以第二語言撰寫研究論文之負擔：分析臺灣學者之經驗

期末報告

以第二語言撰寫研究論文之負擔：分析臺灣學者之經驗

中　華　民　國　106　年　11　月　03　日

時較以第一語言撰寫所增加之困難度、不滿意度及焦慮感而定 (Hanauer & Englander, 2011)。本研究採用量化手法複製

Hanauer與Englander (2011)及採用Duszak與Lewkowicz（2008）先 前研究製作的線上問卷。透過電子郵件邀請臺灣五所國立大學以及 五所私立大學的1,822名人文及社會領域(HSS)和1,697名理、工及醫 學領域(STEM + M)之教職員填寫此中英文線上問卷。236名受訪者中 ，75人在過去五年內以英文及中文向主要期刊提交了論文稿件，而 得以回答在以英文撰寫研究著作時，相較於以中文撰寫之負擔。受 訪者為助理教授、副教授、及教授，且在人社領域與理、工、醫學 領域之分布相當平均。 本研究以成對樣本t檢定比較L1中文和L2英文出版所感知困難度、不 滿意度和焦慮。其中量化的感知負擔L2較L1增加23.4％的困難度、 9.4％的不滿意度以及22.7％的焦慮。此結果與Hanauer與 Englander（2011）以西班牙語為母語之科學家之研究一致，顯示以 英文作為科學著作為出版之第二語言具額外負擔，且可以為不同國 家背景、不同語言背景之個人所感受。 依本研究之結果，使用英文撰寫學術文章的最常見原因是為了吸引 特定讀者群，然而第二常見的原因是為了達到各科系之要求，即鼓 勵學者在國際索引期刊發表論文之政策（Chou, 2014; Sheridan, 2017）。上述兩大領域(人文社會及理、工、醫學)之學者向國際索 引期刊（IIJ）提交了大約57％的論著之調查結果即可佐證此論點。 此外，低於5％的受訪者認為使用英文寫作的能力非發表論著的障礙 ，此意味著絕大多數受訪者認為以英文寫作為發表論著的障礙。 此項研究結果支持多語言學者在壓力下發表英文研究之經驗之質化 及量化研究，特別是在國際索引期刊領域。具體而言，此顯示不同 的語言和國家背景下，以第二語言出版科學論著者，其以英文寫作 出版將增加負擔，而這種負擔係源自於語言之困難，而非學術寫作 之挑戰(Hyland, 2016)，為所謂之隱藏的語言不正義。由於本研究 之對象包含人文社會領域及理、工、醫學領域之學者，研究之結果 更強調此「負擔」乃源自於語言而非專業領域之不同。此研究成果 亦探討語言特權之議題，並影響全球學術出版和國家高等教育政策 ，特別是對教師的評鑑和升等。以臺灣來說，這個研究在提供一個 理由質疑“SSCI 症候群”（Chou, 2014）和“引用文獻索引綜合症 ” （Sheridan, 2017）的同時，亦透過國家引用指數繼續支持中文 期刊。 中 文 關 鍵 詞 ： 科學寫作，學術出版，研究文章，第二語言，第二語言寫作，困難 度，語言不正義，負擔

英 文 摘 要 ： The purpose of this project was to determine if

multilingual researchers in Taiwan perceive a greater burden when writing for scholarly publication in English compared to Chinese. Burden was operationalized as

additional difficulty, dissatisfaction, and anxiety when writing research in their L2 as compared to their L1 (Hanauer & Englander, 2011). This study utilized a

Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008). Email invitations to the English and Chinese online survey were sent to 1,822 humanities and social sciences (HSS) and 1,697 science, technology, engineering, and math, plus medicine (STEM+Med) faculty members at five national and five private

universities around Taiwan. Of 236 respondents, 75

submitted manuscripts to major journals in both English and Chinese in the last five years, thereby qualifying to

respond to questions eliciting perceived burden when writing research in English as compared to Chinese. They were assistant, assosciate, and full professors and split fairly evenly between HSS and STEM+Med disciplines.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare perceived difficulty, dissatisfaction and anxiety in publishing in L1 Chinese and in L2 English. The perceived burden was

quantified as generating 23.4% more difficulty, 9.4% more dissatisfaction, and 22.7% more anxiety. The results aligned with Hanauer and Englander’s (2011) study of Spanish-speaking scientists, showing that writing English, as an L2 for scientific publication purposes, presents an added burden and can be experienced by individuals from different language backgrounds in different national contexts.

The most common reason for writing academic texts in English was to reach a specialized audience, but a close second was to meet department requirements, which

ostensibly refers to institutional policies that encourage publishing in internationally indexed journals (IIJs) (Chou, 2014; Sheridan, 2017). This is supported by results showing both disciplinary groups have submitted about 57% of their manuscripts to IIJs. Less than 5% of respondents felt their ability to write in English was not a barrier to publishing their research, meaning the majority of

respondents do view writing in English as a barrier. The results support qualitative and quantitative research into the experiences of multilingual scholars, who are under pressure to publish research in English, especially in IIJs. It shows that L2 science writers in different linguistic and national contexts can experience added burden when writing in English for publication and that this burden is derived from linguistic difficulties and not just the challenges of scholarly writing (Hyland, 2016), an argument that masks linguistic injustice (Hanauer &

Englander, 2013). Because the current study included HSS and STEM+Medical researchers, it emphasizes that burden is tied to linguistic issues rather than disciplinary

publishing and national higher education policies,

especially governing faculty evaluation and promotion. For Taiwan, in particular, the study provides another reason to question “SSCI syndrome” (Chou, 2014) and the “citation index complex” (Sheridan, 2017), while continuing to

support Chinese language journals through national citation indexes.

英 文 關 鍵 詞 ： science writing, scholarly publishing, research article, second language, second language writing, difficulty, linguistic injustice, burden

The Burden of Writing Research Articles in a Second Language: Data from Taiwanese Scholars

Globalization has existed over centuries in different forms, but began in earnest in the modern era with technological developments that started to make the world a smaller place. Contemporary globalization is described as a further intensification of the flow of information, technology, and goods since the 1980s (Eriksen, 2007; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999; Wallerstein, 2004). Similarly, higher education (HE) has been infused by international networks for decades, if not centuries (Altbach, 2004/2013). However, with the spread of neoliberal policies (Chou, Lin, & Chiu, 2013), the globalization of higher education has led to privatization, commodification, and marketization of universities around the world, especially since the 2000s (Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013; Mok, 2007). Under these conditions, academia in peripheral contexts has adopted norms from the dominant Anglophone center countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, through government and

institutional policies related to knowledge production and dissemination (Lillis, 2012; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Sheridan, 2015). In this process, English has become the assumed lingua franca of science and scholarly publishing has become a globalized phenomenon that affects scientists on national, institutional, and individual levels (Englander, 2011; Lillis & Curry, 2010).

Higher education globalization has affected the type of research that is conducted on what issues for whom, and most important to the current study, it has influenced the language that scientists use for publication. Because of government policies aimed at raising institutional competitiveness through worldwide rankings, it is common for multilingual scholars, who use English as a foreign language, to be impelled to publish in Anglophone journals listed in bibliographic indexes such as Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) or Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), which are included in Thompson Reuters’1 Web of Science (WoS) (Curry & Lillis, 2004; Delgado, 2011; Lawrick, 2011; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Mok, 2000). This has also complicated decisions researchers make regarding research topics (Mok, 2007) and publishing outlets (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008; Lillis & Curry, 2013). Because of the preferred scope of most center-based journals, research on local issues of importance to national contexts is affected (Lillis & Curry, 2010, 2013). Even when the results are of vital importance to that context, they may be considered valuable only if published in Anglophone center journals, which may be inaccessible, due to linguistic, economic, and logistical barriers, to the people who would benefit most from the results (Mok, 2007). These conditions have been challenged in different ways. For example, Li and Flowerdew (2009) found that scholars in Hong Kong published in English and Chinese to reach their local audiences. In Taiwan, there has been concerted faculty lobbying to dislodge the near obsession with SSCI ranked journals (Chou, 2014a; Chou et al., 2013; Min, 2014) While we acknowledge this fundamental problem, we also recognize that, especially for newly hired faculty at universities,

1 _{Eugene Garfield founded the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the 1950s. ISI was later taken over by} Thomson Reuters and in 2016 was bought by Clarivate Analytics.

not only in Taiwan, but Korea (Lee & Lee, 2013), Turkey and Mexico (Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013), Russia (Lawrick, 2011), and South Africa (Soudien, 2014), to just name just one on each continent, publishing internationally in English still presents practical concerns. Therefore, like Hanauer and Englander (2013), Flowerdew (2007), and Sheridan (2015), we adopt a critical pragmatic (Harwood & Hadley, 2004) stance in this research.

Taiwan shares many HE effects of globalization with other countries, but has a unique historical background. After 38 years, martial law was lifted in 1987 and Taiwan began a series of socio-political reforms that included the University Act of 1994. Aside from changes in funding and governance structures, establishment of higher education institutes (HEIs) was increased as the economy modernized and society democratized (Mok, 2000). The dramatic growth in the number of universities from 105 in 1986 to peak at 163 in 2006 (Ministry of Education, 2013; Shen & Chang, 2010) began to outpace budget outlays (Chang, Wu, Ching, & Tang, 2009). Funding had been evenly distributed to public universities based on student enrollment, but in 2000 up to 20 percent shifted to a competitive model based on institutional evaluations (ranking) and proposals submitted by universities, which tended to favor technology universities (Chang et al., 2009).

In 2003, the Ministry of Education published a controversial report ranking universities according to the number of papers faculty from each published in journals listed in the WoS (A. H.-m. Huang, 2009; J. Huang, 2003). This in turn further raised evaluation and promotion criteria, especially in terms of research output of university faculty (Ministry of Education, 2009). These developments have impacted hiring practices, faculty evaluation, and tenure and promotion review (Ching, 2014). As a result, faculty in Taiwan, the vast majority of whom learned Taiwanese or Chinese as a first and/or second language and English is a second or third language, have come under tremendous pressure to publish in English, with internationally indexed journals as the ultimate goal (Liu, 2014).

Lillis and Curry (2016) identified disciplinarity, especially the different situations of scholars in the natural sciences compared to social sciences, as a factor contributing to the pressure of and their response to the dominance and privileging of English in scholarly

publishing. In Taiwan, it appears that these conditions have been received differently in the two main disciplinary areas—STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) plus medicine (STEM+M), and humanities and social sciences (HSS). When the “I-type” ranking regime was initiated, science and engineering universities faired best because their faculties had already been publishing in English internationally for some time (J. Huang, 2003) and they continue to focus on SCI journals (J. C. Huang, 2010). Scholars in the social sciences and especially in the

humanities were at a disadvantage because their research interests are traditionally more focused on national and local questions, which they may address in the local standard written language, Chinese, more than English, such as Polish scholars (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008). This presented much less opportunity to publish in the Anglophone center and indexed journals. Furthermore, based on initial results from my current MOST-funded project, scholars in HSS disciplines tend to believe that it is easier for natural scientists to publish in English because

research papers are shorter and are more focused on reporting experimental quantitative results rather than exploring questions through historical, theoretical, and qualitative investigations.

To address the deficit between prestige of natural sciences publications, which have been published in international indexes in higher numbers, and HSS research, and because Taiwan-based journals were not included in Mainland China databases, the National Science Council, renamed the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in 2014, established the Taiwan Social Science Citation Index (TSSCI) and the Taiwan Humanities Citation Index Core (THCI-C) in 2004 and 2008, respectively (Chen, 2004; Sheridan, 2014). A separate journal indexing system including all Taiwan-based journals, the Taiwan Citation Index (TCI) was also

established by a commercial publisher, Aritri (Chiu, personal communication). The three were then combined at the end of 2015 (RIHSS, 2015) into one ranking system, and “B” level journals were invited to apply for THCI Core or TSSCI membership. The THCI Core has since been renamed THCI and includes “A” ranked journals.

The citation indexes have been attributed to raising the quality and prestige of some national HSS journals so that research conducted in Taiwan has respected venues and publishing in the indexed journals can be helpful to a researcher’s evaluations or promotion (Sheridan, 2015), results of my previous MOST-funded study indicate that, at least from researchers’ perspectives, institutional policies still tend to favor journals in the WoS indexes (Sheridan, 2017). Despite a faculty campaign against “SSCI Syndrome” (Chou et al., 2013; Min, 2014) and an open letter from the Ministry of Education stating the intension to reevaluate the quantitative evaluation policies (Ministry of Education, 2014), similar to the applied linguists in Min’s study, my current I found that scholars are most concerned with publishing in English in SSCI journals. However, a few studies on Taiwan-based academics in a wide variety of disciplines, including STEM fields, indicates that they face serious challenges as L2 English writers due to language issues, research focus and scope, and the revision process, among other problems (J. C. Huang, 2010, 2011; Liu, 2014; Min, 2014; Su, 2014). In addition, these studies show that there is a critical awareness of the dominance and privileging of English in international scholarship and the higher education system in general. On the other hand, of the 58 THCI Core and 101 TSSCI journals in 2014, the most recent list, only 14 regularly publish full original research articles in English, indicating a substantial amount of Chinese scholarship is produced in Taiwan. In conclusion, researchers in Taiwan publish in Chinese and English and they experience various difficulties publishing in English, especially in high status journals. However, it is not

empirically known how frequently Taiwanese researchers publish in each language in domestic versus “international” journals, how these experiences compare in terms of their relative burden.

Purpose of the Study

Therefore, to address this gap, for the proposed study, Hanauer and I will replicate Hanauer and Englander (2011) in the Taiwan context. In a quantitative questionnaire study conducted in Mexico, they drew on previous research on multilingual researchers’ experiences using English for journal articles to conceptualize the L2 writers’ burden of writing scientific

articles in English “in relation to the self-evaluation of difficulty, anxiety, and satisfaction” (2013, p. 61) compared to their experiences when writing in their L1, Spanish. In this way, they isolated the language aspect of L2 writers writing for publication experiences to challenge the “disciplinary argument [which] proposes that it is the conventions of scientific writing itself rather than language that poses the main difficulty for all scientists” (2011, p. 406). Their results, based on 148 returned surveys from scientists in a range of disciplines, showed that “the

experience of writing scientific research articles in a second language is significantly different from the experience of writing in a first language and that this involves an additional burden on the second-language scientist” (p. 410). Furthermore, for the 148 Mexican scientists that completed the questionnaire, the burden was “quantified as consisting of a 24% increase in perceived difficulty, an 11% increase in dissatisfaction, and a 21% increase in anxiety.”

As noted in the background section, studies on Taiwanese researchers have established that language and other issues are a major impediment to publishing internationally in English; however, to what degree this is the case over a broad variety of disciplines has not been

investigated in Taiwan. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine Taiwanese scientists’ journal publication preferences in terms of language and venue, and then to

quantitatively determine their “relative, perceived burden of writing research articles in English as a second language” (Hanauer & Englander, 2011). This was accomplished by replicating Hanauer and Englander’s quantitative survey study among humanities and social sciences, and STEM and medicine researchers in Taiwan.

Significance

By replicating and extending Hanauer and Englander’s (2011) study in Taiwan, this project investigates Taiwanese researchers’ publishing activities, challenges, and needs at a broad quantitative level crossing disciplines at public and private universities.

Relevant Literature

According to (Lillis & Curry, 2016), research on “academic writing for publication in a multilingual world” has been developing over three decades from four research traditions: English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Second Language Writing (SLW), Contrastive Rhetoric/Intercultural Rhetoric, and Ethnographic Approaches. This proposed study develops from the first two and aims to make a contribution to this body of research through a survey. The theoretical stance of this research is based on the concept that writing is a social practice. In particular, it takes:

1. A theoretical position on writing which states that writing cannot and should not be viewed as separate from contexts of use and users.

2. An empirical position which states that texts, uses and users need to be the subjects of empirical research rather than being driven by a priori assumptions and value positions (Lillis 2013: 16). (Lillis & Curry)

mid-1980s, Uzuner (2008) showed that the primary concern in the research has been centered on issues multilingual scholars face when trying to publish articles in English in “international” journals of the Anglophone “center” of scholarly publishing. Since Uzuner’s review article, research on scholarly publishing and multilingual scientists’ involvement with it has continued to grow in many regional contexts such as southern and eastern Europe (eg. Curry & Lillis, 2014; Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008), Russia (eg. Lawrick, 2011), Latin America (eg. Delgado, 2011; Englander, 2011; Hanauer & Englander, 2013), and Asia (eg. Lee & Lee, 2013; Mayumi,

2014)—especially, China (eg. Feng, Beckett, & Huang, 2013; Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Ge, 2015), Hong Kong (eg. Li & Flowerdew, 2009), and Taiwan (eg. J. C. Huang, 2010, 2011; Liu, 2014; Min, 2014; Sheridan, 2015). In addition, new themes have emerged, such as broader issues of the effect of power dynamics of institutional ranking systems on scholars and publishing (Chou, 2014b; Lillis & Curry, 2013; Mayumi, 2014; Soudien, 2014) and how this affects journal publishing in peripheral contexts (Labassi, 2009; Lillis, 2012; Lundin, Jönsson, Kreiner, & Tienari, 2010; Sheridan, 2015). Because the conditions predicating these studies are often based on institutional reactions to globalization, the following review will first explore the impact of globalization on higher education institutes (HEIs) and why this has brought about an emphasis on “international” (Anglophone WoS) publications as ideal outlets for knowledge generated by their faculties, especially in the Taiwan context. It will then consider recent research that has used large-scale questionnaires and in-depth interviews to gather perspectives of multilingual scholars on the periphery regarding their publication choices and experiences of using English as an L2 in scientific writing. These studies provide perspective on the proposed project.

International scholarly publishing pressure

The policies adopted by institutions in the face of globalization-induced competition for world-class universities have exacerbated the tendency to equate “international” and “English” as automatically better than “national” and “local” journals and languages (Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013). Mok (2007) noted the ironic situation when studies of greatest concern to local audiences, which could reach more readers who could benefit from the knowledge through local languages or publications, are only considered “high-quality and high-impact” (p. 446) if

published in “international” journals listed in SCI or SSCI. Globalization induced national policies have affected institutional policies (Chang, Wu, Ching, & Tang, 2009; Mok, 2000) and individual scholars (Curry & Lillis, 2004; Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013; Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Liu, 2014). The resulting effects at the national, institutional, and individual levels seem to be affected by several factors.

According to Salager-Meyer’s (2008) assessment of “macro bibliometric and

scientometric” research “…there is a strong association between scientific research output and national wealth distribution across the world” (p. 122). Related to this condition, Lillis and Curry (2010) described the relationship between research and development (R&D) spending in various countries to the percentage of article output and number published in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) (now known as Thomson Reuters Web of Science) journals and showed that

the countries or regions with greater R&D investment have relatively more active journals and research output (p. 14-15). Taiwan’s Gross Expenditures on Research and Development (GERD) had been growing in recent years from 2.93% in 2009 to 3.01 in 2013 (MOST, 2014). While in actual R&D, the United States invests the largest chunk, 31% of the world total, its GERD has been decreasing for a number of years down to 2.70 in 2012 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012). In 2013 it was up slightly to 2.73%. GERD in the U.K. was 1.85% in 2009 and has steadily fallen to 1.67 in 2013. However, China’s GERD was 1.70% and Mexico’s was only .37% in 2009, but has increased since, and by 2013 stood at 2.08 and .50 respectively (MOST). This shows that for a small nation, Taiwan invests relatively heavily in research and development. This level of investment may help explain the programs and policies related to the “publish or perish” conditions for Taiwan-based scientists in that since the government is

investing in research activity, it expects the recipients of the funding to produce knowledge through publications that can be quantitatively assessed.

In order to encourage this publication activity to raise their universities’ international rankings, countries such as Mexico and Turkey (Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013) and

Hungary, Slovakia, and Spain (Curry & Lillis, 2004) have established faculty evaluation systems focused on quantitative measures of research output through “carrot and stick” policies.

Likewise, in Taiwan, after the Ministry of Education very publicly began ranking universities based on faculty research output in “I-type” journals, those listed in Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge (J. Huang, 2003), universities responded by increasing research publication

requirements for performance review and promotion along with awards systems based on journal status. Then, similar to moves in Japan, Korea, China and other countries in Asia (Mok, 2007), the Ministry of Education in Taiwan initiated the “Plan to Develop First-Class Universities and Top-level Research Centers” (PDFURC) worth 50 billion New Taiwan Dollars or about US$1.64 billion in 2006 (Chang et al., 2009). Twelve HEIs were allotted different sums of the budget based on how “promising” they appeared to the committee. Franzoni, Scellato, and Stephan (2011) reported that countries that have provided cash incentives to researchers to publish internationally have increased their presence in prestigious journals like Science. PDFURC funding has been much more extensive than just cash incentives for publication successes. However, Chang et al. found while the universities that received funding in the first year of the program did all increase the number of publications in ISI journals and improved other

internationalization indicators, the amount of funding received did not determine their

performance efficiency. For example, National Taiwan University (NTU) received ten times as much funding as National Chengchi University (NCCU), but NCCU outperformed NTU in the researchers’ efficiency scale in meeting development goals. They concluded that providing more funding does not necessarily lead to better results. It appears that researchers in Taiwan are relatively well supported compared to “peripheral” scholars in underdeveloped areas (Canagarajah, 2003; Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008; Labassi, 2009). However, academics’

perceptions of the campaign for world-class universities, which in 2011 was renamed “Heading Toward Top Universities” (Ministry of Education, 2013), have not been all positive and it and

other policies it has inspired now affect Taiwan-based scholars' decisions regarding language of research articles and where to submit manuscripts for publication. This will be discussed further in the next section.

Perceptions of English in scholarly publishing beyond the Anglophone center

Because the proposed study is concerned with the choices Taiwanese researchers make regarding language of publication and issues related to writing for publication in English as an L2, related studies published since Uzuner (2008) will be reviewed. In addition, it will focus on research that employed relatively large-scale questionnaire studies or questionnaires with in-depth individual interviews in order to inform the proposed study. These studies tend to focus on attitudes of using English and what factors seem to help or hinder their success of publishing in internationally indexed journals.

In the study after which the current study is modeled, Hanauer and Englander (2011, 2013), distributed an online questionnaire to scientists at two institutions in Mexico and used descriptive and inferential statistics to show the degree to which 148 Spanish-speaking scientists in Mexico felt writing an article in English was a greater burden than when writing in Spanish. A qualitative study followed comprising in-depth interviews with 16 researchers and document analysis of their educational and professional trajectories and publications (2013). They found that the burden scholars felt in writing for publication in English was highest among junior faculty at a research university and lowest among senior faculty at a research institute. This indicates that educational and professional experience, as well as type of institution where they studied and work, may be related to the language scholars were likely to use and in which type of journal they would publish articles.

Ferguson, PÉRez-Llantada, and Plo (2011), conducted a survey study at a university in Spain to investigate faculty attitudes regarding the dominance of English in publishing in terms of advantage or disadvantage. Their data included returned surveys from 300 faculty in various disciplines and levels of experience. They found that researchers believed native English

speakers (NES) had an advantage in scholarly publishing, but did not necessarily view this as an

unfair advantage. Those who self-identified as having higher English writing proficiency were

less likely to feel disadvantaged vis-à-vis native English speaker scientists. In their study, English proficiency was a stronger indicator for feeling of advantage/disadvantage than discipline or seniority. Pérez-Llantada, Plo, and Ferguson (2011) followed their survey study with a qualitative project in which they interviewed ten researchers from natural and social sciences. Their main finding was that the participants exhibited a sense of “pragmatic resignation” (p. 28) in regards to the dominance of English in scholarly publishing.

In another multi-method study, Lawrick (2011) studied the academic publishing environment in Russia through policy developments, gathered surveys from 421 researchers from various disciplines in 22 public universities, and then interviewed five from different disciplines. She found that English was seen as a “tool” to accomplish academic activity and that awareness of the need to use English for publication was on the rise. However, the concurrent

and resilient need to publish in Russian meant that many publish in both languages.

Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008) surveyed Polish researchers from a variety of natural and social sciences, receiving 99 completed questionnaires. They found that their respondents also faced pressure to publish internationally in English while still contributing knowledge in their local language. They maintain that deciding which language to use for publication is a

complicated issue for Polish academics as language choice is wrapped up in social conditions and ideology, which is similar to what Lillis (2012) found in Hungary, Spain, Slovakia, and Portugal. Duszak and Lewkowicz’s respondents perceived language ability as an issue. Of those who had papers rejected by international Anglophone journals, 30 percent said it was because of “language problems” (p. 113). Other reasons mentioned were related to topic and journal scope issues. Even more Polish researchers, 59%, claimed they have trouble with English in general, while 18 percent reported having trouble with written academic English specifically. Overall, they found that younger scientists were as, or more, likely to be successful publishing in English, ostensibly because they have had more contact with and education in English than more

experienced scholars, which challenged (Swales, 2004) idea that publishing experience is a major indicator of international publishing success.

Min (2014) conducted a smaller scale study based on Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008) in Taiwan. She studied surveys completed by 38 Taiwan-based NNES applied linguistics scholars to understand their perceptions of experiences publishing in Anglophone-center journals.

Respondents included associate, assistant, and full professors, of which most had received PhDs in the US. The top three issues related to their challenges publishing in center journals were “language, topic, and perceived bias” (p. 190) of reviewers and editors. The “publication dilemma” (p. 190) of the researchers was generally how to conduct research from a peripheral context and write articles in a way that satisfies gatekeepers in the center. This is similar to what Liu (2014) discovered from five researchers through studying reviewers’ comments on their articles and in-depth individual interviews. Liu concluded that “English proficiency and

academic literacy are the most salient problems encountered by NNES/EIL scholars” (p. 124).

Effects of “SSCI Syndrome”

Contributors to the (2014b) edited volume about the “SSCI Syndrome” in Taiwan challenged the institutionally dominant view of the necessity that Taiwan-based humanities and social science scholars contribute to the international conversation of their disciplines and that the most valuable place to do that is in the “3-I” journals (Wu & Bristow, 2014), meaning those included in the SCI, SSCI, and A&HCI. Several studies showed the influence of international benchmarking mentality in nearly all evaluative situations in general (Chan & Lee, 2014; Mok, 2014) or especially for the job hunt, promotion, regular evaluation, and grant applications

(Ching, 2014). Chan and Lee (2014) described the “unwritten standards for research performance that exist … in the minds of evaluators” (p. 44), which put English over Chinese publication, internationally indexed journals over national journals, TSSCI and THCI Core journals over THCI database and conference proceedings, and even national level science ministry grants fund

over funding from other ministries or industry. According to Liu (2014), “One significant impact of SSCI [syndrome] is that English has become the language used for intellectual discussions not only in the international journals but also in the local journals. Moreover, the push for English publications poses a major challenge to Taiwan-based researchers who use English as a foreign language (Liu, 2014), but especially to those who received their advanced degree in Taiwan, not in an Anglophone country (Su, 2014). In her conclusion (Su) maintained:

...the “I”-orientated evaluation incurs grave impacts on higher education in several aspects, ranging from academic discrimination of locality/nativism, academic inferiority in the place of the global academic world, and partial development of Taiwanese

academic research, all of which derive from language constraints and readership problems, to degrading local journals to a consequence of the latent threat of the academic colonization of the native English speaking countries. p. 74

Privileging of internationally indexed journals in Taiwan

Min (2014) identified two ways that applied linguists in Taiwan have dealt with this issue. She claimed that 68% took a pragmatic approach in order to meet institutional

expectations while others have challenged the conditions. Min called for governments to “mandate a reexamination of research evaluation systems at local universities” (p. 196) and for journal editors and reviewers to be more open to varieties of English as a lingua franca and research topics from beyond their immediate environment. While there has been some movement towards the former, respondents in (Sheridan, 2017) have expressed doubt that SSCI publications carry any less weight than before. The insecurity seems to revolve around the “unspoken rules” among evaluators. However, I have found that some researchers want to publish internationally in order to be part of the broader conversation in their field, but find it daunting. Considering the challenges mentioned above, scholars need support to reach their publishing goals other than relaxed evaluation policies and journal editors who are more accepting of varieties of English as a lingua franca. Changes at the editorial level are needed, but as (Ferguson et al., 2011) pointed out, there are things that can be done more immediately to “encourage the appropriation of English” (p. 55). After all, the current conditions are affecting the immediate job prospects and security of scholars all around the world. Besides, as Hanauer and Englander stated, “the writing of research articles in English should not be a barrier to the generation of new scientific

knowledge across the world” (2013, p, 135). Next I will outline some of the interventions that have been suggested in the studies reviewed above.

Ferguson et al. (2011) cited Benfield and Feak (2006) to suggest that journals can play a part in this endeavor, however, by providing “more extensive language review and advisory services than is currently customary” (p. 55) to help alleviate language issues in manuscripts before sending them out for review. In addition, it is suggested that more peer reviewers and editorial committee members should be non-native English speakers (NNESs). There are likely many concerns and challenges to such a proposal, but these are beyond the scope of the current review. They then suggest that the universities “play their part in alleviating linguistic

disadvantage” (p. 55) through providing funding for services of “language brokers” (Lillis & Curry, 2010) and academic writing courses.

Hanauer and Englander (2013) recognized that scientists are not an “undifferentiated, homogenous group” (p. 134). Therefore, while their proposals for administrative and educational support of Mexican scientists can be applied to other non-center non-Anglophone contexts, the experience and knowledge scientists bring must be acknowledged and incorporated into any interventions. They then proposed a range of practical proposals for academic writing education from the beginning of tertiary education through post-doctoral level scientists continuing through all stages in scientists’ academic careers based on need. This should come from those with expertise in advance literacy and disciplinary knowledge. It can be provided in various settings from classroom situations to writing groups to individual mentoring.

Research Questions

1. Does the experience of writing a research article in English as a second language involve the perception of increased degree of burden when compared with the experience of first language science writing?

a. To what degree is writing a scientific article in English as a second

language perceived to be more difficult than writing a scientific article in a first language?

b. To what degree does writing a scientific article in English as a second language generate more dissatisfaction than writing a scientific article in a first language?

c. To what degree does writing a scientific article in English as a second language generate more anxiety than writing a scientific article in a first language?

Methodology

We used a quantitative survey design to replicate Hanauer and Englander (2011) in order to “quantify the perceived burden of writing science in English as a second language” (p. 407). The first part of the survey used Hanauer and Englander’s survey and the second part adapted Duszak and Lewkowicz’s (2008) to gain further understanding of English publishing experiences and perspectives. The main difference in the current study iteration from Hanauer and Englander was the incorporation of Duszak and Lewkowicz’s survey and that participants were Taiwanese whose first written language is Mandarin Chinese (Traditional characters) rather than Mexican Spanish L1 participants.

Rationale of Participant Recruitment

Hanauer and Englander (2011) focused their study on natural sciences researchers, but this study distributed the online questionnaire to two broad disciplinary areas: humanities and social sciences, and STEM and medicine. Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008) and Ferguson et al. (2011) both surveyed researchers in the social sciences and natural sciences or medicine because

they wanted to test the often-mentioned sense that the latter two have been “used to” publishing in the Anglophone world already for some time, and therefore would experience less difficulty or disadvantage than social sciences. As mentioned in the introduction section of this proposal, this perception also exists in Taiwan. Duszak and Lewkowicz also noted that the social sciences are “fields [that] naturally invite localization and make communication in English an ideological choice” as opposed to medicine, a field not steeped in “culture” (p. 111). This condition may also apply to the Taiwan context. On the other hand, the push to publish in English has recently been spreading to the humanities in China (Flowerdew & Li, 2009), which may also be the case in Taiwan. While the existence of these conditions in Taiwan makes sense, this study addressed them empirically by recruiting participants from as wide of a disciplinary spectrum as possible. Another factor that has been of interest in previous studies is the relationships among the amount of research experience, rank, and/or seniority and type of institution and publication success. Hanauer and Englander (2011) surveyed researchers at a university and research institution. Therefore, the survey for this study was sent to researchers from a broad range of disciplines at both national and private universities because the former pose a relatively heavier research mandate on their faculty than private universities (Sheridan, 2017).

Recruitment. We first compiled a database of deans at one national and one private

university in Taiwan. Following Internal Review Board for Ethical Research protocol approval, we sent emails to the deans of colleges to request assistance with distributing the email with the link to the online survey. Because there was little response to this effort we sent emails deans at one more national and one more private university. As there were only three responses to the survey two weeks after this effort, from university websites, we gathered email addresses of faculty members from a cross-section of colleges at an additional five national and five private universities. In total, emails were sent to 1,822 HSS and 1,697 STEM+M faculty members. From these, there were 236 responses for a response rate of 7%. Of the 236, 199 completed questions related to publishing preferences and demographic information and 69 indicated they had submitted articles written in both English and Chinese to a major journal, thereby qualifying to respond to the six questions related to the burden of writing research in English and questions about language-related issues in publishing.

Ethical considerations. Participation in this questionnaire was completely voluntary and

participants’ identities were protected; respondents’ names nor institutions’ names were collected. They were free to quit the questionnaire and have their recorded answers deleted at any point in the survey. An informed voluntary consent form was shown on the first view of the Qualtrics survey. Participants were asked to “click agree” in order to indicate their voluntary consent to begin the questionnaire.

Tool

In this study, burden was conceptualized as “self-perceived difficulty, anxiety, and dissatisfaction” (p. 407). By setting up parallel questions regarding each of these aspects of burden, the survey, which had been validated (Hanauer & Englander, 2011), makes it possible to quantify the perceived differences of difficulty, dissatisfaction, and anxiety in L1 and L2

academic writing. The six questions, in the current study, with Spanish changed to Chinese were: 1. On the scale below, rank the degree to which you find it easy or difficult to write a

scientific article in Chinese for a major journal. Very Easy | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Difficult

2. On the scale below, rank the degree to which you find it easy or difficult to write a scientific article in English for a major journal.

Very Easy | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Difficult

3. On the scale below, rank the degree to which you are satisfied or dissatisfied that your writing in Chinese conveys the scientific research that you have conducted.

Very Satisfied | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Dissatisfied

4. On the scale below, rank the degree to which you are satisfied or dissatisfied that your writing in English conveys the scientific research that you have conducted.

Very Satisfied | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Dissatisfied

5. On the scale below, rate the degree to which writing a scientific article in Chinese for a major journal causes you to feel anxiety.

Not at all Anxious | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Anxious

6. On the scale below, rate the degree to which writing a scientific article in English for a major journal causes you to feel anxiety.

Not at all Anxious | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Very Anxious

The survey was created in English, translated into Chinese, and reconfigured for online access (Appendix).

Results

I will first report demographic data of the survey to situate the study among all respondents. The data showed that these Taiwanese researchers are writing in English much more than in Chinese. Besides the 75 who reported submitting both English and Chinese manuscripts to a major journal in the last five years, even more respondents (N=89) have submitted only English manuscripts. Of the 199 respondents, over 80% are writing research in English, while only 12% have submitted only Chinese manuscripts and less than 9% have not submitted in either language (Table 1).

Language/s of publication submission in the last five years of full sample. (N=199)

Chinese English N Valid Percent

No Yes 89 44.7

Yes Yes 69 34.7

Yes No 24 12.1

No No 17 8.5

This report focuses on the results related to the relative burden on scientists when writing English as an L2 compared to their L1 Chinese through self-reported data from 75 respondents (69 completed burden questions). About two-thirds are men and nearly 75% are over 45 years old (Table 2). These numbers are similar to the entire sample of 199 (Table 2).

Table 2

Gender and age of respondents (N=69)

Frequency Valid Percent

Male 47 68.1 Female 22 31.9 22 – 35 1 1.4 36 – 45 17 21.8 46 – 55 29 42.0 56 – 65 22 31.9 66 + 0 0 Table 3

Gender and age of respondents (N=199)

Frequency Valid Percent

Male 130 65.3 Female 69 34.7 22 – 35 5 2.5 36 – 45 49 24.6 46 – 55 83 41.7 56 – 65 61 30.7 66 + 1 0.5

All respondents in this (English and Chinese) group are PhD holders and over half are full professors. Furthermore, over 72% are faculty at national universities (Tables 4). These numbers are similar to the sample overall, although the percentage of full professors is higher.

Table 4

Education, rank, and institution type of respondents (N=69) Frequency Percent MA 0 0 PhD 69 100 Instructor/Lecturer 0 0 Assistant Professor 12 17.4 Associate Professor 18 26.1 Full Professor 38 55.1 Other 1 1.4 Public/National university 50 72.5 Private university 18 26.1 Other institution type 1 1.4

Table 5

Education, rank, and institution type of respondents (N=199) Frequency Percent MA 1 0.5 PhD 198 99.5 Instructor/Lecturer 1 0.5 Assistant Professor 40 20.1 Associate Professor 66 33.2 Full Professor 90 45.2 Other 2 1 Public/National university 144 72.4 Private university 53 26.6 Other institution type 2 1 This group is generally composed of experienced and senior scholars, who are likely

expected to publish their research in “international” journals because of their affiliation with national universities. While the most-mentioned first reason for publishing in English was to reach a specialist audience (n=21), the second was to fulfill requirements of department (n=19). These requirements most likely refer to promotion and evaluation policies that tend to emphasize publications in “international” indexed journals (Sheridan, 2017). Table 6 shows the types of publications that respondents submitted their manuscripts to over the last five years. In both broad categories, HSS and STEM+Med, respondents most often submitted of their English publications to “international” indexed journals. However, when dealing with Chinese scientific writing, the latter most often submitted manuscripts for book publishing, while the former still focused on IIJs.

Table 6

Publications submitted to in English (E) and Chinese (C) by two disciplinary categories (N=75)

Publication type HSS STEM + Med

E E Avg. C C Avg. E E Avg. C C Avg. Books 1 1.45 8 10.26 1 3.57 5 22.73 Book Chapters 15 21.74 22 28.21 2 7.14 3 13.64 Taiwan-based not TSSCI/THCI 3 4.35 5 6.41 2 7.14 4 18.18 TSSCI/THCI 5 7.25 4 5.13 1 3.57 1 4.55 Taiwan-based IIJs* 4 5.80 0 0.00 5 17.86 2 9.09 IIJs (Not Taiwan-based) 39 56.52 33 42.31 16 57.14 3 13.64 Book Reviews 1 1.45 6 7.69 0 0.00 2 9.09

None 1 1.45 0 0.00 1 3.57 2 9.09

Total 69 100 78 100 28 100 22 100

* Indicates internationally indexed journals, usually included in citation indexes such as Engineering Index (EI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), or Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI).

Difficulty, Dissatisfaction, and Anxiety

The purpose of this study was to replicate Hanauer and Englander (2013) to quantify the burden that L2 English scholarly writers in Taiwan perceived when writing in English for publication. Following Hanauer and Englander, burden was “seen as consisting of three related but different components: self-perceived difficulty, anxiety, and dissatisfaction” (p. 407). A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare perceived difficulty, dissatisfaction and anxiety in publishing in L1 Chinese and in L2 English. The results show that perceived burden can be quantified as generating 23.4% more difficulty, 9.4% more dissatisfaction, and 22.7% more anxiety.

establish whether the differences between the ratings for the L1 and L2 science writing were systematic. Since the design of the survey involved the same participants providing ratings on their L1 (Mandarin Chinese) and L2 (English) science writing, a series of paired t-tests were conducted. Six paired-samples t-tests were conducted to compare perceived difficulty, dissatisfaction and anxiety in publishing in L1 Chinese and in L2 English for the Taiwanese researchers. For the Taiwanese researchers, there was a significant difference in the scores for difficulty [Chinese M= 2.9 SD=1.87; English M=4.55, SD=1.49; t(75)=-8.03, p =.0001], for dissatisfaction [Chinese M= 2.96, SD=1.72; English M=3.64, SD=1.58; t(75)=-3.89, p =.0001], and for anxiety [Chinese M= 2.77 SD=1.69; English M=4.36, SD=1.79; t(74)=-7.5, p =.0001] (Table 7). These results suggest increased burden when L1 Mandarin Chinese scientists write scientific research in L2 English.

Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Perception Ratings on Questions of Difficulty, Satisfaction, and Anxiety in First Language (Spanish) and Second Language (English) Scientific Writing (n = 75) N M SD Difficulty in Chinese 7 5 2.91 1.87 Difficulty in English 7 5 4.55 1.49 Dissatisfaction in Chinese 7₅ 2.92 1.699 Dissatisfaction in English 7 5 3.63 1.583 Anxiety in Chinese 7₅ 2.77 1.689 Anxiety in English 7 5 4.36 1.798

Aside from gathering Taiwanese scientists’ self-reported perspectives of the additional burden they face when writing in English over when writing Chinese, this study also examined English as a barrier to publication. In response to the survey item: “Rate the degree to which you consider your ability to write in English to be a barrier to publishing your research, where “1” means not a barrier at all, and “7” means a significant barrier,” all but 4.3 percent of respondents considered English as a barrier to publication, with 7.1% considering it a significant barrier (Table 8).

Table 8

Perception of English as a barrier to publication where “1” means not a barrier at all, and “7” means a significant barrier. (N=70)

Scale Frequency Valid Percent 1 3 4.3 2 16 22.9 3 8 11.4 4 9 12.9 5 17 24.3 6 12 17.1 7 5 7.1 Discussion

In the early 2000s, when globalization-induced higher education policies began to impact faculty at Taiwanese institutions (Sheridan, 2015), a controversial report ranked universities based on the numbers of papers their faculty published in journals included in the Web of

Science citation indexes (J. Huang, 2003). In this report, universities that have more STEM+Med colleges and departments were ranked higher than those that emphasize HSS disciplines. This report inspired a strong reaction among HSS scholars, who resented the lower value given to their research into issues of local and national importance, more conducive to Chinese language publishing. A common refrain among Taiwanese HSS scholars that their colleagues in the natural sciences have an easier time publishing high quantities of papers because science papers are shorter and less focused on language proficiency. While this assumption should be further investigated, the current study shows that, even if it is true, STEM+Med researchers do also consider writing in English as an added burden that constitutes a barrier to publication.

In addition, it may seem more likely that senior scholars would experience less burden in publishing their research in English than less experienced ones. However, in this study, among the respondents who submitted English and Chinese manuscripts to major journals over the last five years, most were over 45 years old and over half were full professors, and they still

experienced significant added burden when writing in English compared to Chinese. This further refutes Hyland’s (2016) stance that L2 writers’ difficulties are due to disciplinary conventions, and no different from native speakers, and supports the notion that problems L2 scholars face when writing research papers in English are linguistic in nature (Hanauer and Englander, 2011).

The results of this study support both qualitative and quantitative research into the experiences of multilingual scholars, who are under pressure to publish research in English, especially in IIJs. In particular, it shows that L2 science writers in different language and national contexts can experience added burden when writing in English for publication and that this burden is related to linguistic challenges and not disciplinary conventions. Ultimately, the findings raise issues of linguistic privilege and have implications for global academic publishing and national higher education policies, especially governing faculty evaluation and promotion. For Taiwan, in particular, the study provides another reason to question “SSCI syndrome” (Chou, 2014) and the “citation index complex” (Sheridan, 2017), while continuing to support

Chinese language journals through national citation indexes.

The results of the study contribute to the research on multilingual scholars publishing perspectives and practices and points to further work to be done. First, we have gained a broader understanding of the preferences for language of publication and publication outlets among Taiwanese researchers from HSS, and STEM+Med disciplines. We have ascertained that they experience a greater burden when using English to write research than they do when writing Chinese. By learning this, we can begin to determine which researchers in Taiwan need support in their English publication work. This project, however, has not provided in-depth knowledge of their experiences as multilingual writers writing in English as a second language. Therefore, a further qualitative interview study is necessary to find out what type of support would be helpful to which type of scholars in Taiwan.

While Hanauer and Englander (2011) had a response rate of 38%, Ferguson et al. (2011) study had a response rate of 10%. During the planning of this project there was a concern that gathering a large sample from researchers in Taiwan who have written journal articles in both Chinese and English would be difficult. Despite sending out invitations to thousands of faculty members all over Taiwan, the completion rate was quite low in this study at 7%. While the entire sample represented a fairly even cross-section of disciplines, other data showed that the low response rate is likely because most Taiwanese academics are writing their articles only in English. This secondary finding suggests that investigations into multilingual scientists around the world need to take careful account of the national contexts. In Sheridan (2017), a qualitative interview study, it was found that younger scholars in Taiwan, those who entered the HE system after 2000, faced greater publishing demands than the more senior participants. It seems

somewhat counterintuitive that the senior respondents in the current quantitative study experienced greater burden of writing in English. This is a phenomenon that warrants further research.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2004/2013). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. In R. King, S. Marginson, & R. Naidoo (Eds.), The globalization of higher

education (pp. 1-23). Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited

(Reprinted from Tertiary Education and Mangagement 10: 3-25, 2004, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications).

Canagarajah, A. S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in

language education (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chan, J. C.-Y., & Lee, C.-N. (2014). A difficult situation of higher education in Taiwan. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 39-50). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Chang, D.-f., Wu, C.-t., Ching, G., & Tang, C.-w. (2009). An evaluation of the dynamics of the plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers in Taiwan. Asia

Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 47-57. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9010-7

Chen, K.-h. (2004). The construction of the Taiwan Humanities Citation Index. Online

Information Review, 28(6), 410-419. doi:DOI 10.1108/14684520410570535

Ching, G. S. (2014). ISI perceptions and hard facts: An empirical study from Taiwan. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 81-96). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Chou, C. P. (2014a). Jingai de Wu Buzhang, Xiaozhang [Letter to Minister Wu] [Open letter to

the faculty of National Chengchi University]. Taipei.

Chou, C. P. (Ed.) (2014b). The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A local or global

phenomenon. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Chou, C. P., Lin, H. F., & Chiu, Y.-j. (2013). The impact of SSCI and SCI on Taiwan’s academy: An outcry for fair play. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 23-31. doi:10.1007/s12564-013-9245-1

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663-688.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2014). Strategies and tactics in academic knowledge production by multilingual scholars. Estratégias e táticas na produção de conhecimento acadêmico

para pesquisadores multilíngües., 22(26/34), 1-24. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n32.2014

Delgado, J. E. (2011). Journal publication in Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela: University

responses to global, regional, and national pressures and trends. (Ph.D.), University of

Pittsburgh, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/908423407?accountid=11652 (908423407) Duszak, A., & Lewkowicz, J. (2008). Publishing academic texts in English: A Polish

perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 108-120. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.001

Englander, K. (2011). The globalized world of English scientific publishing: An analytical proposal that situates a multilingual scholar. In G. Lopez-Bonilla & K. Englander (Eds.),

Discourses and identities in contexts of educational change (pp. 209-228). New York:

Peter Lang.

Englander, K., & Uzuner-Smith, S. (2013). The role of policy in constructing the peripheral scientist in the era of globalization. Language Policy, 12, 231-250.

Eriksen, T. H. (2007). Globalization: The Key Concepts (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Berg Publishers. Feng, H., Beckett, G. H., & Huang, D. (2013). From ‘import’ to ‘import-export’ oriented

internationalization: The impact of national policy on scholarly publication in China.

Language Policy, 12, 251-272.

Ferguson, G., PÉRez-Llantada, C., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: a study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41-59.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01656.x

Flowerdew, J. (2007). The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication.

AILA Review, 20(1), 14-27. doi:10.1075/aila.20.04flo

Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and the social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16.

Ge, M. (2015). English Writing for International Publication in the Age of Globalization: Practices and Perceptions of Mainland Chinese Academics in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Publications, 3, 43-64. doi:10.3390/publications3020043

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28(4), 403-416. doi:DOI: 10.1177/0741088311420056

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Scientific writing in a second language. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press.

Harwood, N., & Hadley, G. (2004). Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 355-377.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.08.001

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,

economics and culture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 31, 58-69. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005

Huang, A. H.-m. (2009). Science as ideology: SSCI, TSSCI and the evaluation system of social sciences in Taiwan. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 10(2), 282 - 291.

Huang, J. (2003). Survey by Ministry of Education rankles some in academia. Taipei Times, (October 21), 4. Retrieved from

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/10/21/2003072762

Huang, J. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33-44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.10.001

Huang, J. C. (2011). Attitudes of Taiwanese scholars toward English and Chinese as languages of publication. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 115-128.

doi:10.1080/02188791.2011.566983

Labassi, T. (2009). Periphery non-Anglophone scholarship in English-only journals: Conditions of a better visibility. Changing English, 16(2), 247-254.

Lawrick, E. P. Z. (2011). English in Russian academe: Uses and perceived significance. (PhD), Purdue, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (901113909)

Lee, H., & Lee, K. (2013). Publish (in international indexed journals) or perish: Neoliberal ideology in a Korean university. Language Policy, 12, 215-230.

Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2009). International engagement versus local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities and social sciences writing for publication. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 279-293.

Lillis, T. (2012). Economies of signs in writing for academic publication: The case of English medium “national” journals. Journal of Advanced Composition, 32(3-4), 695-722. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and

practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2013). English, scientific publishing and participation in the global knowledge economy. In E. J. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and Development:

Policy, Pedagogy and Globalization (pp. 220-242). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2016). Academic writing for publication in a multilingual world. In R. Manchon & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 201-222): De Gruyter Mouton.

Liu, J. Y. (2014). Problems, strategies, and impact of SSCI publication in English: Perceptions and negotiations of Taiwanese researchers. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in

higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 109-126). Rotterdam, The

Netherlands: Sense.

Lundin, R. A., Jönsson, S., Kreiner, K., & Tienari, J. (2010). The changing face of academic publishing: On the past, present and future of the Scandinavian Journal of Management.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3), 309-317.

Mayumi, I. (2014). Ranking Regime and the Future of Vernacular Scholarship. Sistema de

Classificação e o Futuro da Pesquisa local., 22(26/34), 1-23.

doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n30.2014

Min, H.-T. (2014). Participating in international academic publishing: A Taiwan perspective.

TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 48(1), 188-200.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Daxue Pingjian Banfa [University Evaluation Regulation]. Taipei: Ministry of Education Retrieved from

Ministry of Education. (2013). Education in Taiwan 2013-2014. Taipei: Ministry of Education Republic of China Retrieved from

http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=8376&ctNode=814&mp=1.

Ministry of Education. (2014). Taijiaogao (2) No. 1030140439. Tapei: October 23.

Mok, K.-H. (2000). Reflecting globalization effects on local policy: higher education reform in Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 15(6), 637-660.

Mok, K.-H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 433-454.

doi:10.1177/1028315306291945

Mok, K.-H. (2014). Promoting the global university in Taiwan: University governance reforms and academic reflections. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI syndrome in higher education: A

local or global phenomenon (pp. 1-24). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

MOST. (2014). R&D Expenditure as a Percentage in GDP [2010-2014]. Retrieved from https://ap0512.most.gov.tw/WAS2/English/AsTechnologyEStatistics.aspx?ID=1 Pérez-Llantada, C., Plo, R., & Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only

what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 18-30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001

RIHSS. (2015). 2015 nian TSSCI shoulu qikan mingdan [2015 list of TSSCI journals]. Taipei: Research Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology Retrieved from http://www.hss.ntu.edu.tw/model.aspx?no=67.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121-132.

Shen, D.-s., & Chang, M.-k. (2010). Higher education in Taiwan: The crisis of rapid expansion. Retrieved from http://www.isa-sociology.org/universities-in-crisis/?p=417

Sheridan, C. L. (2014). A globalized peripheral context: Development of a citation index in

Taiwan and its role in scholarly publication and research Dissemination. Paper presented

at the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2014 Conference, Portland, Oregon. Sheridan, C. L. (2015). National journals and centering institutions: A historiography of an

English language teaching journal in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 70–84. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2014.12.001

Sheridan, C. L. (2017). English Medium “National” Journals Beyond the Anglophone Center: A

Qualitative Study of Multilingual Scholars and their Publishing Decisions in Taiwan.

(PhD), Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Soudien, C. (2014). The influence of rankings and incentive systems on academic publishing in South African universities [La influencia de los rankings y sistemas de incentivos en las publicaciones académicas en las universidades de Sudáfrica]. Educational Policy

Analysis Archives & Education Review, 22, 1-16. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n33.2014

Su, S.-W. (2014). To be or not to be: Impacts of "I" idolization from the perspective of humanitites and social sciences faculty in Taiwan. In C. P. Chou (Ed.), The SSCI

syndrome in higher education: A local or global phenomenon (pp. 51-80). The

Netherlands: Sense.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. In Michael H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge applied linguistics (pp. 33-59). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). Global Investments in R&D. Retrieved February 15, 2013 http://www.uis.unesco.org/FactSheets/Pages/ScienceTech.aspx

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.