Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. The University of Adelaide Press
  5. Content listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

20 results in The University of Adelaide Press

  • 8 - Scientists publishing research in English from Indonesia: Analysing outcomes of a training intervention to inform institutional action

    • By Margaret Cargill, holds an adjunct senior lectureship in the School of Agriculture, Patrick O'connor, managing director of the consulting company O'connor NRM, Rika Raffiudin, entomologist specialising in molecular study, Nampiah Sukarno, mycologist specialising in tropical fungal diversity and the biology of fungal symbionts and their application in food, agriculture, health and the environment., Berry Juliandi, biologist with special interests in animal structure and development, Iman Rusmana, microbiologist specialising in nitrogen cycling
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 169-186

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Indonesian universities are now facing a mandatory requirement for candidates to publish a paper in English in an international journal before a PhD degree can be awarded (Directorate Generale of Higher Education-Indonesian Ministry of Education [DGHE], 2012). The introduction of this requirement follows a similar action in China, where the bar is set higher at a journal indexed in the Science Citation Index or equivalent for candidates in the sciences (Li, 2006). This new requirement adds considerably to the already strong pressure experienced by Indonesian academic supervisors/advisors to achieve international publications and citations themselves (Sanjaya, Sitawati & Suciani, 2015), especially in the natural and life sciences (Hanauer & Englander, 2013). A factor that can be expected to contribute to the pressure is the limited nature of instruction in English for Academic Purposes [EAP] for both undergraduate and graduate students (Sadtono, 2001), especially as regards academic writing. There is thus a need to investigate how Indonesian academics are adapting to this additional pressure, as well as to test new educational initiatives for strengthening the skills of both mentors and authors in Indonesia when writing for publication in English. Such an initiative is the CIPSE [Collaborative Interdisciplinary Publication Skills Education] training approach. Developed by Cargill and O'connor for use with early-career science researchers and implemented successfully in a range of Chinese contexts (Cargill, 2011; Cargill & O'Connor, 2012), this approach features the integration of perspectives from science, applied linguistics and education. However, a range of context-specific differences may affect its suitability for use in the Indonesian higher education setting. Overall, little research has been published to date investigating the challenges faced by Indonesian supervisors and their graduate students in this new context, or moves to help address the challenges. Here we contribute to addressing this lack by reporting on an invited intervention (a five-day CIPSE workshop) delivered to a cohort of staff from one faculty of a highly ranked Indonesian university in 2014, and a follow-up study with participants 12 months later.

    A strength of the project design was that it built on an existing network based on scientific and educational collaborations over 20 years, which was expected to help overcome the potential pitfall of ‘one-shot’ professional development programs (Cannon & Hore, 1997).

Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Practices, Pathways and Potentials
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, Sally Burgess
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017
  • Many universities worldwide now require established and novice scholars, as well as PhD students, to publish in English in international journals. This growing trend gives rise to multiple interrelated questions, which this volume seeks to address .

  • 6 - How credible are open access emerging journals? A situational analysis in the humanities

    • By Ana Bocanegra-Valle, senior lecturer at the University of Cadiz, Spain, where she teaches Maritime English to undergraduates and master's students
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 121-150

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Open access [OA] scholarly publishing has grown rapidly over the last decade and has succeeded in consolidating its position as a valid vehicle for the publication of journal articles and the dissemination of research findings (Laakso et al., 2011; Salager-Meyer, 2012). At its most basic, OA journal publishing refers to the free and unrestricted online access to full-text articles published in academic journals. Unfortunately, alongside the increase in numbers of OA journals, academic publishing has also seen the emergence of predatory publishers — that is, those ‘which publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays’ (Beall, 2012, p. 179). These journals not only impact the OA movement and confidence in peer-reviewing (Beall, 2012; Bohannon, 2013; Bartholomew, 2014), but also put the credibility of rigorous research at risk, while fomenting confusion among unsuspecting novices seeking a target journal for their work. OA can claim to offer authors and their research ‘vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact’ (Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002, n.p.). Clearly, free unlimited access to journals enhances the visibility of an article — thus, raising its impact and increasing citation counts (in some cases by as much as 250%, according to Harnad, 2008). The deleterious influence of predatory practices casts a shadow of doubt over the OA model and impinges on the reputation of certain journals, particularly those accessed or published exclusively online; young, small or peripheral journals (that is, published by developing or peripheral countries and outside the scope of mainstream publishing houses, as defined by Salager-Meyer, 2015); or those that are not (or not yet) abstracted or indexed in reputable databases and lists. Fear of plagiarism, concerns pertaining to copyright and digital archiving, scepticism about the maintenance of research quality and integrity, fear of the absence of the controls resulting from peer review (hence, poor quality control), or the claim that the very existence of scholarly journals is threatened — these are all reasons that work against the OA model (Salager-Meyer, 2012).

  • Introduction: Unpacking English for Research Publication Purposes [ERPP] and the intersecting roles of those who research, teach and edit it

    • By Margaret Cargill, holds an adjunct senior lectureship in the School of Agriculture, Sally Burgess, lecturer in English at the University of La Laguna, Spain.
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 1-12

  • Summary

    Regardless of where academics work or which languages we use, the pressures to publish in English are considerable and now extend to all disciplines. Gaining an understanding of the multiple roles that English performs and its place in academic publishing has therefore become a major concern for many researchers. The statistics supporting the dominance of English as the language of academic publication worldwide are well reported (for example, Ferguson, 2007; Swales, 2004). Yet, as the numbers of new authors submitting articles to journals grow, new cohorts of editors and reviewers meet issues of variation across the full range of lexico-grammatical, socio-pragmatic and discoursal dimensions. The variable nature of the texts submitted for publication affects the practices of these editors and reviewers in subtle and profound ways. Most know little of the debates that have been conducted around this situation over many years in the field of applied linguistics and its related disciplines, and may often regard language as a transparent conduit for the researcher's meaning (Lillis & Curry, 2015). The remedy commonly recommended by the journal publishers is the use of an editing or language polishing service, now, for those able to pay the fees, increasingly just a click away on the journal's website.

    But does a ‘quick fix’ of this kind adequately address the wide range of issues arising from the use of a variety of academic English perceived as non-standard? We would argue that it does not, and that the expanding field of research and practice in academic publication has much to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities. The chapters in this volume represent work from established and emerging scholars and practitioners involved in investigating the interconnections between linguistically and culturally diverse authors, published research texts, processes for supporting the production of the texts, the social conditions surrounding publication, and critical investigation and reflection on the current trends in all these areas. The chapters developed as a result of a fruitful conjunction of two related groups which held overlapping conferences in 2015 in Coimbra, Portugal: PRISEAL [Publishing and Presenting Research Internationally: Issues for Speakers of English as an Additional Language] and MET [Mediterranean Editors and Translators].

  • 2 - Introducing research rigour in the social sciences: Transcultural strategies for teaching ERPP writing, research design, and resistance to epistemic erasure

    • By Kate Cadman, senior adjunct lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 33-54

  • Summary

    Introduction

    A recurring theme of scholarly work in English for Research Publication Purposes [ERPP] has been the potentially causal relationship between the global dominance of English for ‘international’ publication and the suppression of alternative knowledges. The titles of presentations in the recent PRISEAL conference on international publication reflect support for this view in phrases such as ‘English as the international language of science’ (emphasis in the original), ‘ … domain loss and the erosion of specialized discourse in non-Anglophone cultures’, ‘English-monolinguist research policies in Spain’, and so on (PRISEAL, 2015, n.p.). The perceived disadvantages experienced by researchers in non-mainstream contexts have been richly analysed (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Clavero, 2010) and contentiously debated (Flowerdew, 2008; Casanave, 2008; Hyland, 2016a). Meanwhile, quantitative studies such as those by Mertkan, Arsan, Cavlan and Aliusta (2016) in educational management have drawn some resonant conclusions about today's academy: ‘[T]he complexity of knowledge-production … is marked by disproportionate influence of an exceptionally small set of core inner-circle Anglophone and non-innercircle Anglophone settings’ (p. 13; see also Lillis & Curry, 2015).

    In parallel to these findings, among Asian scholars too is a belief that ‘an obsession with theoretical knowledge from the West reproduces Euro-American intellectual dominance in the global-local knowledge hierarchies’ (Qi, 2015, p. 195). Nguyen, Elliott, Terlouw and Pilot (2009, p. 109) draw specific attention to Asian contexts ‘where rapid reforms in education may run the risk of “false universalism”’ involving the relatively uncritical adoption of various Western approaches. This is seen to open the way for ‘mental colonialism to continue and neocolonialism to triumph’ (p. 112). From a European perspective, Bennett (2014) also argues that this process ‘ultimately represents the colonisation of one culture by another — in this case, the “imposition of new ‘mental structures’ through English”’ (pp. 45-6, citing Phillipson; see also Bennett, 2015). And for me too, despite the obvious diversity of contextual outcomes, the strong form of this argument remains convincing (see Cadman, 2014).

  • 5 - The CCC Model (Correspondence, Consistency, Correctness): How effective is it in enabling and assessing change in text-editing knowledge and skills in a blended-learning postgraduate course?

    • By John Linnegar, copy-editor, proofreader and translator for 35 years
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 87-120

  • Summary

    Introduction

    A growing need for text editors worldwide has been created by the increasing importance of English as the lingua franca of academic and scientific publishing, combined with growing pressure in these communities to ‘publish or perish’ in English as a foreign or second language (Hvistendahl, 2015) and a greater number of students who lack academic writing skills. An allied problem that places an additional burden on text editors is the failure of academic supervisors of postgraduate researchers to intervene appropriately when their wards display an inability to express themselves clearly or correctly in their writing (Cadman & Cargill, 2007), or even an unwillingness to do so. A recent informal survey of eight online sites addressing the training of academic supervisors to cater better to doctoral researchers’ needs revealed that only one refers the skill of writing as being something supervisors should be trained in (European University Association, 2006). Typical of most of this batch, one states vaguely that ‘[t]hesis supervisors will have regular consultations with their doctoral students about the progress of their thesis work’ (Max Planck Institutes, n.d.) — which is more about process than product, it would seem. Another stipulates, without any mention of actual writing or editing skills, that ‘[s]upervisors should carefully review the submitted materials and identify weaknesses in the argumentation. This allows doctoral candidates to address problems as they arise’ (Freie Universitat Berlin, 2014). An exception is the Universite catholique de Louvain's Graduate School of Management Research Institute, which specifically mentions editing as ‘one of the research training activities … that support the individual research work that the thesis constitutes’ (2011). Brabazon (2013), a doctoral-student-turned-supervisor as a professor of education in Australia, asserts that not reading a candidate's writing is one of the characteristics of the worst supervisors; she herself begins 10 interactive editing cycles with a candidate when their first draft is complete (2010). Finally, a chapter on ‘encouraging early writing and giving feedback’ in a handbook for doctoral supervisors focuses entirely on process to the neglect of actual writing or editing skills (Taylor & Beasley, 2005).

  • 10 - The geopolitics of academic plagiarism

    • By Karen Bennett, lectures in translation and academic writing at the Nova University in Lisbon.
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 209-220

  • Summary

    Just how serious an offence is academic plagiarism?

    Judging by the ominous warnings issued to students by universities in the Anglo-Saxon world (Abasi & Graves, 2008) and the sense of moral outrage with which transgressors are pursued (Pennycook, 1996; Martin, 1994), the answer to that question would seem to be ‘very serious indeed’. In fact, the University of Oxford's website (n.d.) is unequivocal on the matter:

    It would be wrong to describe plagiarism as only a minor form of cheating, or as merely a matter of academic etiquette. On the contrary, it is important to understand that plagiarism is a breach of academic integrity.

    Consequently, those found guilty of ‘committing’ plagiarism (the collocation is significant) face the most severe penalties that academia can muster: expulsion, disgrace and, in extreme cases, even prosecution under the Copyright Act.

    Yet in many other countries of the world, plagiarism, like other forms of academic corruption, is not viewed with quite the same degree of opprobrium. Gadpaille (2004, p. 57) reports that, in the unspecified Central European country where she worked, not only was cheating endemic in the culture, no shame seemed to accrue to the practice; instead, ‘information is widely viewed as common property; honour lies in sharing rather than monopolizing, and competition for grades is minimal’. Similarly, Sherman (1992, p. 191) found that first-year students in an Italian university gave verbatim answers without any kind of analysis or sourcing, clearly viewing this as ‘not only legitimate but correct and proper’; while Deckert (1993) claimed that the Chinese students in his study routinely engaged in a form of ‘learned plagiarism’ (p. 95), which involved, amongst other things, rote memorising and recycling (p. 140).

    Clearly, then, there is a cultural dimension to plagiarism that urgently needs to be addressed in the increasingly globalised world of modern academia.

    Attitudes towards authorship, originality and intellectual property have not always been what they are today (Randall, 2001; Kewes, 2003; Love, 2003). In mediaeval Scholasticism, the term ‘author’ (auctor) was reserved for those ancient authorities that had produced great truths in accordance with Christian doctrine, and contemporary writers, considered mere scriptores, compilatores or commentators2, were expected to copy them as faithfully as possible for the purpose of dissemination.

  • 1 - Accept or contest: A life-history study of humanities scholars’ responses to research publication policies in Spain

    • By Sally Burgess, lecturer in English at the University of La Laguna, Spain.
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 13-32

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The adoption of globalised forms of knowledge production in a climate of economic downturn has led to greater pressures being brought to bear on academics in many contexts around the world. Access to research funding, academic status, promotion and employment security are dependent on providing evidence of research productivity. The pressure to quickly and objectively assess and compare scholars, who compete for everscarcer resources, has led to a situation in which academic evaluation agencies are likely to look to quantifiable measures of research productivity, both in terms of output and in terms of the value of that output and the quality of the research. The most obvious evidence of the impact of a scholar's research, and ostensibly of its quality, is acceptance for publication in an elite journal and the number of citations accrued. It is well known that research publications in English attract a wider readership than do publications in other languages and that, as a result, these publications are more likely to garner citations (see, for example, Whitehand, 2005, and Ramos-Torre & Callejo-Gallego, 2013). Therefore, when research quality is measured in terms of citations, publication in English is implicitly favoured and publication in other languages can become a dispreferred option.

    Although the view that non-first-language users of English face an anglophone bias when presenting their work for publication is often challenged (Swales, 2004; Casanave, 2009; Hyland, 2016a, 2016b), few would suggest that the status of English as the current lingua franca of international academic communication does not present users of other languages and of English as an additional language [EAL] with a greater challenge than that faced by those for whom it is a mother tongue. Scholars whose first language is not English devote more time and economic resources to producing publications than do their anglophone counterparts (Ammon, 2000, 2001). Funds may be used to pay for language training or periods of time spent in English-speaking countries. Once scholars have achieved competence in English, many continue to rely at least partially on support (usually paid) from specialised translators, editors and other ‘literacy brokers’ (Lillis & Curry, 2006; Chan, 2016). Journal editors and peer reviewers may recommend that EAL authors avail themselves of these services, especially those offered by first-language users of English, to revise their papers (Lillis & Curry, 2015).

  • 4 - The delicate art of commenting: Exploring different approaches to editing and their implications for the author-editor relationship

    • By Oliver Shaw, translator, editor, interpreter and language instructor at the Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Sabrina Voss, Canadian freelance translator, editor and educator based in Barcelona, Spain
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 71-86

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The premium placed on English-medium international publications for career advancement in academia has been widely documented, and this virtual English-only playing field creates a substantial burden for academics who are non-native English speakers [NNES] (Belcher, 2007; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Sheldon, 2011; Uzuner, 2008). While NNES scholars are widely published in many scientific journals and acceptance rates for these academics are similar to those of native-English-speaking authors (Benfield & Feak, 2006; Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Ferguson, 2007; Kourilova, 1998), this success often comes at a substantial cost in terms of effort, time and other resources (Curry & Lillis, 2004; Huang, 2010; Swales, 1990; Tardy, 2004). Many scientists who wish to publish in international journals seek language support for their manuscripts, although the availability of these services can vary substantially depending on the researcher's location, network of international researchers available to assist them, availability of funds, and other factors. Assistance can come from individuals in researchers’ personal or professional environments, and the background and experience of these facilitators may vary widely (Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Shashok, 2001).

    Professional language support provided to NNES researchers who have access to such services may come in a variety of forms. While some authors have their manuscripts translated into English from their mother tongue, others call on collaborators to improve texts already drafted in English. This type of work has been described using a number of terms, including revising, proofreading and editing, with each term subject to a range of interpretations. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the process of improving written work as editing, and its practitioners as editors.

    Factors influencing approach and orientation in editing

    When presented with English language research papers, editors may take any one of a number of approaches that reflect the many constraints inherent to the author, the editor, the context of their collaboration, the type and quality of the original draft, and the explicit and perceived relationship between the two. Some institutions hire inhouse editors to support staff researchers in their attempts to publish their papers. These institutional editors may be found in a number of private and public organisations, including universities, hospitals, research institutes, national and international agencies, and a range of enterprises.

  • 11 - Training ‘clerks of the [global] empire’ for 21st-century Asia? English for Research Purposes (ERP) in Vietnam

    • By Thuc Anh Cao Xuan, currently a lecturer in the English department of Hanoi University, Kate Cadman, senior adjunct lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 221-238

  • Summary

    Introductory background

    Recent global escalation of English language [EL] teaching has led to increasing concern, especially in Asia, about the most appropriate ways to teach English and to conduct and publish anglophone research in Asian contexts. Established Western assumptions about the huge benefits of international research are now spreading globally at an accelerating rate: ‘the research carried out in universities, in industry, in government laboratories, and in independent research organizations touches the lives of almost every one of the world's billions of people’ (Kulakowski & Chronister, 2008, p. 3). As a consequence, government policy reforms in many Asian countries now demand that academics and research students carry out globally acceptable research in order to advance their own country's capacity to access and contribute to international knowledge repertoires.

    Development of ELT and research training in Vietnam

    This political trend towards the prioritising of research has been notably evident in Vietnam with accelerating emphasis since the innovations of the reform period of the 1990s. During the periods of warfare in Vietnam in the late 1940s and 1950s, Vietnam's education system was influenced by conflicting models, one of which followed the philosophies of other Socialist countries while the other was under the control of the Southern government and reflected Western values when the first prime minister of the south put its education ‘in a faithful translation of the French education program’ (London, 2011, p. 14). After the end of the war, North and South Vietnam reunited and, in 1986, the new government led the nation through a period called Đổi Mới or ‘Renovation’. Nguyen (2014) shows that marked changes in educational priorities started during the Đổi Mới period, in which the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training [MOET] actively opened up opportunities for innovation, asking for capital from many sectors, even from foreign countries, and strategically sending educators abroad to learn about international trends in education.

    These developments were especially significant in the field of English language teaching [ELT]. Prior to Đổi Mới, French and Russian had been the dominant foreign languages in Vietnam, but as a result of the rapid globalisation of English, English has taken over to become the required and most sought-after language right across primary, secondary and tertiary levels (Tran et al., 2014).

  • 7 - Disseminating research internationally: Intra-subdisciplinary rhetorical structure variation in immunity and allergy research articles

  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 151-168

  • Summary

    Introduction

    In today's context of disseminating research internationally, the need to publish research papers in English-medium journals has become ever more pressing, not only for those scholars who seek to make their research visible to a wider audience and gain international recognition, but also for those who intend to obtain academic promotion and professional benefits, such as research funding and salary increment (Lillis & Curry, 2010; Moreno, 2010; Hanauer & Englander, 2011; Martin, Rey-Rocha, Burgess & Moreno, 2014). This is particularly the case in disciplinary areas such as the health sciences, where the number of scientific journals published in languages other than English has diminished dramatically over the last few years to almost total extinction.

    Aside from geopolitical considerations related to the dominance of English (see, for example, Ammon, 2001, 2012; Ferguson, 2007), it is a fact that the writing up of a research paper generally involves difficulties, especially for inexperienced writers and users of English as an Additional Language [EAL]. In order to get their papers accepted, scholars have to demonstrate to the other members of their particular disciplinary communities, especially the editors and reviewers of international English language journals, that they have mastered the established rhetorical conventions which have been institutionalised in a specific research genre, such as the research article [RA]. In response to this situation, many English for Research Publication Purposes [ERPP] researchers and practitioners have put their energies into providing support to these scholars, including the analysis of the structural organisation of experimental RAs. Many of these studies have revealed that the typical macro-structure of experimental papers adheres to the IMRD [Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion] pattern, not only across disciplines but also across languages. Other authors, such as Cargill and O'connor (2013) and Burgess and Cargill (2013), have also noted a slight variation to this prevalent pattern in terms of the order in which these sections appear throughout the paper [IRDM], which consists in presenting the methods section at the end of the RA.

  • Reflections and future directions in publishing research in English as an Additional Language: An afterword

    • By Laurence Anthony, professor of applied linguistics at the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Japan.
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 255-258

  • Summary

    Academia has become a world in which scholars are being encouraged or pressured to publish more articles in higher-impact journals under increasingly stringent evaluation and review systems. In the UK, for example, the assessment of scholars’ research outputs within the national Research Excellence Framework [REF] can affect individuals’ promotions, departmental funding, and ultimately the ranking of the university within the country (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2009; Parker, 2008; Martin, 2011). In countries where English is seen as an additional language, the pressures on scholars can be even greater. Not only do they have to reach the high standards of international journals in terms of content, relevance and novelty, but they also have to meet the often opaque and varying language requirements of these journals, while navigating through the sometimes cryptic, indirect suggestions and comments of reviewers (Paltridge, 2015).

    It is within this demanding and challenging environment that the PRISEAL [Publishing and Presenting Research Internationally: Issues for Speakers of English as an Additional Language] and MET [Mediterranean Editors and Translators] organisations decided to hold a joint conference in 2015. The conference was held in the beautiful city of Coimbra, Portugal, and provided a unique forum for researchers on academic writing and research publication to meet with in-house and freelance professional editors, who receive daily requests from clients to edit or translate their work for publication. In this volume that emerged from the joint conference, we can see a strong reiteration of the growing pressure on scholars to publish in English and recognition of the challenges they face. However, the strongest message we can receive from the authors of these chapters is that the challenges faced by scholars using English as an additional language can be overcome through a greater understanding of the problems they face, instruction and supervision from academic faculty that is tailored to their particular needs and contexts, and discipline-specific, focused support from professional language editors and translation experts.

  • Foreword

  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp xv-xviii

  • Summary

    It has practically become a commonplace that,1in the past two decades, pressures for multilingual scholars to publish their work in English continue to intensify and to spread across global contexts. Even more recently, in many locations acceptable target journals have been identified as those included in high-status citation indexes — in other words, target journals have become sanctioned and explicitly linked to the evaluation of and rewards for scholars’ academic work (Curry & Lillis, 2014; Lillis & Curry, 2010). Pressures have also heightened for postdoctoral students to publish before finishing their degrees (Huang, 2010). The research field that investigates various aspects of academic writing for publication has burgeoned, from early studies deconstructing texts in order to analyse generic features (Swales, 1990) to research exploring a wide range of aspects, including the pressures on scholars living and working in specific contexts, their responses to pressures, their writing practices, and their perspectives on all of these aspects (Bennett, 2014; Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010). A small but growing strand of research has also explored the impact of national and institutional policies about publishing (Feng, Beckett & Huang, 2013; Lee & Lee, 2013), and the changing nature of scholarly journals (including open access), the practices of journal editors and reviewers, and scholar-writers’ interactions with these powerful gatekeepers (Lillis, 2012; Lillis & Curry, 2015; Sheridan, 2015).

    The unrelenting pressure to publish has generated two important trends in relation to supporting multilingual writers in publishing:

  • a growing demand for service from those who support research writers on an individual basis — often called ‘authors’ editors’

  • the development of a raft of pedagogical supports for multilingual writers (both scholars and graduate students).

    • These approaches range from writing and publishing guides (for example, Cargill & O'connor, 2013; Curry & Lillis, 2013; Swales & Feak, 2012), to individual consulting through writing centres, to dedicated workshops, to face-to-face and online modules or full-credit courses on writing for publication (Cargill & O'connor, 2006; see also Curry & Lillis, in press). The emergence of these interventionist/pedagogical approaches raises a number of issues, including important questions about the multiple and sometimes conflicting roles of those involved as ‘experts’ and instructors in such programs.

  • 12 - Standardisation and its discontents

    • By John M. Swales, appointed visiting professor of linguistics and acting director of the ELI in 1985, positions that were confirmed two years later
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 239-254

  • Summary

    Prologue

    In his earlier days, the 20th-century British novelist Graham Greene made a distinction between his serious novels, such as The Power and the Glory, and his ‘entertainments’, like Orient Express. The former often dealt with serious issues of Catholic theology and ethics; the latter often had as their subject matter depictions of espionage activities. However, these entertainments often also raised serious issues of human behaviour at social, moral and political levels, and were not simply ‘lightweight’ in the normal sense of this term. In this essayist piece, I offer a Greene-coloured entertainment, but one which will be seen, if the reader perseveres, to have a serious purpose or two.

    Introduction

    As many will recognise, my title is a riff on the famous book by Sigmund Freud, originally published in 1930 in German and entitled in English Civilization and its Discontents. Freud argued that civilisation acted as a necessary curb on the hedonistic and instinctual Pleasure Principle. Without the rules, regulations and conventions that civilised societies promulgate and impose, human beings would succumb to parricide, war, rape, pillage and so on. Without civilisation, following Freud, life would be a series of ancient Greek dramas or Shakespearean tragedies.

    In the academic world, we also have regulations and conventions, although their existence is designed to mitigate less serious crimes and misdemeanours than those Freud invoked. And, indeed, there are recognised crimes of writing, such as forgery, false authorship, child pornography, libel and bolder attempts to plagiarise (Stewart, 1994). So, in science, conventions have been established for the priority system for naming natural and scientific discoveries so that the field, in the famous phrase, ‘be not thrown into confusion’. There are also conventions regarding plagiarism, although what exactly can be borrowed or copied, and where exactly lies the boundary separating permissible practices and unacceptable ones, have long been much disputed, and are now embroiled in questions of social constructionism, intertextuality, and diverse temporal and crosscultural expectations (for example, Pecorari, 2003; Pennycook, 1996). Especially in literary worlds, widely varied opinions exist. On the one hand, the Roman philosopher and dramatist Seneca can write, ‘What anyone has said well is mine’, or T.S. Eliot can suggest, ‘Good poets borrow, great poets steal’.

  • 3 - Blurring the boundaries: Academic advising, authors’ editing and translation in a graduate degree program

    • By Susan M. Digiacomo, professor of anthropology at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 55-70

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The spread of English as a global lingua franca affects not only established scholars who use English as an additional language in order to publish their work in international journals. It has also created pressure on doctoral students at universities in non-Englishspeaking EU member countries to avail themselves of the European Doctorate and International Doctorate options introduced under the Bologna Plan. These options require PhD candidates to spend a period of at least three months in a university outside the country in which they will obtain their degree, and to write part of their PhD thesis in English so that outside examiners can read it. This requirement poses special challenges for both the students and their thesis supervisors.

    This chapter is based on a doctoral thesis in cultural anthropology that I co-advised with another colleague in my department. The student in question is Ilaria Cover (I include her name with her permission). She is a native Italian speaker and a competent speaker and writer of Spanish who opted for the International Doctorate and decided to write her thesis entirely in English. Ilaria's co-supervisor, Angel Martinez-Hernaez, is a specialist in cultural studies of psychiatry and mental health with whom I have participated in two competitively funded research projects on depressive distress in adolescents and their strategies for managing it. We met 25 years ago, when I translated the book he published from his doctoral thesis on the concept of ‘symptom’ in psychiatry, and we have since worked together on many occasions, both as author and translator and as co-authors. We shared responsibility for advising the conceptual, theoretical and ethnographic aspects of Ilaria's thesis, but I was the only person in my department who could be Ilaria's editor, a role that included correcting her translations of material quoted from sources in Italian and Spanish and also the third-party translations of two chapters, one originally written in Spanish and the other in Italian.

    Ilaria did her fieldwork in Egypt in the public psychiatric hospital of the city of Alexandria, with mostly women inpatients.

  • 9 - ‘The one who is out of the ordinary shall win’: Research supervision towards publication in a Chinese hospital

    • By Yongyan Li, professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, China,
  • Edited by Margaret Cargill, University of Adelaide, Sally Burgess, University of La Laguna, Spain
  • Book: Publishing Research in English as an Additional Language
  • Published by: The University of Adelaide Press
  • Published online: 16 March 2018
  • Print publication: 30 June 2017, pp 187-208

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Research supervision and research education success have been issues of extensive interest for educators at the tertiary level. Much attention is being paid to what happens in the university setting (for example, Casanave & Li, 2008; McCallin & Nayar, 2011). At the same time, research mentoring in medical contexts, which involves senior clinician researchers and medical students or junior clinician researchers, has also been an issue of long-standing interest in academic medicine (for example, DeCastro, Sambuco, Ubel, Stewart & Jagsi, 2013). Yet although there seems to be some consensus on what characterises a good mentor and what an effective mentoring relationship might be like (Casanave & Li, 2008; Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Phillips & Rigotti, 2009), surprisingly little is known as to how research supervision and mentoring actually unfolds in its natural settings, especially as to how it is manifested through the mentor's verbal communication. In Asia and elsewhere in the world, given the widespread requirement for research students to publish — especially at the doctoral level across the disciplines of science and medicine — including in English-medium international journals (for example, Barbero, 2008; Huang, 2010; Li, 2016), understanding the process of research supervisory communication will have theoretical and pedagogical implications. The present chapter aims to make a contribution in this direction by reporting a study on how the director of the Orthopedics Department at a major Chinese hospital mentors his students through verbal communication to push the novices to work hard in scientific research and publication. I will first give a brief overview of the potential benefits for medical students of engaging in research and the challenge that their supervision poses in Chinese hospitals.

    I will then outline the theoretical background of the study, based as it is on some tenets drawn from cultural-historical activity theory [CHAT] (Engestrom, 1987, 2000, 2001, 2009; Engestrom, Miettinen & Punamaki, 1999).

    Medical students as researchers and the publication requirement for Chinese medical students

    Literature in medical education suggests that it is professionally significant for medical students to engage in research and publishing. It has been acknowledged that research prepares medical students for the practice of medicine, for ‘the ability to understand and integrate new knowledge into clinical practice is a necessary quality of good physicians’ (Parsonnet, Gruppuso, Kanter & Boninger, 2010, p. 405).