Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 84, Issue 4, pp 953–974 | Cite as

New Data on the Linguistic Diversity of Authorship in Philosophy Journals

  • Chun-Ping Yen
  • Tzu-Wei HungEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the representation of authors with different linguistic backgrounds in academic publishing. We first review some common rebuttals of concerns about linguistic injustice. We then analyze 1039 authors of philosophy journals, primarily selected from the 2015 Leiter Report. While our data show that Anglophones dominate the output of philosophy papers, this unequal distribution cannot be solely attributed to language capacities. We also discover that ethics journals have more Anglophone authors than logic journals and that most authors (73.40%) are affiliated with English-speaking universities, suggesting other factors (e.g. philosophical areas and academic resources) may also play significant roles. Moreover, some interesting results are revealed when we combine the factor of sex with place of affiliation and linguistic background. It indicates that while certain linguistic injustice is inevitable in academic publishing, it may be more complex than thought. We next introduce Broadbent’s (Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 40:302–311, 2009a, Legal Theory 15:173–191, 2009b, Philos Stud 158(3):457–476, 2012, Philosophy of epidemiology, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2013, Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 48:250–257, 2014) contrastive account of causation to give a causal explanation of our findings. Broadbent’s account not only well characterizes the multifaceted causality in academic publishing but also provides a methodological guideline for further investigation.

References

  1. Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. (1964). Smoking and health: Report of the advisory committee to the surgeon general. Atlanta: Public Health Service, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
  2. Bortolus, A. (2012). Running like Alice and losing good ideas: On the quasi-compulsive use of English by non-native English speaking scientists. Ambio, 41(7), 769–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, A. (2009a). Causation and models of disease in epidemiology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40, 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent, A. (2009b). Fact and law in the causal inquiry. Legal Theory, 15, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadbent, A. (2012). Causes of causes. Philosophical Studies, 158(3), 457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadbent, A. (2013). Philosophy of epidemiology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braodbent, A. (2014). Disease as a theoretical concept: The case of “HPV-it is”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 48, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cancer Research UK (CRUK). (2016). Smoking facts and evidence. Web. Retrieved from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/smoking-facts-and-evidence. Accessed 21 Feb 2018.
  9. Chen, R.-L. (2013). Constructing a causal reasoning for the RCA event—an approach based on structural causation and abduction. SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs, 46, 81–130. (in Mandarin).Google Scholar
  10. Chen, R.-L. (2014). Flying out from the cage: Reflections on causation in Taiwan’s public health cases. Academia Sinica Law Journal, 15, 283–329. (in Mandarin).Google Scholar
  11. Clavero, M. (2011). Language bias in ecological journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(2), 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corcoran, J. N. (2015). English as the international language of science: A case study of Mexican scientists’ writing for publication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto).Google Scholar
  13. Daniel, H.-D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Schutter, H. (2014). Testing for linguistic injustice: Territoriality and pluralism. Nationalities Papers, 42(6), 1034–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Schutter, H. (2017a). Global, interlinguistic and intralinguistic linguistic justice. Workshop on Language, Nationalism, Nations: Multilingualism Beyond Europe, Princeton University, 29–30 September 2017.Google Scholar
  16. De Schutter, H. (2017b). Two principles of equal language recognition. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(1), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Schutter, H., & Robichaud, D. (2015). Van Parijsian linguistic justice–context, analysis, and critiques. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Bitetti, M. S., & Ferreras, J. A. (2017). Publish (in English) or perish: The effect on citation rate of using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio, 46(1), 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ernst, E., & Kienbacher, T. (1991). Chauvinism. Nature, 352, 560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7–38.Google Scholar
  21. Guariguata, M. R., Sheil, D., & Murdiyarso, D. (2011). ‘Linguistic injustice’ is not black and white. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(2), 58–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.Google Scholar
  23. Holroyd, J. (2012). Responsibility for implicit bias. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(3), 274–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyland, K. (2016b). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., et al. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. (2017). Writing academic english as a doctoral student in sweden: Narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, C. (2010). Information structure in PA/SN or descriptive/metalinguistic negation: with reference to scalar implicatures. In Dingfang Shu & Ken Turner (Eds.), Contrasting meanings in languages of the east and west (pp. 33–73). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2012). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li, C. I. (1997). Logical entailment and conversational implication: A discourse-pragmatic account of Taiwanese toh (就) and ciah (才). Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities & Social Science, 42, 55–70.  https://doi.org/10.6210/JNTNULL.1997.42.05.Google Scholar
  31. Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 246–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacMahon, B., & Pugh, T. F. (1970). Epidemiology: Principles and methods. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  33. May, S. (2015). The problem with English (es) and linguistic (in) justice. Addressing the limits of liberal egalitarian accounts of language. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mori, A. S., Qian, S., & Tatsumi, S. (2015). Academic inequality through the lens of community ecology: A meta-analysis. PeerJ, 3, e1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M., & Berkson, K. H. (2016). Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Primack, R. B., Ellwood, E., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Marrs, R., & Mulligan, A. (2009). Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation, 142(11), 2415–2418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Radder, H. (2015). How inclusive is European philosophy of science? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnik, D., & Elmore, S. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaffer, J. (2005). Contrastive causation. Philosophical Review, 114, 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaffer, J. (2010). Contrastive causation in the law. Legal Theory, 16, 259–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Subtirelu, N. (2016). Denying language privilege in academic publishing. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://linguisticpulse.com/2016/03/28/denying-language-privilege-in-academic-publishing/. Accessed 21 Feb 2018.
  42. Suhler, C., & Churchland, P. (2009). Control: Conscious and otherwise”. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(8), 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Susser, M. W. (1991). What is a cause and how do we know one? A grammar for pragmatic epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 133, 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Parijs, P. (2015). Lingua franca and linguistic territoriality. Why they both matter to justice and why justice matters for both. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weihelm, I., Conklin, S. L., & Hassoun, N. (2017). New data on the representation of women in philosophy journals: 2004–2015. Philosophical Studies, 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0919-0.
  47. Wellmon, C., & Piper, A. (2017). Publication, power, and patronage: On inequality and academic publishing. Critical Inquiry. https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/. Accessed 21 Feb 2018
  48. Wolters, G. (2015). Globalized parochialism: Consequences of english as Lingua Franca in philosophy of science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, S. (2015). What is language? A response to Philippe van Parijs. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Graduate Institute of PhilosophyNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan
  2. 2.Institute of European and American StudiesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations