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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
The meaning of “Anglophone” can be ambiguous sometimes. For example, while Oxford English Dictionary defines it as an English-speaking person, Cambridge English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary define it as a person who speaks English, especially in countries where other languages are also spoken. In this study, the term is used to refer to linguistic communities whose members speak English as their native or first language regardless of the location of these communities. This interpretation allows us to make a distinction between one’s linguistic background and one’s geographical location and to compare all the possible combinations of pairs of groups on the two variables.
Likewise situations are rather common in the area of chronic diseases, primarily cancer and cardiovascular disease. There is usually a large number of factors involved in the development of these diseases, but presence of those factors might not always result in the expected disease.
They are consistency, strength, specificity, temporal relation, and coherence of the association.
In this study, Anglosphere refers to English-speaking nations including the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Singapore, and New Zealand. All have similar cultural roots back to the British Empire.
These clues include names, other languages of research, the match between the place of birth and that of receiving first degree, etc.
As estimated in 2017, only about 5% of the global population (estimated 7.5 billions) are native English speakers (estimated 372 millions).
Examples include insufficient funding and peers to discuss with, unable to attend conferences, disconnect to the previous academic networks, or unfamiliar with journals’ rules of game. The scholars may be isolated from the mainstream of professional community and resources, affecting the quality and quantity of their research (Hyland 2016a; Ferguson 2007).
Take cigarette smoking and lung cancer for example. On the one hand, there is a significant positive association between the two. On the other hand, such measure of strength of association is causally neutral. When it is used to make about some causal claim, we need to give an account of how a causal interpretation of the measure of association works. See Broadbent (2013, pp. 34–50) for his diagnosis of how the rival approaches, the probabilistic approach and the counterfactual approach, fail the task.
That is, it is more challenging for p to disseminate her work due to the difficulty getting her work published.
A SYMPTOM is a difference between p and a contrast class.
These factors are chosen based on our data in Sect. 3. They are the explanatory causes of one’s being in an underprivileged position in publication.
So the controls may include, say, native English speakers who are also novices in academia and do not have to make an extra effort (as p does) to disseminate their work, senior non-native English scholars who do not have to make an extra effort (as p does) to disseminate their work, and so forth. People who have to make an extra effort (as p does) to disseminate their work are excluded from the controls due to the first condition. People who are with every cause listed in the second condition are excluded from the controls too. On this approach, the exclusion of cases from the controls can itself be analyzed contrastively further. See Broadbent (2013, pp. 158–159, 2014).
For a review of this literature, see Jost et al. (2009).
While the discrimination led by implicit biases is often unintentional, unendorsed, and perpetrated without the agent’s awareness, it does not follow that the agent is without control of it (Suhler and Churchland 2009).
In an earlier version of this paper, we used Chen’s (2013, 2014) account of structural causation, instead of Broadbent’s contrastive account of causation, to interpret our data. While Chen’s theory is a pertinent one, his papers are written in Mandarin and not accessible in English. So we were suggested to include a link to the common literature on causation.
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.
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.
Broadbent, A. (2009a). Causation and models of disease in epidemiology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40, 302–311.
Broadbent, A. (2009b). Fact and law in the causal inquiry. Legal Theory, 15, 173–191.
Broadbent, A. (2012). Causes of causes. Philosophical Studies, 158(3), 457–476.
Broadbent, A. (2013). Philosophy of epidemiology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
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).
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).
Clavero, M. (2011). Language bias in ecological journals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(2), 93–94.
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).
Daniel, H.-D. (1993). Guardians of science: Fairness and reliability of peer review. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
De Schutter, H. (2014). Testing for linguistic injustice: Territoriality and pluralism. Nationalities Papers, 42(6), 1034–1052.
De Schutter, H. (2017a). Global, interlinguistic and intralinguistic linguistic justice. Workshop on Language, Nationalism, Nations: Multilingualism Beyond Europe, Princeton University, 29–30 September 2017.
De Schutter, H. (2017b). Two principles of equal language recognition. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(1), 75–87.
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.
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.
Ernst, E., & Kienbacher, T. (1991). Chauvinism. Nature, 352, 560.
Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7–38.
Guariguata, M. R., Sheil, D., & Murdiyarso, D. (2011). ‘Linguistic injustice’ is not black and white. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(2), 58–59.
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.
Holroyd, J. (2012). Responsibility for implicit bias. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(3), 274–306.
Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.
Hyland, K. (2016b). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 246–247.
MacMahon, B., & Pugh, T. F. (1970). Epidemiology: Principles and methods. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
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.
Mori, A. S., Qian, S., & Tatsumi, S. (2015). Academic inequality through the lens of community ecology: A meta-analysis. PeerJ, 3, e1457.
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.
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.
Radder, H. (2015). How inclusive is European philosophy of science? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29(2), 149–165.
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.
Schaffer, J. (2005). Contrastive causation. Philosophical Review, 114, 327–358.
Schaffer, J. (2010). Contrastive causation in the law. Legal Theory, 16, 259–297.
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.
Suhler, C., & Churchland, P. (2009). Control: Conscious and otherwise”. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(8), 341–347.
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.
Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
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.
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.
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
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.
World Bank. (2012). Annual report. World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTANNREP2012/Resources/8784408-1346247445238/AnnualReport2012_En.pdfi.
Wright, S. (2015). What is language? A response to Philippe van Parijs. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 113–130.
About this article
Cite this article
Yen, C., Hung, T. New Data on the Linguistic Diversity of Authorship in Philosophy Journals. Erkenn 84, 953–974 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-9989-4