- \n
- English-language dominance persists in academic publishing; addressing such biases is crucial for creating an equitable global scholarly landscape.<\/li>\n
- New practical tools and guidance from DIAMAS aim to help foster a more inclusive approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/AdobeStock_704323448.jpeg?resize=1024%2C332&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nEnglish-language dominance in academic publishing is increasingly recognised as a significant barrier to non-native English speakers<\/a>, and one which requires stakeholders throughout academic publishing to take practical steps<\/a> to address it.<\/p>\n
Survey<\/strong><\/p>\n
As recently reported<\/a> by Lynne Bowker and colleagues on the LSE Impact Blog<\/a>, a European survey<\/a> of 685 institutional publishers, conducted by DIAMAS<\/a> (Developing Institutional open Access publishing Models to Advance Scholarly communication), found that 54% of institutional publishers do not implement specific measures to support equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB). Only around 30% had begun to implement measures to address linguistic bias.<\/p>\n
As the blog authors highlight, this is in contrast to the important role that publishers have to play in addressing EDIB in academic publishing and underscores the need for comprehensive action.<\/p>\n
\n
54% of institutional publishers do not implement specific measures to support equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
A snowball effect<\/strong><\/p>\n
The authors explain how English-language dominance has inadvertently privileged native speakers within academic research and publishing. This extends beyond just authorship, to peer reviewers and editorial boards, thus ultimately influencing the global research agenda. In this environment, authors from non-English-speaking backgrounds are likely to have fewer opportunities to publish, creating a cycle of disadvantage that can affect their academic careers.<\/p>\n
Gender bias further exacerbates these disparities, with women underrepresented as lead authors, peer reviewers<\/a>, and editorial board members. Biases are often intersectional<\/a>, affecting individuals with multiple marginalised identities even more.<\/p>\n
Practical solutions and future directions<\/strong><\/p>\n
To help address these issues, DIAMAS is incorporating EDIB as a core component in its new standard for diamond open access<\/a>. As part of the initiative, DIAMAS will make a range of practical resources freely available, including:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Toolsuites:<\/strong> 500-word summaries, accompanied by tools such as glossaries and frequently asked questions<\/li>\n
- Guidelines:<\/strong> practical resources for each key stakeholder in academic publishing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is hoped that, by using these tools, scholarly publishers and institutions can take meaningful steps towards creating a more equitable and inclusive academic landscape.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
- Guidelines:<\/strong> practical resources for each key stakeholder in academic publishing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Toolsuites:<\/strong> 500-word summaries, accompanied by tools such as glossaries and frequently asked questions<\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Aspirations_Daniel-DeBrincat_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n