Content uploaded by Alejandro Bortolus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alejandro Bortolus
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
AMBIO
A Journal of the Human Environment
ISSN 0044-7447
Volume 41
Number 7
AMBIO (2012) 41:769-772
DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0339-5
Running Like Alice and Losing Good Ideas:
On the Quasi-Compulsive Use of English by
Non-native English Speaking Scientists
Alejandro Bortolus
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences. This e-offprint is for
personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
SYNOPSIS
Running Like Alice and Losing Good Ideas:
On the Quasi-Compulsive Use of English
by Non-native English Speaking Scientists
Alejandro Bortolus
Received: 18 January 2012 / Revised: 29 March 2012 / Accepted: 12 April 2012 / Published online: 7 September 2012
This synopsis was not peer reviewed.
INTRODUCTION: THE OVERLOOKED OUTCOME
OF AN OLD PROBLEM
The profuse publication of articles and books debating the
use and abuse of English as a global language for science
(Garfield 1962; Amonn 2001; Montgomery 2004) evi-
dences the timeless persistence of a complex and unsolved
problem with deep multi-cultural roots. Many non-native
English speaking (hereafter, non-NES) countries currently
exert enormous explicit or implicit pressure on their sci-
entists to publish in international high-impact peer-
reviewed journals, which are in English. This pressure is
promoted under the premise that the impact factor of a
journal is positively related to the quality of the science it
publishes. This premise implies that publishing in high-
impact peer-reviewed journals is the best way to demon-
strate the excellence of local scientists. Whether we agree
with this premise or not, and independently of its legiti-
macy (Clavero 2010a,b; Guariguata et al. 2010), we have
long accepted it as the paradigmatic scenario that rules the
way we do science and publish scientific results worldwide.
Indeed, ‘‘this is the way it is’’, as Gannon (2008) wrote in a
singular editorial for the prestigious journal EMBO-
Reports. In Argentina, for instance, the National Council
for Scientific and Technologic Research evaluates a
researcher’s professional performance with a system that
assigns decreasing scores to papers in the first, second, and
third portions of a list of international journals with
decreasing impact factors. Below the third portion of that
list, the system places papers published in local journals,
usually with no impact factor. Consequently, most of our
researchers do anything in their power to publish their
papers in journals in the first and second thirds of the list,
indirectly withdrawing their support from local editorials
and journals (including manuscript submissions and valu-
able editorial assistance). Hence, the aim of publishing
papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals eventually
leads non-NES scientists to almost exclusively produce
papers in English, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle in
which English becomes an increasingly important and
ineludible tool to communicate scientific findings (Tardy
2004). In this article, I propose that the ultimate problem in
this scenario is that the obligation to write exclusively in
English is progressively deteriorating non-NES schools of
thought, the quality of interactions between scientists and
people and between advisors and advisees, and the integrity
of local natural resources and biodiversity. Furthermore,
this obligation hinders the emergence of many potentially
brilliant minds.
ERODING THE VIGOR AND QUALITY
OF NON-NES SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT:
THE ALICE EFFECT
The most eloquent thinkers, speakers, and writers can spoil
the communication of their best ideas by using a second
language. It is a mistake to think that presenting your
findings in a logical and attractive fashion is independent of
language (La Madeleine 2007). In fact, many non-NES
scientists do not write exactly what they want to say
(meaning what they would have written in their first lan-
guage); instead, they write the best they can write in
ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012
www.kva.se/en 123
AMBIO 2012, 41:769–772
DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0339-5
Author's personal copy
English about what they want to say. If a scientist does
not master English, writing a manuscript becomes an
exhausting, extensive process. Copying elegant phrases and
expressions from the literature (within the legal bounds)
may help to improve style and clarity, but it often results in
awkward semantic collages or nonsense that forces the
writer to restart paragraphs or even the entire manuscript.
To avoid these problems, non-NES scientists try to ensure
that their manuscripts are reviewed by relatively expensive
expert translators and/or colleagues. After passing this first
idiomatic review, the manuscript is submitted to an inter-
national journal, where it begins the regular peer review
process. The entire process normally takes at least two or
three times longer than writing in the non-NES’s first
language. Furthermore, arguing and debating on a criti-
cized critical paper often takes longer than editors expect
because of the extra time needed to carefully select the
most accurate expressions. Indeed, non-NES scientists face
a constant trade-off between hastening the writing process
to increase their publication rate and taking the appropriate
time to maximize the clarity of their ideas. Additionally, a
non-NES scientist continually uses a considerable propor-
tion of his/her working time to study English and to solve
linguistic problems instead of scientific ones. The number
of native English speaking (hereafter NES) colleagues and
friends willing to help with these difficult linguistic tasks
decreases over time and may result in the progressive
isolation of the non-NES scientist. Indeed, for many people
at this difficult stage, trading linguistic assistance for
authorship may be the crucial action that will determine
whether to publish or perish. Ultimately, the number of
articles and ideas published per year is considerably lower
than if these articles were written in the non-NES’s first
language. Non-NES scientists feel like Alice being lectured
by the Red Queen: ‘‘It takes all the running you can do, to
keep in the same place’’ (in terms of academic publishing
advances). ‘‘If you want to get somewhere else’’ (e.g.,
increase the publication rate over time), ‘‘you must run at
least twice as fast as that’’. Unfortunately, going faster is an
impossible task for a non-NES scientist because linguistic
and scientific skills always compete with each other for a
limited, and constantly decreasing, amount of time.
PREVENTING NON-NES SCIENTISTS
FROM ACHIEVING HIGH STANDARDS
OF EXCELLENCE AND RECOGNITION
NES editors often become understandably discouraged by
the low performance exhibited by non-NES experts
expressing themselves in English (Meneghini and Packer
2007; Gannon 2008). Editing of non-NES scientists’ texts
takes considerably longer and is more time consuming than
texts authored by trained NES scientists. The result is a
relatively slower publication rate as well as low participa-
tion of non-NES scientists in scientific books and reviews
edited by their NES peers, even within their fields of
expertise and geographic area (Tardy 2004). As a result,
non-NES researchers, young scientists, and students com-
monly buy and learn from books authored by NES scien-
tists, in which the discussion of ideas proposed by local non-
NES researchers is poor or non-existent. In this context,
many young non-NES scientists see collaboration with NES
researchers (e.g., participating in ongoing research and
engaging in graduate programs) as the ultimate means of
achieving academic excellence and/or increasing their
publication success (Tardy 2004), disregarding, ignoring or
avoiding direct contact with local specialized research
teams and the schools of thought they create and promote.
Additionally, young non-NES scientists with a poor com-
mand of English tend to avoid graduate programs that have
an obvious preference for candidates with good English
skills. The overall result is a sustained local brain drain with
negative impacts on the diversity of original ideas debated
by the local and international scientific communities.
THREATENING LOCAL NATURAL RESOURCES
AND BIODIVERSITY OF NON-NES COUNTRIES
The exclusive production of papers in English is likely to
delay the transmission of key information within and
among non-NES nations. It has been noticed, for instance,
that medical doctors in non-NES countries often suffer
significant delays in the acquisition of valuable new
information due to idiomatic problems (Meneghini and
Packer 2007). The same situation occurs among those
guarding the natural resources and biodiversity in non-NES
countries. A good example comes from my own field. Most
of my fellow ecologists share the reality that our discov-
eries and ideas about biodiversity, natural history and
ecology are ignored by most (though not all) local envi-
ronmental managers and park rangers who, for a variety of
understandable reasons, usually have a poor command of
the English language. Even when non-NES circulate their
papers in English in local natural resource offices and non-
governmental organizations, they often receive faster
feedback from foreign colleagues than from locals.
Attending national scientific meetings does not help them
much in this situation because non-NES researchers prefer
international conferences (where English is the working
language) over national ones to perform better on their
institutional examinations. Ironically, references to works
by non-NES authors published in their native languages
are often considered gray literature, and their citation
is commonly discouraged by editors of international
770 AMBIO 2012, 41:769–772
123 ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012
www.kva.se/en
Author's personal copy
peer-reviewed journals published in English. Conse-
quently, the impact of non-English works tends to fade
away rapidly. Although local environmental managers and
rangers are eager to learn about local systems to make
accurate managing decisions to protect natural resources, a
linguistic short circuit prevents that from happening
efficiently.
As Robert Winston highlighted in his Scientist’s Mani-
festo, ‘‘We need to strive for clarity not only when we
make statements or publish work for scientific colleagues,
but also in making our work intelligible to the average
layperson’’ (Winston 2010). Of course, Winston knows
that, especially in developed countries like his, many pro-
fessionals act as intermediary communicators between
scientists and laypeople, including naturalists, journalists,
and the staff of a variety of governmental and non-
governmental organizations, among others. Nevertheless,
scientists must address this moral dilemma as a matter of
good citizenship (Rotblat 1999; Halliday 2009), especially
in regions where good intermediary communicators are
rare or absent and where English is not the local language.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The compulsive use of English does not necessarily help to
improve the creation, communication, and exchange of
original and useful scientific ideas. Why do non-NES sci-
entists continue to attempt to publish almost exclusively in
English? Some are still convinced that this is the best way
to do it (e.g., Agudelo 2010) but other alternative expla-
nations still deserve the thorough attention of specialists. I
agree with the idea of a Nash equilibrium that defines this
as a multi-party, non-collaborative game (Bergstrom and
Bergstrom 2006). Considering the benefits of publishing in
English (see first paragraph), no one has anything to gain
by changing only her/his individual strategy unilaterally
and it is highly unlikely that all non-NES will coordinate to
shift journals simultaneously. Nevertheless, we could help
improving this situation by finding and articulating partial
but complementary solutions.
To optimize our attempt to solve this problem, we must
first stress the fact that this is not about stopping publishing
in English, for there is a genuine need to do so (Tardy
2004). We need a working language to communicate and
exchange ideas with colleagues worldwide, and English is
the language we presently use. Non-NES scientists must
receive English training to publish their ideas and also to
collaborate actively with the international scientific com-
munity by integrating advisory boards and commit-
tees. Second, this issue is not really about a competition
between non-NES and NES scientists (see Clavero 2010a,
b) because this game will be lost or won together by losing
or gaining diversity of ideas, perspectives, hypotheses,
and solutions. Non-NES scientists only follow national
and international (often self-inflicted) regulations that are
conceived with the implicit purpose of proving the excel-
lence of local science. However, we must keep in mind that
the quality of the science produced by a society does not
depend on the few papers published in top journals by a
few of its scientists but on the quantity and quality of the
ideas developed and debated over time by the largest
possible number of scientists. Thus, I suggest the follow-
ing. (1) non-NES scientists must exercise their legitimate
right to write and communicate their ideas in their own
language without negative feedback. (2) International sci-
entific editorials should help non-NES scientists to coun-
teract the loss of valuable local literature, historically
considered disposable gray literature, by encouraging their
citation and soliciting (through the ‘‘Guide for Authors’’)
electronic reprints to archive them as supporting material
with open access (a win–win situation). (3) Local non-NES
scientific institutions and editorials should support more,
and explicitly, the publication of books and review papers
in local languages to make this information more accessi-
ble to laypeople and to promote the engagement of young
non-NES scientists in modern local schools of thought.
(4) Leading non-NES scientific journals and editorials must
pursue the creation of experienced and attractive editorial
boards willing to achieve the highest possible standard of
publication based on international counterparts. There is no
point in favoring publication in local languages if the
quality of the resulting papers will be mediocre. (5) Bal-
ancing the number of publications in English with those in
local languages must be on the agenda of all non-NES
nations that aim to achieve the sustainable development of
local science in communion with society. Every non-
NES nation must determine its own optimal balance by
considering local socio-economic and cultural needs. By
achieving an appropriate balance between English and
non-English publications, democratic socially progressive
governments can enhance not only the interaction between
non-NES scientists and their societies but also the scientific
debates taking place in the local and global scientific
communities.
Acknowledgments I thank all the native and non-native English
speaking scientists, editors, and colleagues in general who shared with
me personal experiences and perspectives on the topic of this article. I
am particularly thankful to Jorge Crisci, Evan Schwindt, Peter Fein-
singer, Mario Bunge, Rafael Gonza
´lez del Solar, Claudio De
Francesco, Sergio Salazar-Vallejo, Miguel Clavero, and Bo So
¨der-
stro
¨m, whose wise criticism and invaluable suggestions and opinion
helped me to organize my thoughts. I also thank SSIS for the moti-
vating exchange of ideas and to CONICET (PIP 190) and ANPCyT-
FONCyT (PICT N82206) for supporting my work.
AMBIO 2012, 41:769–772 771
ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012
www.kva.se/en 123
Author's personal copy
REFERENCES
Agudelo, J.H. 2010. Publicar en Ingles. Revista Colombiana de
Ciencias Pecuarias 24: 1.
Amonn, U. 2001. The dominance of English as a language of science:
Effects on other languages and language communities. New
York: Mouton the Gruyter.
Bergstrom, C.T., and T.C. Bergstrom. 2006. The economics of
ecology journals. Frontiers in Ecology and Environments 4:
488–495.
Clavero, M. 2010a. ‘‘Awkward wording. Rephrase’’: Linguistic
injustice in ecological journals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
25: 552–553.
Clavero, M. 2010b. Unfortunately, linguistic injustice matters. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 26: 156–157.
Gannon, F. 2008. Language barriers. European Molecular Biology
Organization Reports 9: 207.
Garfield, E. 1962–1973. Essays of an information scientist, vol. 1,
19–20. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
Guariguata, M.R., D. Sheil, and D. Murdiyarso. 2010. ‘Linguistic
injustice’ is not black and white. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
26: 58–59.
Halliday, E. 2009. Knowledge is power: In a world shaped by science,
what obligation do scientists have to the public? Ethics in
Science and Environmental Politics 9: 25–28.
La Madeleine, B.L. 2007. Lost in translation. Nature 445: 454–455.
Meneghini, R., and A.L. Packer. 2007. Is there science beyond
English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-
English publications might help to break down language barriers
in scientific communication. European Molecular Biology
Organization Reports 8: 112–116.
Montgomery, S. 2004. Of towers, walls, and fields: Perspectives on
language in science. Science 303: 1333–1335.
Rotblat, J. 1999. A hippocratic oath for scientists. Science 286: 1475.
Tardy, C. 2004. The role of English in scientific communication:
Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex?Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 3: 247–269.
Winston, R. 2010. Bad ideas? An arresting history of our inventions,
432. London: Bantam Books.
Alejandro Bortolus (&)
Address: Grupo de Ecologı
´a en Ambientes Costeros, CENPAT-
CONICET, Bvd. Brown 2915, U9120ACD Puerto Madryn, Chubut,
Argentina.
e-mail: bortolus@cenpat.edu.ar
772 AMBIO 2012, 41:769–772
123 ÓRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012
www.kva.se/en
Author's personal copy
