole variance. For the following analyzes: 1) English proficiency is represented by PC1_English_proficiency, which explains 51% of the variance of the survey variables that are related to this subject (see methods), 2) the socioeconomic status is represented by PC1_Socioeconomic_status, which represents 62% of the variance of the variables of the survey that were related to this denomination (see methods). The socioeconomic status explains 15% of the English proficiency of researchers (Fig 6), which means that family and economic resources are partly translated into more proficient English.

Fig 6

Relationship between socioeconomic status and English proficiency.

Principle components representing socioeconomic status and English proficiency are significantly correlated (R2 = 0.1548, adjusted R2 = 0.1368, F = 8.605, p-value = 0.005168 **).

Discussion

Many of the factors relating to publishing in English assessed in our study represent substantial costs in time, finances, productivity, and anxiety to Colombian researchers. Interestingly, the researchers appear to prefer to read and write articles in English and the scientific terminology do not represent an additional cost for Colombian researchers. In addition, a correlation between the socioeconomic status and English proficiency was found, suggesting an intersectional effect of language in science. These results can be extrapolated to understand costs of the English hegemony to all South American researchers, that in part contributes to a global gap between native English-speaking scientists (NES) and EFL scientists. This gap makes apparent the necessity of recognizing and protecting multilingualism in science. Although having common language is important for science communication, this effort should involve different actors in the research community and not only EFL researchers’ effort.

Our results show that several factors could lead to disadvantages of EFL researchers. The time investment in writing an article in English, for example, increases on average by 96.86 labor hours. This variable was not directly measured; it is based on the subjective perception of time of each person. However, as Guardiano and collaborators [37] suggest, this extra cost affects the time spent on scientific tasks, decreasing the scientific productivity of researchers. Regarding the economic costs, between 50% and 30% of respondents have hired services to correct or translate scientific texts. To contextualize the cost of these services, a doctoral student should invest one-quarter to one-half doctoral monthly salary per article. It should be taken into account that scholarships and financing opportunities for doctoral students in the country are scarce [38], and not all of them have access to the forgivable loans provided by governmental institutions. More than 90% of researchers have asked for English-editing favors, but favors are unpaid labor that may have subsequent costs. The cost of this favor particularly leans on the weakest in the relationship, in this case, the EFL researchers because their career depends on publishing in a second language. Therefore, ensuring a permanent source of “favors” is essential for an EFL researcher that is willing to negotiate for “help” by reinforcing dependence with research groups or scientists in NES countries [8]. Romero-Olivares [39] exemplified this point by showing a reviewer comment “The authors need a native English-speaking co-author to thoroughly revise the grammar of this manuscript.”, or as Ordoñez-Matamoros et al [40] mention for Colombian researchers “co-authoring with partners located in foreign countries tend to publish their work in journals of higher impact factor and receive more citations per article than those not co-authoring with partners located overseas”.

Around 80% of the respondents prefer to read and write scientific content directly in English. However, this result could be interpretable as “obligation” rather than as "preference" because of the monolingualism of scientific readings and the pressure to publish in international journals, and therefore in English [37]. A scientist’s preference for reading and writing in English could also be due to the prevalence of English as the source for scientific words and phrases, as well as the scientist’s need to improve their own English in order to overcome these other barriers [41]. The preference of writing directly in English and not translating may be related to the higher cost of translation in comparison with the revision service (Fig 2). Additionally, scientists are more likely to request a favor for English editing than for a translation [37]. Strong feelings of insecurity or an "inferiority complex" generated by scientific writing in English is one of the most important segregation factors mentioned by EFL speaking researchers and increase the need of constant editing or correction [8, 10, 42]. This difficulty or insecurity is augmented in the introduction and discussion sections of an article [12, 43–46]. However, the “materials and methods” section in an article and understanding scientific terminology are equally understood and used in both languages by the respondents, possibly because most words and expressions in modern science are coined in English [47].

In this study, 43.5% of surveyed researchers reported suffering from rejection or revisions because of aspects related to grammar or style in English writing. Coates [48] shows that there is a greater probability of manuscript rejection by a journal if there are grammatical errors, but Lindsey and Crusan [49] found that seems to be the ethnicity of the EFL researchers but not the grammar that is influencing the text evaluation. Some critical voices disagree with the reviewers’ bias hypothesis [50]. This subject is still under controversy, and in this paper, without comparing this trend with native speakers, it is not possible to conclude that rejection because of English writing is worse for EFL researchers. To start to unravel this bias hypothesis, it will be necessary to gather primary data about correlations between the quality of the article and impressions from reviewers on the writing of EFL researchers (with and without ethnicity information). Nevertheless, understanding reviewer comments is more difficult for a EFL speaking author, since these frequently contain expressions, euphemisms, or colloquialisms that are not easily interpreted by EFL speakers [51, 52]. For this reason, several authors call on reviewers to write comments that contribute and guide the use of English, and that does not discourage or criticize EFL authors for the lack of mastery of the language [39, 42, 53]. On the other hand, “not every native English speaker is competent to solve peculiarities in the grammar and style of the “good” use of academic English”, therefore, all scientists have been pressured to use editing services [54]. In other words, it is questionable to judge or reject innovations or scientific research by linguistic factors or with the excuse of linguistic factors. If a particular research is important for the scientific community, the journal or other resources must assume the cost and effort of translation or editing services, shifting the costs from individual scientists to the publishers or the community.

It was expected that additional costs for Colombian researchers would be found, since similar findings have been reported from other EFL speaking countries in the world [11, 12, 37, 43, 55, 56]. Despite the lack of specific studies on this subject across Latin America, a few exceptions showed similar results: “Regression analysis established that variables of science writing burden contribute to a sense that English is a barrier to scientific writing” [11, 12]. Additionally, opinion pieces from Latin-American researchers also agree about the linguistic barrier in science [39, 57]. It is possible to assume that these results can be extrapolated to other countries bordering Colombia, given the similarity in proficiency and access to English, shared first language, low state investment in science and technology, and parallel political history with the US and Europe [11, 58, 59]. The results could even be extrapolated to other peripheral countries of the world, as Hanauer et al. [12] found similar disadvantages over doctoral students from two countries on different continents, Mexico, and Taiwan.

In this study we not only explore the impact that English proficiency has on doctoral students or post-doctoral researchers, but how those impacts are influenced by the researcher's socioeconomic origin. A positive relationship (R2 = 0.14) was found between English proficiency and socioeconomic status, which is supported by previous studies [60], hence maintaining in science the patterns of social segregation at national and global levels. This low correlation could be explained by a pre-existing socioeconomic bias in Colombia where most undergrad students come from middle and high socioeconomic classes [25, 26]. Another fact that could affect this percentage is the PCA analysis because English proficiency was calculated taking into account years living in English-speaking countries and the percentage of English spoken every day. Therefore, if the researcher lives outside Colombia and speaks English every day the score is higher.

This low correlation, could be explained by the pre-existing socioeconomically biased in Colombia where most undergrad students come from middle and high socioeconomic classes [25, 26]. Another fact that could affect this percentage is the PCA analysis because the English proficiency was calculated taking into account years living in English-speaking countries and the percentage of English spoke every day. Therefore, if the researcher lives outside Colombia and speaks English every day the score is higher.

This study finds that the system within science that denotes English as the lingua franca reinforces inequities between scientists from NES and EFL speaking countries, as well as socioeconomic inequities within countries that primarily speak a language other than English. Globalizing science, so far, has meant offering greater advantages to English speakers at the expense of another scientists’ prosperity in the world. Science at present, due to different pressures, opts for English as the only language acceptable for scientific communication, however, some researchers still value the protection of multilingualism in science [44, 61]. Defending multilingualism as an alternative in science would promote the reduction of international and social inequities, which would ultimately boost what Segatto [62] has called "a radically plural world". The homogenization of language in science with the excuse of “integration” is an expression of the elimination of diversity, and this can have consequences not only on the human diversity that makes science but on the diversity of scientific questions that arise [17].

The convenience of a common language in science must be recognized; however, it is essential that solutions to this problem involve scientists from a variety of backgrounds through a bilateral effort (EFL speaking scientists and NES speaking scientists) [10, 16]. Although research is a collective process, the proposed solutions so far have leaned on individual investment, which creates barriers to performing science that more greatly affect researchers of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Universities, publishers, translation technology, conferences, among others, must also commit to generate ideas for change [17, 37]. One potential approach would be to increase the perceived value of publishing in regional or smaller journals regardless of impact factors (IFs), in order to reduce the pressure to publish in the most prestigious and monolingual journals [6, 63]. Publishing in high IFs journals is a symbolic capital that delineates what should be “desired” as the maximum “goal” of any scientist. In terms of self-identification, not being able to publish in these journals increases the feeling of incompetence and insignificancy [64]. The value given to these IFs journals is supported by the idea that the most important and novel studies in academia are published there, however, an increasing number of voices have highlighted the relative value of scientific advances. For example, differential importance between countries or local communities [18], the influence of trends and use of novel technologies in determining research value (e.g. genetic or genomic data) [65], and devaluation of important but not modern topics in biology, such as natural history and taxonomy [66-68]. Implementing changes in this regard must be a collective effort as we need to rethink the value of scientific publishing. Elife journal is one example of reevaluating standards in a scientific journal [64]. Other ideas such as encouraging researchers either from the global south or global north who work in the global south to publish in local journals, could be also implemented.

Other alternatives include supporting journals that accept papers in several languages, promoting the inclusion of other languages in journals at the international level, incorporating revision or translation services in all fees paid to publish an article and providing these services to all scientists at no additional charge to them, establishing multilingual annual or periodic editions in renowned journals, among others [37, 57]. Proposals for universities and conferences include aids such as English tutoring for academic purposes [69], retaining in international conferences a space for presenting in local languages [17], using methodologies such as simultaneous translation in conferences, and generating exchange spaces in other languages, among others. Finally, it would be helpful to strengthen public available technologies such as Google Translate that allow simultaneous written translation [17]. In the future, more alternatives will arise, and it will be essential to analyze and monitor them to investigate their reception at the editorial and scientific level.

Complete article in Spanish.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Survey questions in Spanish.

Questions in Spanish (original language) of the survey “Implications of language in scientific publications”.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Survey questions in English.

Questions in English of the survey “Implications of language in scientific publications”.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Raw data.

Raw data obtained from the Survey in Spanish (original language).

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Theorical framework.

Short explanation of English as lingua franca in Science, English as a foreign language in Colombia and Implication of English in Science (in English and Spanish).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

29 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-06485

Disadvantages of writing, reading, publishing and presenting scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian Ph.D. in biological sciences

PLOS ONE

Dear Ramirez-Castaneda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that systematically addresses all the points raised by the three reviewers during the review process (see below).

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 13 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Manalo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including a copy of your questionnaire in Spanish. It is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please also include a copy in English, as Supporting Information

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4.  We note that Figure 7 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a)    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b)    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The three reviewers of your paper agree that the topic you deal with is very important and you can make a valuable contribution through the report of the research you have undertaken. However, all of them also indicate modifications that are necessary for the paper to reach a standard suitable for publication. These modifications concern contextualisation of the study in the relevant research literature, better support and/or more appropriate expression of some of the claims you make, and clarification of expressions, methods used and data collected. Please go through their comments and suggestions very carefully and address all of the issues they raise in a systematic manner.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting article with a great deal of potential but I think the authors need to consider some of the claims they are making a little more carefully. The title needs rethinking. It could be shorter and clearer. I was also puzzled by the phrase Colombian PhD. It appears the authors are referring to academics who have just completed their PhDs or are enrolled in doctoral studies in biological sciences and are attempting to publish. This should be spelt out clearly in the article and we need more information about the participants.

It would have been a good idea to attach the survey used in the research as it is difficult to judge how appropriate and useful questions are from a summary. I did not find Table 1 particularly useful, in fact, in places it was very confusing. The problem with this kind of survey is that very often the devil is in the detail. For example, some articles are more difficult to write than others simply because of the nature of the article. However, I accept that writing in a second language is far more time-consuming.

The authors claim that English translating and editing services are expensive and I accept this. However, on p.9 it is said that "43.5% Of the doctoral students stated at least one rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar". The literature shows that a number of L2 authors believe that their articles are rejected because of their English grammar. However, the evidence to back this up is not convincing, and many editors (and reviewers) contest this strongly. It appears likely that there might well be unconscious bias at least on the part of L1 reviewers and editors, but there is also a fair amount of evidence in the literature to indicate that some of the articles might simply not be up to scratch. The authors revisit this point on p.14. I suggest they read more widely in the area and hedge their claims in this regard. There is simply not enough evidence to back up what they are saying.

The authors make some good points in the discussion. One of the points they raised is the cost of "favours". This is an interesting point but they need to expand on what they mean by the social cost of favours.

On p.16 the authors propose reducing the perceived value of publishing in journals with high impact factors. I would like this to be thought through a little more clearly. If the value of publishing in these journals is reduced then their influence is also reduced. If they are publishing high-quality research is this really in the best interests of the Academy? Also, how could/would this be implemented? The idea of including multiple languages in journals is also an interesting one but this also needs to be thought about in greater detail. It could very easily turn into a politically correct exercise where a few odd articles not written in English are simply inserted. The authors also need to take into account that the most prestigious journals do not charge for publication so where would the money come from to pay for translation services? The journals would need to look to the publishing houses.

Reviewer #2: I think this is a great article investigating a critically important issue in academia – language barriers to early career researches in the Global South. I enjoyed reading it and only have some minor comments, which you can find below.

L51: Johnson et al 2018 – is this an appropriate reference here?

L64: number of researches – should this be the number of researchers?

L69: Note that there is a similar language-driven inequality even within countries in the Global North.

L87: this kind of knowledge – what kind of knowledge? Please elaborate this a bit more.

L86-91: This sentence is very long and I would suggest separating it into two or three.

L94: expatriation – I am not sure if this is a right word. How about “brain drain”?

L101: I don’t think this is an issue only for doctoral students, so the description should be generalised like “… with the socioeconomic origin of researchers”.

L115: This could be my biggest and only concern on this study – how were these 49 doctoral students selected? This kind of surveys needs to avoid any biases (e.g., in gender, socioeconomic status, or any other factors potentially affecting results) in samples as much as possible. The authors need to explain the selection process in more detail and also provide justification that the results did not suffer from effects of those potential biases in samples.

L203-205: This part was a little unclear. How about “To analyze the difficulty of writing scientific articles in two languages, survey participants were also asked how they found it difficult to write different sections of articles: introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusions.”?

L247-249: The author needs to explain a little more about why these results can be extrapolated to all South American researchers.

L270-273: Little unclear. Please rephrase this part.

L283: I couldn’t understand which part of Fig 2 shows “the cost of translation service that is three times the service for revision”. According to Fig2, translation costs ~500 while standard editing costs ~ 270.

L296: Also see this relevant article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.001

Figs 1 and 2: Avoid using the red-green combination for colour-blind friendliness.

Fig. 2: Y-axis should start from 0 so that we can compare these costs with the average PhD salary (green line) properly.

Fig. 4: I would suggest reordering these so that the introduction is on the left, followed by methods, results, discussion and conclusion towards right.

The journal seems to require authors to make all data fully available but I couldn’t find the data on the survey result.

Reviewer #3: Being a native speaker of Spanish myself, I find this type of articles particularly interesting for personal reasons. I totally agree with the author in the fact that there is a not so small linguistic barrier when it comes to scientific publications for those of us who are not native speakers of English. On a personal note, I must confess I was about to write this review in Spanish, just as a proof of both the need and the usefulness of using such language in academic environments.

Having said this, I will highlight the ‘global English accent’ I can perceive while reading the paper. That is the reason why I will not point out minor mistakes, or maybe I should call them deviations from the standard, that appear in the author’s written expression. Global English is definitely an issue to be mentioned and, more importantly, a theoretical aspect that needs to be addressed deeper than it is in its current version. The use of global English nowadays and the fact that most English speakers worldwide are not native is another reason why proofreading becomes controversial: according to which English standards is the paper proofread? Why should American or British standards be considered higher level than global English, and where is the border line among them?

Although my suggestion to the Editor is to publish this paper with some revisions, there is still a major issue concerning the number of participants in the study. 49 participants is, for a quantitative study using questionnaires, a rather small sample with very little statistical impact. I find it surprising that only 15% of the English proficiency is explained by socioeconomic factors; maybe these data is consequence of the small sample.

In any case, and if the finding of new participants is not feasible at this point of the study, there is something that really needs to be included (as I haven’t seen it as such), and that is a theoretical framework. Following my recommendations aforementioned, I strongly recommend the author to include a section before the Methodology or in the Discussion in which she addresses the most relevant aspects of global English. Global English is the reason why this paper should be published and it seems to have been ignored in the process.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Jun 2020

Manuscript PONE-D-20-06485

Response to reviewers

Dear Dr. Emmanuel Manalo,

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript PONE-D-20-06485 for publication in the PLOS ONE journal. Additionally, I would like to thank the journal and reviewers for your valuable feedback and comments. I have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Changes are tracked in the revised manuscript. Please see below, in blue, the response to the journal requirements and reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Author response: I sincerely apologize for the lack of attention in the style requirements. I have made several changes in the file naming, reference style, headings, among others. I hope these changes address all the requirements.

2. Thank you for including a copy of your questionnaire in Spanish. It is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please also include a copy in English, as Supporting Information

Author response: Thank you, the survey in English was attached in the Supplementary Information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Author response: Sorry for the inconvenience. I have now attached the survey’s raw data as supporting information following the General guidelines for human research participant data (location and birth date were deleted). The raw data was attached in the original language of the survey. Please let me know if you need a translation of the raw data.

4. We note that Figure 7 in your submission contains copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

Author response: This figure was removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer #1

This is an interesting article with a great deal of potential but I think the authors need to consider some of the claims they are making a little more carefully.

Author response: Thank you! I hope I addressed your comments adequately.

The title needs rethinking. It could be shorter and clearer.

Author response: Thanks for pointing this out. To address your comment, I have changed the long title from “Disadvantages of writing, reading, publishing and presenting scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian Ph.D. in biological sciences” to “Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences”. The last title includes the fact that the participants are either Ph.D. students or researchers with a doctoral degree.

The short title was also changed from “Consequences of English linguistic hegemony in science: The case of Colombian Ph.D. in biological sciences” to “Consequences of English linguistic hegemony in science: The case of Colombian biologist”.

I was also puzzled by the phrase Colombian PhD. It appears the authors are referring to academics who have just completed their PhDs or are enrolled in doctoral studies in biological sciences and are attempting to publish. This should be spelt out clearly in the article and we need more information about the participants.

Author response: I tried to clarified this by adding the following phrase at the beginning of the Methods section: “In order to determine the costs of publishing in English experienced by Colombian researchers in biological sciences 49 to academics were surveyed. These researchers completed their PhDs or are enrolled in doctoral studies and are attempting to publish.”

It would have been a good idea to attach the survey used in the research as it is difficult to judge how appropriate and useful questions are from a summary.

Author response: Thank you for the comment. You are right and the raw data from the survey has now been attached as supporting information in the original language (Spanish). Birthdate and location were deleted to follow the general guidelines for human research participant data.

I did not find Table 1 particularly useful, in fact, in places it was very confusing.

Author response: This table was attached to explain how the survey was organized to perform the statistical analysis which is especially crucial when performing the Principal Components Analysis. I opted to maintain table 1. However, I changed the name from “Table 1. Summary of survey questions divided by groups used for correspondent statistical analysis” to “Table 1. Grouping of survey questions in statistical analyses.”. This new title highlights that the table is explaining the groups used for statistical analysis instead of a summary of the survey questions.

The problem with this kind of survey is that very often the devil is in the detail. For example, some articles are more difficult to write than others simply because of the nature of the article. However, I accept that writing in a second language is far more time-consuming.

Author response: I agree that surveys imply a lot of subjectivity, I tried to use the most quantitative approach as possible. However, I cannot deny there is a human interpretation in each question. This issue was addressed in the methods section: “This survey sought for the most quantitative approach as possible, however, each question is inevitably under some degree of subjectivity due to human interpretation.”

The authors claim that English translating and editing services are expensive and I accept this. However, on p.9 it is said that "43.5% Of the doctoral students stated at least one rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar". The literature shows that a number of L2 authors believe that their articles are rejected because of their English grammar. However, the evidence to back this up is not convincing, and many editors (and reviewers) contest this strongly. It appears likely that there might well be unconscious bias at least on the part of L1 reviewers and editors, but there is also a fair amount of evidence in the literature to indicate that some of the articles might simply not be up to scratch. The authors revisit this point on p.14. I suggest they read more widely in the area and hedge their claims in this regard. There is simply not enough evidence to back up what they are saying.

Author response: I agree that there is not enough evidence, especially because there are just a few articles that actually correlate the quality of the article and impressions from reviewers on the writing (with and without ethnicity information). I found one article that tries to do something similar and they found that seems to be the ethnicity but not the grammar that is influencing the bias “Research has repeatedly shown that discrepancies continue to exist between assessments of NES and NNES writers. Our study focuses on determining whether identifying a writer as an international student contributes to such discrepancies. Our survey results suggest they do, and that such discrepancies may be due solely to the perceived ethnolinguistic identity of the writer rather than because of any measurable differences in the writing itself”(Lindsey & Crusan, 2011). Everything outside this is just people's perception and experiences. However, self-perception is important for encouraging or demoralizing EFL researchers (Romero-Olivares, 2019). The most critical voice about the bias hypothesis is Hyland’s (2016) paper, but I think that some of his ideas lack primary data support in the relationship between quality-ethnicity-grammar.

In the text, this paragraph was changed to “In this study, 43.5% of surveyed researchers reported suffering from rejection or revisions because of aspects related to grammar or style in English writing. Coates [48] shows that there is a greater probability of manuscript rejection by a journal if there are grammatical errors, but Lindsey and Crusan [49] found that it seems to be the ethnicity of the EFL researchers but not the grammar that is influencing the text evaluation. Some critical voices disagree with the reviewers’ bias hypothesis [50]. This subject is still under controversy, and in this paper, without comparing this trend with native speakers, it is not possible to conclude that rejection because of English writing is worse for EFL researchers. To start to unravel this bias hypothesis, it will be necessary to gather primary data about correlations between the quality of the article and impressions from reviewers on the writing of EFL researchers (with and without ethnicity information).”

The authors make some good points in the discussion. One of the points they raised is the cost of "favours". This is an interesting point but they need to expand on what they mean by the social cost of favours.

Author response: Thank you for your comment. I added more information in the manuscript: “More than 90% of researchers have asked for English-editing favors, but favors are unpaid labor that may have a subsequent cost. The cost of this favor particularly leans on the weakest in the relationship, in this case, the EFL researchers because their career depends on publishing in a second language. Therefore, ensuring a permanent source of “favors” is essential for an EFL researcher that is willing to negotiate for “help” by reinforcing dependence with research groups or scientists in NES countries [8]. Romero-Olivares [39] exemplified this point by showing a reviewer comment “The authors need a native English-speaking co-author to thoroughly revise the grammar of this manuscript.”, or as Ordoñez-Matamoros et al [40] show for Colombian researchers “co-authoring with partners located in foreign countries tend to publish their work in journals of higher impact factor and receive more citations per article than those not co-authoring with partners located overseas”.

On p.16 the authors propose reducing the perceived value of publishing in journals with high impact factors. I would like this to be thought through a little more clearly. If the value of publishing in these journals is reduced then their influence is also reduced. If they are publishing high-quality research is this really in the best interests of the Academy? Also, how could/would this be implemented?

Author response: I agree that my intentions were not to devalue IFs of journals but increasing the value of other journals, therefore, I reframed and complemented this statement:

“One potential approach would be to increase the perceived value of publishing in regional or smaller journals regardless of impact factors (IFs), in order to reduce the pressure to publish in the most prestigious and monolingual journals [6,63]. Publishing in high IFs journals is a symbolic capital that delineates what should be “desired” as the maximum “goal” of any scientist. In terms of self-identification, not being able to publish in these journals increases the feeling of incompetence and insignificancy [64]. The value given to these IFs journals is supported by the idea that the most important and novel studies in academia are published there, however, an increasing number of voices have highlighted the relative value of scientific advances. For example, differential importance between countries or local communities [18], the influence of trends and use of novel technologies in determining research value (eg. genetic or genomic data) [65], and devaluation of important but not modern topics in biology, such as natural history and taxonomy [66-68]. Implementing changes in this regard must be a collective effort as we need to rethink the value of scientific publishing. Elife journal is one example of reevaluating standards in a scientific journal [64]. Other ideas such as encouraging researchers either from the global south or global north who work in the global south to publish in local journals, could be also implemented.”

The idea of including multiple languages in journals is also an interesting one but this also needs to be thought about in greater detail. It could very easily turn into a politically correct exercise where a few odd articles not written in English are simply inserted.

Author response: You are right, we need to think about this in more detail, taking into account costs, journals, languages to include, among others. Solutions and resources should increase while visualizing the problem. The last paragraph is dedicated to listing some ideas: “Other alternatives include supporting journals that accept papers in several languages, promoting the inclusion of other languages in journals at the international level, incorporating revision or translation services in all fees paid to publish an article and providing these services to all scientists at no additional charge to them, establishing multilingual annual or periodic editions in renowned journals, among others [37,57]. Proposals for universities and conferences include aids such as English tutoring for academic purposes [69], retaining in international conferences a space for presenting in local languages [17], using methodologies such as simultaneous translation in conferences, and generating exchange spaces in other languages, among others. Finally, it would be helpful to strengthen public available technologies such as Google Translate that allow simultaneous written translation [17]. In the future, more alternatives will arise, and it will be essential to analyze and monitor them to investigate their reception at the editorial and scientific level.”

The authors also need to take into account that the most prestigious journals do not charge for publication so where would the money come from to pay for translation services? The journals would need to look to the publishing houses.

Author response: While I may not know the most prestigious journals in the reviewer’s field, in biology, Nature, PNAS and Science are some of the journals with highest IFs, and all of them charge for publication. About the cost of translating, there are a lot of possibilities. As other difficulties that we have overcome, I am sure that if we understand the importance of increasing diversity in science, we (journals, universities, institutes, governments) could build connections with translators' services in an affordable way.

Reviewer #2:

I think this is a great article investigating a critically important issue in academia – language barriers to early career researchers in the Global South. I enjoyed reading it and only have some minor comments, which you can find below.

Author response: Thank you very much!

L51: Johnson et al 2018 – is this an appropriate reference here?

Author response: I agree that a different reference would be more appropriate. I changed this reference for Gordin's 2015 book where the history of language in science is fully explained (L53). Gordin MD. Scientific Babel. Scientific Babel. 2015. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226000329.001.0001

L64: number of researches – should this be the number of researchers?

Author response: I have corrected this typo on L66.

L69: Note that there is a similar language-driven inequality even within countries in the Global North.

Author response: Absolutely right, therefore, I mention that most of the inequalities are driven by high English proficiency and I listed the countries that I referred as the global north: “Therefore, the prevalence of the English language in the sciences deepens the inequality in knowledge production between countries with high and low English proficiency [5], maintaining the gap in scientific production between the countries of the global south or peripheral and the countries of the global north (include the G8 countries and Australia)...”

L87: this kind of knowledge – what kind of knowledge? Please elaborate this a bit more.

Author response: I complete this sentence by adding: “Therefore, readers with language barriers only have access to limited studies that the researchers consider not complete, important or broad enough to be published in an international journal.”.

L86-91: This sentence is very long and I would suggest separating it into two or three.

Author response: Thanks for pointing this out. I divided this paragraph into two and deleted redundant words: “Therefore, readers with language barriers only have access to limited studies that the researchers consider not complete, important or broad enough to be published in an international journal. Local readers often are unaware of the most significant research being conducted in their region, which has resulted in a void in information important for political decision making, environmental policies, and conservation strategies [16-18].”.

L94: expatriation – I am not sure if this is a right word. How about “brain drain”?

Author response: I have added the suggested content to the manuscript on L96.

L101: I don’t think this is an issue only for doctoral students, so the description should be generalised like “… with the socioeconomic origin of researchers”.

Author response: I have added the suggested content to the manuscript on L103.

L115: This could be my biggest and only concern on this study – how were these 49 doctoral students selected? This kind of survey needs to avoid any biases (e.g., in gender, socioeconomic status, or any other factors potentially affecting results) in samples as much as possible. The authors need to explain the selection process in more detail and also provide justification that the results did not suffer from effects of those potential biases in samples.

Author response: I agree that this is a potential limitation of the study. The survey was available online for two months and it was shared personally to researchers (who also reshared the survey) and on twitter under the hashtag “CienciaCriolla” that is used between Colombian researchers. It was also anonymous, therefore, I did not select who answered them or controlled by any bias. However, controlling this data by bias is very difficult because, in Colombia, becoming a researcher is already biased. Only 30.21% of natural science researchers are women, most of the researchers come from the biggest cities in Colombia, and most of undergrad students come from middle and high socioeconomic classes.

I added this information in the Methods section: “This survey was available for two months and shared directly to researchers and on Twitter under the hashtag “#CienciaCriolla” (used between Colombian researchers). Responses were anonymous. It must be mentioned that the researcher’s demography in Colombia is gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic biased. Only 30.21% of natural science researchers are women [24], researchers come primarily from big cities [25], and undergrad students come mainly from middle and high socioeconomic classes [26]. Therefore, it would not have been possible to completely control for bias in who took the survey.”

L203-205: This part was a little unclear. How about “To analyze the difficulty of writing scientific articles in two languages, survey participants were also asked how they found it difficult to write different sections of articles: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.”?

Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, it was used in place of “To analyze the difficulty of writing scientific articles in two languages, survey participants were also asked how they found it difficult to write different sections of articles: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions”.

L247-249: The author needs to explain a little more about why these results can be extrapolated to all South American researchers.

Author response: Thanks, this statement was explained later in the discussion section. However, I added additional information: “Despite the lack of specific studies on this subject across Latin America, a few exceptions showed similar results: “Regression analysis established that variables of science writing burden contribute to a sense that English is a barrier to scientific writing” [11,12]. Additionally, opinion pieces from Latin-American researchers also agree about the linguistic barrier in science [39,57]. It is possible to assume that these results can be extrapolated to other countries bordering Colombia, given the similarity in proficiency and access to English, shared first language, low state investment in science and technology, and parallel political history with the US and Europe [11,58,59]. The results could even be extrapolated to other peripheral countries of the world, as Hanauer et al. [12] found similar disadvantages over doctoral students from two countries on different continents, Mexico, and Taiwan. ”

L270-273: Little unclear. Please rephrase this part.

Author response: Thank you for your comment. I rephrased it and added more information in the manuscript: “More than 90% of researchers have asked for English-editing favors, but favors are unpaid labor that may have a subsequent cost. A cost particularly leans on the weakest in the relationship, in this case, the EFL researchers because their career depends on publishing in a second language. Therefore, ensuring a permanent source of “favors” is essential for an EFL researcher that is willing to negotiate for “help” by reinforcing dependence with research groups or scientists in NES countries [8]. Romero-Olivares [39] exemplified this point by showing a reviewer comment “The authors need a native English-speaking co-author to thoroughly revise the grammar of this manuscript.”, or as Ordoñez-Matamoros et al [40] show for Colombian researchers “co-authoring with partners located in foreign countries tend to publish their work in journals of higher impact factor and receive more citations per article than those not co-authoring with partners located overseas”.

L283: I couldn’t understand which part of Fig 2 shows “the cost of translation service that is three times the service for revision”. According to Fig2, translation costs ~500 while standard editing costs ~ 270.

Author response: My apologies, you are right. I replaced this phrase with “The preference of writing directly in English and not translating may be related to the higher cost of translation in comparison with the revision service (Fig 2).”.

L296: Also see this relevant article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.001

Author response: Thanks for your suggestion, I cited Clavero’s (2010) article along with Huang (2010), and Romero-Olivares (2019): “For this reason, several authors call on reviewers to write comments that contribute and guide the use of English, and that does not discourage or criticize EFL authors for the lack of mastery of the language [39,42,53]. ”

Figs 1 and 2: Avoid using the red-green combination for colour-blind friendliness.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. I changed the green line for a dotted line in both graphs.

Fig. 2: Y-axis should start from 0 so that we can compare these costs with the average PhD salary (green line) properly.

Author response: Thanks for pointing this out. I changed the y-axis limits in fig 2.

Fig. 4: I would suggest reordering these so that the introduction is on the left, followed by methods, results, discussion and conclusion towards right.

Author response: I agree and I rearranged the order in figure’s 4 y-axis.

The journal seems to require authors to make all data fully available but I couldn’t find the data on the survey result.

Author response: Thank you for the comment. You are right and the raw data from the survey is now attached as supporting information in the original language (Spanish). Birthdate and location were deleted to follow the general guidelines for human research participant data.

Reviewer #3:

Being a native speaker of Spanish myself, I find this type of articles particularly interesting for personal reasons. I totally agree with the author in the fact that there is a not so small linguistic barrier when it comes to scientific publications for those of us who are not native speakers of English. On a personal note, I must confess I was about to write this review in Spanish, just as a proof of both the need and the usefulness of using such language in academic environments.

Author response: Muchas gracias por tu empatía y sinceridad en tu comentario.

Having said this, I will highlight the ‘global English accent’ I can perceive while reading the paper. That is the reason why I will not point out minor mistakes, or maybe I should call them deviations from the standard, that appear in the author’s written expression. Global English is definitely an issue to be mentioned and, more importantly, a theoretical aspect that needs to be addressed deeper than it is in its current version. The use of global English nowadays and the fact that most English speakers worldwide are not native is another reason why proofreading becomes controversial: according to which English standards is the paper proofread? Why should American or British standards be considered higher level than global English, and where is the border line among them?

Author response: I agree with your comment.

Although my suggestion to the Editor is to publish this paper with some revisions, there is still a major issue concerning the number of participants in the study. 49 participants is, for a quantitative study using questionnaires, a rather small sample with very little statistical impact.

Author response: I understand your point. Although I did not find specific numbers for Colombian researchers in biological sciences, according to the UNESCO database in Colombia there are 58 researchers (from all career stages and all disciplines) per million inhabitants (50 million in Colombia). Doing raw calculations: 6 disciplines (social sciences, agricultural sciences, medicine, and health sciences, basic science, engineering, and natural sciences), and 4 different stages (undergrad, masters, Ph.D. student, postdoc), then we could think that less than 400 of researchers are biologists (Ph.D. students and postdoc). If the population is 400 and the sample is 49 researchers then this sample size is around 10% of the population, which is a decent sample size.

Furthermore, except for research in Spain, other authors have published similar studies with less or similar sample data or/and unspecific to biological sciences. See the following table:

Author, year

Number of researchers surveyed

Discipline

Country

Reference

Pérez-Llantada et al., 2011

10

Several disciplines

Spain

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001

Karimnia, 2013

10

Several disciplines

Iran

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.137

Huang, 2010

10

Several disciplines

Taiwan

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.10.001

McGrath, 2014

15

Several social sciences

Sweden

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.008

Murasan et al., 2014

91

Several disciplines

Romania

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.009

Duszak et al., 2008

99

Several disciplines

Polonia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.001

Moreno et al., 2012

1717

Several disciplines

Spain

http://eprints.rclis.org/29319/

Ferguson et al., 2011

300 (59 biologist)

Natural and basic sciences

Spain

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01656.x

Hanuaer et al., 2019

Taiwan: 238, Mexico: 148

Several disciplines

Taiwan and Mexico

https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804821

Nevertheless, I recognize that overall 49 is a small sample size from which to draw statistical inferences, and I do mention this in (line 135): “It must be also recognized that without specific numbers for total Colombian researchers in biological sciences, 49 may not be a representative sample size from which to draw accurate statistical inferences.”

I find it surprising that only 15% of the English proficiency is explained by socioeconomic factors; maybe this data is a consequence of the small sample.

Author response: Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely agree that it is surprising. I can think about two other reasons for this result: 1) In Colombia, becoming a researcher is already socioeconomically biased because most researchers come from the biggest cities in Colombia, and most undergrad students come from middle and high socioeconomic classes. 2) The PCA statistical analysis for English proficiency took into account years living in English-speaking countries and the percentage of English spoke every day. Therefore, if the researcher lives outside Colombia and speaks English every day the score is higher, even if they come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

I added this information in the paragraph (Line 400): “This low correlation could be explained by a pre-existing socioeconomic bias in Colombia where most undergrad students come from middle and high socioeconomic classes [25,26]. Another fact that could affect this percentage is the PCA analysis because English proficiency was calculated taking into account years living in English-speaking countries and the percentage of English spoken every day. Therefore, if the researcher lives outside Colombia and speaks English every day the score is higher.”

In any case, and if the finding of new participants is not feasible at this point in the study, there is something that really needs to be included (as I haven’t seen it as such), and that is a theoretical framework. Following my recommendations aforementioned, I strongly recommend the author to include a section before the Methodology or in the Discussion in which she addresses the most relevant aspects of global English. Global English is the reason why this paper should be published and it seems to have been ignored in the process.

Author response: I understand your point. However, I believe a research paper needs to be as concise as possible and this research article is already very long. To not overwhelm the readers but address the important point that you mentioned, I added a supporting file S6 Theoretical framework. This file includes three subtitles 1) English as lingua franca in science, 2) English as a foreign language in Colombia, and 3) Implications of English in science.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

17 Aug 2020

Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences

PONE-D-20-06485R1

Dear Dr. Ramirez-Castaneda,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Manalo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for dealing thoroughly with my comments on the previous version. I have found most responses satisfactory and now have no major concerns.

Regarding the sample size issue, I think that the author’s response to the third comment by Reviewer #3 is very helpful (i.e., estimated number of Colombian ECRs in biology, as well as sample size in earlier similar studies), and wonder if the author wants to provide it in the main text for justifying the sample size in this study.

I again would like to commend the author for completing this important research.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Pat Strauss

Reviewer #2: No

24 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-06485R1

Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences

Dear Dr. Ramirez-Castaneda:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Emmanuel Manalo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE