This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 17 December 2013, At: 06:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Changing English: Studies in Cultureand EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccen20

Periphery Non‐Anglophone Scholarshipin English‐only Journals: Conditions ofa Better VisibilityTahar Labassi aa Faculty of Human and Social Sciences , University of Tunis ,TunisiaPublished online: 15 May 2009.

To cite this article: Tahar Labassi (2009) Periphery Non‐Anglophone Scholarship in English‐onlyJournals: Conditions of a Better Visibility, Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 16:2,247-254, DOI: 10.1080/13586840902863236

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13586840902863236

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Changing EnglishVol. 16, No. 2, June 2009, 247–254

ISSN 1358-684X print/ISSN 1469-3585 online© 2009 The editors of Changing EnglishDOI: 10.1080/13586840902863236http://www.informaworld.com

Periphery Non-Anglophone Scholarship in English-only Journals: Conditions of a Better Visibility

Tahar Labassi*

Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University of Tunis, TunisiaTaylor and FrancisCCEN_A_386495.sgm10.1080/13586840902863236Changing English1358-684X (print)/1469-3585 (online)Original Article2009The editors of Changing English162000000June 2009TaharLabassitahar_labassi@yahoo.fr

The use of English by scholars all over the world has created an unprecedented profu-sion of labels: English as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language(EFL), English as an International language (EIL), English as an Additional Language(EAL), English as a World Language (EWL). The labels used for the speakers/usersof English are as varied as the labels used for the language (Kramsch and Lam 1999).

The division of the groups of speakers of English into sub-groups or discoursecommunities makes distinctions much more difficult to perceive. Taking the exampleof the community of academics, Salager-Meyer (2008, 125) has tried to set the bound-aries for each group. Her categorization could lead to the selection of reliable definitions:

(1) Privileged NNES (Non-Native English Speakers): this subgroup is itselfdivided into two minor groups

● academics who have spent some time in an English-speaking country.● academics who are members of prestigious international research groups or

local laboratories.

(2) Underprivileged NNES: academics who have never left their countries andnever worked under the supervision of well-known NNES scholars or NESexpatriates.

The present paper refers to scholars who belong to the second group for the followingreasons. First, because they constitute the majority of practising researchers in non-Anglophone countries such as Tunisia. Moreover, very few Tunisian academics whohave left the country have spent time in English-speaking countries. Most academicsare trained in France and collaborate with universities based in France.

Previous studies on the poor visibility of NNES academics have mentioned severalinternal as well as external causes. Canagarajah (1996), for instance, laments theunbearable working conditions researchers in under-resourced countries endure.However, Salager-Meyer argues that the low rate of NNES participation in theproduction of knowledge has more profound causes, such as:

(1) lack of academic L1 (and obviously L2) scientific writing training policies atthe undergraduate and/or graduate level

*Email: tahar_labassi@yahoo.fr

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

248 T. Labassi

(2) universities’ lack of budget for specialized editorial staff(3) lack of expert help from authors’ editors, ghostwriting services, professional

writers and/or professional translators to edit their research papers. (Salager-Meyer 2008, 126)

In addition to the above mentioned causes, some studies (Canagarajah 2003;Flowerdew 2000; Gibbs 1995; Swales 1998) suggest that the poor visibility of NNESis due to some bias against research of non-Anglophone provenance, and proposespecial treatment in order to help researchers from under-resourced environmentsbecome more visible. In this respect, Salager-Meyer asks the question whether NNESare discriminated against and gives an ambiguous answer. On the one hand there is‘clear evidence of bias favouring authors from the US, English-speaking countriesoutside the United States, and prestigious academic institutions’ (Salager-Meyer 2008,125), but on the other hand, she admits that ‘research in ELT and applied linguisticssuggests that there is no evidence of discrimination against non-native English submis-sions’ (Salager-Meyer 2008, 125).

The present paper discusses the specific causes of the poor visibility of underpriv-ileged NNES academics reported in the literature (Belcher 2006; Del Castillo 2004;Flowerdew 2000; Gibbs 1995; Swales 1998; Salager-Meyer 2008), and focuses on theparticular context of a non-Anglophone country. The central objective is not todenounce a state of affairs, but to argue for equal treatment of submissions regardlessof their origin, and, most importantly, to avoid a rhetoric of useless denunciation.

The nature of the hurdles mentioned in some studies (Belcher 2006; Canagarajah1996, 2003; Flowerdew 2000; Gibbs 1995; Swales 1998) seems to be limited, whilesome of the remedies proposed are somewhat unrealistic and might be counter-productive in particular contexts. In fact, the obstacles to valid research are not theeditors of journals, nor the referees, who are doing what the community believes theyshould do, but more damaging internal obstacles. As Salager-Meyer writes:

There is no scientific research/culture/tradition in most developing nations. Amongmany other social, economic and even political factors, building one requires the publi-cation and dissemination of results, and here also developing countries experience prob-lems. (2008, 123)

This article will detail additional factors, taking the example of a non-Anglophone,Arab country, namely Tunisia, that might explain the invisibility of NNES researchersin leading journals. The main argument is that the underlying causes are most of thetime internal, rather than external. The main objective is to propose strategies whichavoid demonizing the other or lacerating the self.

The first section is an attempt to identify the underlying reasons for the poorcontribution of NNES to knowledge, drawing on my personal experience, as amember of a non-Anglophone Arab academic community. The second section reactsto some suggestions made by a number of scholars (Belcher 2006; Canagarajah 2003;Flowerdew 2001; Salager-Meyer 2008; Swales 1998) on the treatment of researchpapers submitted by NNES to English-only journals, and proposes more realisticsolutions for better visibility for academics working in underprivileged contexts.

Recent figures on the share of researchers from developed, emerging and underde-veloped countries reveal the huge difference between them. The figures presented byKing (2004) are highly significant as they indicate that the world’s 31 wealthiest coun-tries out of a total of 191 contribute up to 98% of the volume of published research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

Changing English 249

This imbalance is mainly the result of economic policy in underdeveloped coun-tries. While education and research are top priorities, often as important as nationalsecurity in developed countries, developing and underdeveloped countries invest ininternal security the budget of interior ministries, in some totalitarian regimes, exceedby far the budget allocated to research. Therefore, the low visibility of academics fromunderdeveloped countries might be explained by national policies which have notinvested in knowledge. Nowadays, research requires huge funds that some nationstates are not providing and that fragile private sectors cannot offer. US, the UK andFrance devote 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to research, while develop-ing countries devote less than 0.5% (Salager-Meyer 2008).

However, poor financial provision only partly explains the phenomenon. Some richArab countries provide huge funds for education, but the share of these countries inthe production of knowledge is insignificant (Del Castillo 2004). Some rich Arab coun-tries have the means, but lack the culture which sustains science. Science would notsurvive without institutions run by competent professionals, in the absence of a learnedcommunity which takes charge of the pursuit of knowledge. What Canagarajah (1996)has mentioned, elsewhere, is only the tip of the iceberg. What lies behind is much moreserious, and much more difficult to face. Research requires logistics, nobody woulddeny, but it also requires the culture which secures its existence. Research requires lesscentralized governments, more flexible and autonomous institutions, less oppressivebureaucracies, and, particularly, more stable regimes (Salager-Meyer 2008).

In some cases, there are huge sums of money that are spent on education andresearch, accompanied by a rhetoric that seeks political recuperation by governmentswhich lack democratic legitimacy. The result is that this investment is managedpoorly. Since 1998, Tunisia has invested in the teaching of English for SpecificPurposes. The political decision was taken without consulting ESP practitioners,applied linguists and academics. The result was the recruitment of unqualified teach-ers, and the implementation of unsuitable programmes. Some local experts, at thattime, advised the authorities to teach English to those who really needed it; particularlyresearchers and potential researchers who had to read and publish results in English(Labassi 1999).

A successful course of English for professionals in a science faculty in Tunis, thatwas not on the official curriculum, was the initiative of some researchers who felt theneed to master English in order to contribute to knowledge. At the same faculty the stateis still paying for English courses for undergraduate students, who do not see the needfor it because they are taught through the medium of French, and write exam papersin French. However, potential researchers and professionals who have to read a liter-ature, which is up to 90% in some disciplines in English, are not offered courses inEnglish. Therefore, English is taught to those who do not need it, and is not taught tothose who need it. A telling example of poor management of resources when decision-makers decide to allocate more funds to education without consulting stakeholders.

The second example is the money spent on subscriptions to journals that very fewread, and the absence of journals that the majority of researchers in a given departmentor discipline really need. Money is spent on yearly subscriptions to paper journals,with the delay that mailing could cause, while there are rooms with new computers,for which researchers have no passwords to have access to some of the journals. Insome institutions, access to computer rooms is not given to all researchers, and thisincludes postgraduate students. The problem of poor management of availableresources is the result of poor governance. The absence of representative academic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

250 T. Labassi

bodies to run academic matters has led to the interference of administrators. Thus,academics live in a state of frustration which adds to other hurdles.

In fact, the real problem is that NNES academics in some non-Anglophone countriesare caught between the rhetoric of national states which pretend that funding researchis a strategic priority, and the other no less harmful rhetoric of industrialized countries.Rich countries are providing more money to eradicate diseases, fight famines and ille-gal immigration, than to ‘promote authentic scientific research in developing countriesor contribute to their technological development’ (Salager-Meyer 2008, 124). Thus,NNES academics are aware that the stakes of visibility lie beyond the powers of editorsand referees. The reasons seem to be political and economic; and the struggle toimprove research conditions is, most of the time, political rather than academic.

Because engagement in debates concerning the practice of research in the contextof some countries is vital for academics, in addition to carrying out research in anunder-funded or poorly-managed sector, some NNES researchers are fighting for thepromotion of education and a better representation in decision-making bodies. It isdone at the expense of time that should be devoted to academic activities, but isundoubtedly crucial for the survival of research. This struggle is part of the wider fightfor more freedom, representation and decent working and living conditions. NNESacademics are most of the time engaged in trade unions, political parties, by obligationrather than choice, and are subject to all sorts of harassment. It takes time and effort,which are essential, but taken at the expense of what academics are supposed to do:research.

The fate of one of the few learned societies in Tunisia (The Geographical Societyof Tunisia) is a case in point. The society managed to organize the annual congress ofthe international association in the country (Congress of the International GeographicalUnion, Tunisia 2008), but instead of focusing on organizational and academic matters,the members of the Tunisian Society engaged in a merciless and absurd fight over theright of the Geographical Society of Israel to participate. Instead of being a rare occa-sion to host an international conference with all its benefits for local researchers andmembers of the society, it has led to its division and to endless in-fighting, threateningthe very existence of one of the most active and successful local academic associations.

Indeed, one of the major causes of the poor visibility of NNES academics is theabsence of learned societies. Most journals in the West were founded by learnedsocieties (Kronick 1976). For instance, The Royal Society of London founded thePhilosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London, and The AmericanChemical Society founded The Journal of The American Chemical Society. Some localsocieties manage to edit journals, which do not contribute to a better visibility of NNESresearchers. Salager-Meyer (2008) sums up the main hurdles facing local publications.They include poor quality, limited readership, low prestige, even among local academiccommunities, because of editorial and technical flaws. The survival of the few journalsdepends on a critical assessment of their impact, which (un)fortunately is to be foundin journals published in the centre.

Once again, journals published in underdeveloped countries replicate the problemsthat researchers in the same environments face: the absence of an academic culturethat encourages criticism and avoids censorship. These journals might be the sightfor the discussion of more local issues. Raising the standards of these journals byinviting well-known scholars to be members of their editorial boards would be a stepin the right direction. The solution is not to lower the standards of top journals in theWest, in the case of NNES researchers, so that some space is provided for them, but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

Changing English 251

to raise the standards of some local journals, which are fighting for their survival andhave been established in poor environments. More appropriate solutions will beproposed in the following section of this paper.

Some writings on the causes of the poor visibility of NNES researchers (Canagarajah1996; Flowerdew 2000, 2001) suggest that there is centre and periphery scholarship.I believe that there is disciplinary scholarship which is established by the communityof peers whose origin is not of primary importance. Knowledge is universal, but thisdoes not mean that contributing to its advancement does not honour the person or thenation that has made progress possible. NNES scholars should show the willingnessand the competence to engage in the discussion of hot debates and current issues whichare the concern of top journals.

The material conditions in under-resourced countries, as discussed earlier, are notthe only obstacles to a better visibility. Indeed, what Belcher (2006) reports on thecase of a US-based professor from Ghana, who confesses that in his village there is nolibrary and no electricity, is an extreme case. If there are no essential means forresearch, the case is hopeless. The research conditions reported by Canagarajah (1996)would make it impossible for researchers even to think of contributing to knowledgein today’s world.

It is obvious that there is no research in the absence of the most fundamentalmeans: access to knowledge. Therefore, the label ‘off-network scholars’ has becomea misnomer. Salager-Meyer (2008) reports how off-networked academics are isolatedfrom the scholarly conversation of the discipline, but one wonders how anyone couldbe considered as an academic if he/she is not aware of scholarly conversation in thediscipline. Otherwise, one would admit that second-rate academics in third-worldcountries might have the status of scholars even without sharing the concerns of theirdisciplinary communities. With the advent of new technologies and paperless infor-mation, would-be scholars who lack essential means could not exist. The problemswhich hinder research in what we witness, particularly in some non-Anglophonecontexts such as Tunisia, are of a different nature.

Mastery of English is the most urgent one. Access to computers is not a real prob-lem, as most universities have computer rooms and connection to the internet. Butwhat universities lack is researchers who can process the information produced, mostof the time in English. Talking from personal experience, I have often been told bycolleagues, particularly in the hard sciences, that they have obtained interestingresults, and that journals in their discipline would be eager to publish. However,writing them in English is their most serious problem. They have raw results thatcannot be packaged in order to be disseminated. This is a case of lost science. It seemsto me that lost science is not the result of some research on local/exotic issues thatmight not be situated in the wider context of international research, but some answersprovided by researchers in third world countries to current debates among the interna-tional community of scholars in a particular discipline, and that are validated by thesame community under well-known conditions, including blind reviewing.

Investing in the teaching of English for Academic Purposes would be profitable tothe community of researchers in a non-Anglophone environment, as well as to theinternational community. I taught a course on ‘reading and writing research papers’ atthe Faculty of Sciences in Tunis. A preliminary evaluation of the course showed thatparticipants recognized its benefits, as they said that they gained some confidencewhen dealing with English. The success of this course confirms Salager-Meyer’s(2008) finding that English proficiency is associated with publication output. She even

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

252 T. Labassi

made the claim that ‘the English proficiency of a nation’s scientists was an evenstronger correlate of publication output than funding’ (2008, 124).

One way of contributing to knowledge would be for NNES academics to put whatFlowerdew (2001) proposes into practice: test current dominant theories from theirown perspective. In fact, innovative writing in several domains in peripheral countriesis in this vein. Looking at one’s history, language, literature and society, through theprism of up-to-date theories conceived in the West has provided a fertile territory forscholarly research, to the extent that some of these works are translated into English,when they are not originally published in top journals in the West. Arab Chomskyansworking on Arabic manage to publish in prestigious journals in the field, and Arabdeconstructionists writing on Pre-Islamic poetry are occupying a unique and promis-ing niche. Using new instruments, produced elsewhere, to promote one’s cultural/epistemological heritage is a healthy recipe for transgressing conservative, outdated,if not primitive, local ‘theories’. Who would object to driving a car because it is aproduct of the West?

What one may assume is that since academics working outside the centre, at leastfor the time being, are not in a position to propose new theories, they may test well-established paradigms and offer a new perspective that might improve, or provide, moreevidence for dominant trends. It could be argued that this is belittling for scholars inthe periphery, but given the current constraints under which researchers in under-resourced countries are working; testing, comparing and explaining what is producedelsewhere would be a considerable step in the right direction. Testing dominant theorieswill, at least, allow periphery scholars to negotiate a viable space in the ruthless worldof publish or perish.

Collaboration with well-known scholars in the West is another step in the rightdirection. Arunachalam (2000) laments the low number of papers written by NNESacademics in collaboration with colleagues in the West. Therefore, instead of denounc-ing the poor visibility of NNES academics, scholars who enjoy favourable researchconditions could collaborate with those working in under-resourced contexts. Oneshould admit that some well-known EL scholars in the field have been doing this foryears. Surprisingly, former NNES scholars, established in the West, rarely write papersin collaboration with their former countrymen and women. Some scholars in the Westhave joined the word to the action. Their collaboration has opened the gates for someresearchers in the periphery who, in turn, should continue in the same direction.

Twinning ‘well-established centre scientific journals’ with local journals is aninteresting initiative mentioned by Salager-Meyer (2008, 127). She gives the exampleof the BMJ, the Lancet and JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)twinning project in Mali. Such exemplary steps could be followed by other journals.I believe that this will cut the sterile rhetoric of denunciation, condemnation andlamentation. Let’s follow the steps of the BMJ and the LANCET if we really intend tostop writing about the problem and change this state of imbalance in the world ofacademia.

Unless local journals raise their standards, even academics in the periphery will notaccept considering them in ‘any researcher’s academic promotion assessment onexactly the same footing as their Anglo-American counterpart’, as Salager-Meyer(2008, 129) proposes. When we consider the criteria of acceptance and rejection, wewill certainly object to accepting articles published in local journals for promotion. Theproblem lies in the fact that the day some researchers in non-Anglophone environmentsmanage to found journals that work on the same principles as their counterparts, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

Changing English 253

dependence on Western journals will be reduced and non-Western journals will becompetitive. The trend could even be reversed, as some Western academics may feelthe need to read them. So far, getting rid of ‘slavish obeisance’ (Altbach 1997 inSalager-Meyer 2008, 129) is wishful thinking.

What academics, working in less developed countries, need is equal treatment. Thestruggle for better visibility should not be gained at the expense of merit. The contri-bution of academics from the periphery should go through the same filter of gatekeep-ers, since science is based on equal and objective evaluation of the work of the learnedcommunity. Lowering standards does not serve the interests of science, nor does itserve the community of NNES. Who would accept double standards in academia? Iwant to believe that well-known NNES scholars have been accepted not because theyhave made it, nor because they come from an underprivileged research environment,but because they deserve it. Scholars should have the required credentials and contrib-ute to the advancement of research agenda worldwide. The race, origin and environ-ment of potential scholars should not be considered.

Therefore, the allocation of a fixed quota for NNES researchers in English-onlyinternational journals (Belcher 2006) may remind us of the positive segregation policyin some European countries, which aim at a better representation of minorities in mediaand politics. The world of academia should not replicate political manoeuvring, andinviting unworthy NNES scholars on to the editorial board of some mainstream journalwould not promote research in their countries. This could only serve the career of someindividuals, and often counterproductively. No one would object to the presence ofperiphery scholars on editorial boards provided that they deserve it. This means thatthey should occupy positions not because of their origin or to give bonne conscienceto editors in the West, but because they are well-known scholars in the discipline.

The belief that the presence of periphery members on editorial boards in the Westwould encourage submissions from a periphery provenance is naïve. Belcher goes sofar as saying that ‘perhaps just as reviewers in the same research area as that of theauthors they review may appear hypocritical (especially to outsiders), so too maysome reviewers from the same geopolitical areas as the submitting authors’ (Belcher2006, 23). Thus, one would fall into the extreme alternative of not securing objectiv-ity, as good intentions are not always sufficient to struggle against forms of injustice.

Demonizing editors, referees and the West would lead NNES who work in under-resourced countries nowhere. Facing problems, being up to international standards setby the community of the discipline one wishes to join, being more aggressive, less shyand weepy are the only path to recognition and more visibility. No one is expectingacts of charity from editors and referees, works should be assessed using the samefilters, otherwise one would be receiving poisonous gifts that will add to isolation andinvisibility. Belcher shows the right path to follow:

Only a number of years after receiving the ‘not yet ready for publication’ decision fromESPj (English for Special Purposes journal), after considerable experience revising andresubmitting to journals, did I fully understand as an author what editors and reviewerswho seemed so displeased were actually offering, namely, roadmaps to improvement ofmy work. (Belcher 2006, 8)

Belcher offers a roadmap; the safest way to follow: hard work, commitment to quality,adherence to the rules of the game. Periphery scholars should follow the example,instead of seeking some false presence, just for the sake of decorum, that would vanishwith the change in mood.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013

254 T. Labassi

The other lesson comes from certain publishers who offer temporary free accessto their journals. Researchers in developed countries might not feel the need for suchacts, and may not imagine how helpful this gesture is for their peers who work in lessfavourable environments. Instead of engaging in the rhetoric of the haves and havenots, temporary free access to journals will be of great help to scholars in under-resourced countries. Receiving an email from a publisher informing you that you canhave free access to all the journals, even for a limited period of time, is a much bettergift than accepting an article that is not up to international standards.

No one would deny the hassle of getting published. It is probably the only way togain legitimate status. However, periphery scholars should not occupy spaces that arenot legitimate, and that probably others in the West are better placed to occupy.Asking for fixed quotas would be unrealistic. If some journals agree to reserve spacefor the underprivileged, for the sake of a more balanced academia, this would certainlybe to the detriment of some research that is of better quality, but that does not getpublished, because space has been reserved. Let’s not fall into the trap of another typeof lost science.

ReferencesArunachalam, S. 2000. International collaboration in science: the case of India and China. In

The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield, ed. B. Cronin and H.B.Atkins, 215–31. Medford: Information Today Inc.

Belcher, D. 2006. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world,. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing 16: 1–12.

Canagarajah, A.S. 1996. Non-discursive requirements in academic publishing, materials,resources, of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production, WrittenCommunication 13: 435–72.

Canagarajah, A.S. 2003. A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In Writingfor scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education, ed. C.P. Casanaveand S. Vandrick, 197–210. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Del Castillo, D. 2004, 5 March. The Arab world’s scientific desert, Chronicle of HigherEducation.

Flowerdew, J. 2000. Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly 34: 127–50.

Flowerdew, J. 2001. Attitudes of journal editors toward nonnative speaker contributionsTESOL Quarterly 35: 121–50.

Gibbs, W.W. 1995. Lost science in the third world. Scientific American 273: 76–83.King, D. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311–6.Kramsch, C., and W. Lam. 1999. Textual identities: The importance of being non-native. In

Non-native educators in English language teaching, ed. G. Braine, 57–72. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kronick, D. 1976. A history of scientific and technical periodicals: The origins and develop-ments of the scientific press 1665–1790. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Labassi, T. 1999. Managing constraints. Paper presented at the ESP National Seminar. Tunis:Ecole Nationale des Ingénieurs.

Salager-Meyer. F. 2008. Scientific publishing in developing countries: Future perspectives.Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 121–32.

Swales, J. 1998. Language, science and scholarship. Asian Journal of English LanguageTeaching 8: 1–18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

06:

15 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2013