Abstract:Synopsis In the field of organismal biology, as in much of academia, there is a strong incentive to publish in internationally recognized, highly regarded, English-language journals to promote career advancement. This expectation has created a linguistic hegemony in scientific publishing, whereby scholars for whom English is an additional language face additional barriers to achieving the same scientific recognition as scholars who speak English as a first language. Here, we surveyed the author guidelines of 230 journals in organismal biology with impact factors of 1.5 or greater for linguistically inclusive and equitable practices and policies. We looked for efforts that reflect first steps toward reducing barriers to publication for authors globally, including the presence of statements that encouraged submissions from authors of diverse nationalities and backgrounds, policies regarding manuscript rejection based on perceived inadequacies of the English language, the existence of bias-conscious reviewer practices, whether translation and editing resources or services are available, allowance for non-English abstracts, summaries, or translations, and whether journals offer license options that would permit authors (or other scholars) to translate their work and publish it elsewhere. We also directly contacted a subset of journals to verify whether the information on their author guidelines page accurately reflects their policies and the accommodations they would make. We reveal that journals and publishers have made little progress toward beginning to recognize or reduce language barriers. Counter to our predictions, journals associated with scientific societies did not appear to have more inclusive policies compared to non-society journals. Many policies lacked transparency and clarity, which can generate uncertainty, result in avoidable manuscript rejections, and necessitate additional time and effort from both prospective authors and journal editors. We highlight examples of equitable policies and summarize actions that journals can take to begin to alleviate barriers to scientific publishing.

Still no evidence for an effect of the proportion of non-native speakers on language complexity -- A response to Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (2023)

Still No Evidence for an Effect of the Proportion of Non-Native Speakers on Natural Language Complexity

Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives

On not testing the foreign-language effect: A comment on Costa, Foucart, Arnon, Aparici, and Apesteguia (2014)

The bilingual Loch Ness Monster raises its non-asymmetric head again-or, why bother with such cumbersome notions as validity and reliability? Comments on Evans et al. (2000)

Kallini et al. (2024) do not compare impossible languages with constituency-based ones

Assessing the effects of "native speaker" status on classic findings in speech research

Why Linguistics Will Thrive in the 21st Century: A Reply to Piantadosi (2023)

Integrating SLAM with existing evidence: Comment on Walker and Hickok (2015)

The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality

A Looming Replication Crisis in Evaluating Behavior in Language Models? Evidence and Solutions

‘The effect is/isn’t significant!’: statistical evidence and ELT

Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?

Spatial evidence that language change is not neutral

Complexity trade-offs and equi-complexity in natural languages: a meta-analysis

Language in Vivo vs. in Silico: Size Matters but Larger Language Models Still Do Not Comprehend Language on a Par with Humans

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

The role of research design in the reproducibility of L1 and L2 language networks: A review of bilingual neuroimaging meta-analyses

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects - A Meta-Analysis

The Interpretation and Use of Proficiency Test Scores in University Selection: How Valid and Ethical Are They?

Large Models of What? Mistaking Engineering Achievements for Human Linguistic Agency