Publish or Perish: The Research Letter Genre and Non-Anglophone Scientists’ Struggle for Academic Visibility

  • Mimoun Melliti


This chapter aimed at exploring the prevalence of the research letter (henceforth RL) genre among 101 non-Anglophone academics (henceforth NAA). Researchers in scientific disciplines from different non-Anglophone countries were sent a questionnaire that addressed the way they perceive reading and writing RLs. The findings indicated that NAA were highly engaged in the process of publishing using this genre, which showed their awareness of the “publish or perish” reality in today’s academic world. It was also found that NAA were aware of the importance of receiving tutoring on writing RLs according to the norms of this genre, which has interesting implications on ESP, pedagogy, and genre teaching.


Genre teaching Academic publication Research letters Production of science Writing for publication 


  1. Benfield, J. R., & Feak, C. B. (2006). How authors can cope with the burden of English as an international language. Chest, 129(6), 1728–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Ibérica, 4. Retrieved on December 22, 2013, from
  3. Englander, K. (2006). Non-native English-speaking scientists’ successful revision for English-language publication: A discourse analytic and social constructivist study (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  4. Englander, K. (2009). Transformation of the identities of nonnative English speaking scientists. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 8, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Englander, K., & López-Bonilla, G. (2011). Analyzing reviewers’ remarks: Responses to non-anglophone scientists’ manuscripts. Discourse Studies, 13(4), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gosden, H. (2003). Why not give us the full story? Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gotti, M. (2007). Identity and cross-cultural communication. In Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the seventeenth century to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hamel, R. E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review, 20, 53–71.Google Scholar
  14. Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Scientific writing in a second language. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Labassi, T. (2009). Periphery non-anglophone scholarship in English-only journals: Conditions of a better visibility. Changing Englishes, 16, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maci, S. (2008). The research letter: An emerging medical genre. In G. Di. Martino, V. Polese, & M. Solly (Eds.), Identity and culture in English domain-specific discourse (pp. 367–390). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
  18. Maci, S. (2009). The Migration of scientific knowledge into alternative forms of research articles: The case of medical research letters. In D. Torretta, M. Dossena, & A. Sportelli (Eds.), Forms of migration: Migration of forms (pp. 479–495). Proceedings of the 23rd AIA Conference. Language Studies. Bari: Progedit.Google Scholar
  19. Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGinty, S. (1999). Gatekeepers of knowledge: Journal editors in the sciences and the social sciences. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  21. Melliti, M. (2013). Global content in global coursebooks: The way issues of inappropriacy, inclusivity, and connectedness are treated in Headway Intermediate. SAGE Open, 1–12. Scholar
  22. Melliti, M. (2017). Evaluation of generic structure of research letters body section: Create a research letter body section model. In S. Hidri & C. Coombe (Eds.), Evaluation in foreign language education in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 127–142). Basel: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Rutkowski, J. L., & Ehrenfest, D. M. (2012). Research letters: A new editorial format for the rapid disclosure of innovative data and concepts, didactic demonstrations, and scientific discussions. Journal of Oral Implantology, 38(2), 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A review of the literature. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mimoun Melliti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of KairouanKairouanTunisia

Personalised recommendations