An increasingly global world likely benefits more international authors

I-O psychologists work in a more and more global world. For example, the professional services company Accenture has offices and operations in 51 countries (https://investor.accenture.com/~/media/Files/A/Accenture-IR-V3/home/2019-annual-report.pdf) and thus needs to adapt its human resources practices to different cultures, because practices established in one country may not generalize to other countries. In fact, cross-cultural differences in many psychological processes are now well established (Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, Reference Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis and Sam2011; Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, Reference Gelfand, Erez and Aycan2007).

There is, however, empirical evidence that our field is everything but global. In particular, we (Bajwa & König, Reference Bajwa and König2019) analyzed 5626 articles that were published in top-ten journals of I-O psychology and found that U.S. authors continue to dominate: 63% of the first authors were affiliated with an U.S. institution. The percentage was even higher (73%) when we took into account whether authors received any education at a U.S. institution and whether there was at least one U.S. co-author. The percentage might be even higher if native English speakers from other predominantly anglophone countries such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and New Zealand were be considered as well. This U.S. dominance is consistent with previous analyses on smaller and more restricted samples within I-O psychology (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, Reference Cascio and Aguinis2008; Shen et al., Reference Shen, Kiger, Davies, Rasch, Simon and Ones2011) and with similar analyses for other fields in psychology (e.g., Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010) and management (e.g., Burgess & Shaw, Reference Burgess and Shaw2010).

Barriers for non-anglophone authors

One reason for the dominance of authors from the Anglo-Saxon world is that the lingua franca for research is clearly English (Politzer-Ahles, Holliday, Girolamo, Spychalska, & Berkson, Reference Politzer-Ahles, Holliday, Girolamo, Spychalska and Berkson2016). Although mastering academic English is a challenge for many authors, it is a particular challenge for authors whose native language is not English (Belcher, Reference Belcher2007; Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess, & Moreno, Reference Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess and Moreno2014; Strauss, Reference Strauss2019). For example, non-anglophone authors might not be aware how much hedging is expected in English research texts (Bajwa, König, & Harrison, Reference Bajwa, König and Harrison2016). Hedging is a linguistic term that describes authors’ strategies to reduce their commitment to statements by using expressions such as “potentially,” “it seems,” and “indicates” (Hyland, Reference Hyland2002). If authors use hedges, they signal to readers that they know that other views are possible and that universal statements are rarely true in science (Salager-Meyer, Reference Salager-Meyer1994). Our research suggests that non-native speakers use hedging less than expected (Bajwa et al., Reference Bajwa, König and Harrison2016) and that a lack of hedging reduces the likelihood of positive reviewer recommendations for publication (Bajwa, Langer, König, & Honecker, Reference Bajwa, Langer, König and Honecker2019). Another example is the use of the expressions “gender” vs. “sex,” which can be important distinctions (at least for some reviewers and readers), but that do not translate to other languages, which makes it difficult for non-anglophone authors to realize when to use which term (Boussebaa & Tienari, Reference Boussebaa and Tienariin press).

Writing academic English is challenging for non-native English speakers, not only when writing manuscripts, but also when writing response letters to the reviewers (Martín et al., Reference Martín, Rey-Rocha, Burgess and Moreno2014). Although some guidance can be found regarding how to write such letters (e.g., writing should be considered as an integrative negotiation, Liu, Reference Liu2014; one should voice respect for the reviewers’ opinions, Happell, Reference Happell2011; and authors need to be aware of indirect requests that should be followed, Paltridge, Reference Paltridge2015), following such guidance requires English language skills that many non-native English researchers may lack.

At the same time, one could also argue that there are likely more important aspects of a manuscript than perfect English because it might be rather the quality of the study design, the quality of the data, and the quality of the analyses that counts. [And who knows? Maybe non-native English speakers’ lack of ability to write in academese or to use a convoluted, bombastic style (Tourish, Reference Tourishin press) is actually an asset, not a liability.]

Conclusion: Tolerant reviewers needed

If the field of I-O psychology wants to embrace researchers from the non-English-speaking part of the world in order to enlarge its global relevance, then we need reviewers who are aware of their own linguistic expectations of a manuscript and those of readers of the journal. Ideally, a tolerant reviewer either knows what specific linguistic aspects likely impact the perception of quality of the manuscript in general (see Bajwa et al., Reference Bajwa, Langer, König and Honecker2019) and is able to offer precise remarks that enable authors to improve their manuscript so that later readers will not react negatively, or a tolerant reviewer is able to overlook imperfections in the mastery of English, as these imperfections might be irrelevant for the overall message and contribution of the study to the field (whereas some of these imperfections might only be in the eye of the beholder).

Hence, in terms of the competency framework for peer review, we propose additions and/or clarifications in two subdimensions: First, as for the subdimension of constructiveness in professionalism, we feel that it is not only about being patient toward non-native speakers, but it is also about reviewers having the relevant knowledge on what linguistic characteristics impact their perception of a manuscript and whether these characteristics would also impact other readers or whether it is only a matter of personal preference of the reviewer. Second, we propose to include the separation of linguistic/language issues from content issues into the subdimension of efficiency in mechanical skills, as such a separation would likely result in reviewers better knowing what is causing concerns and benefit non-native speakers in terms of increasing their awareness that some concerns might not be related to the content in general but to linguistic differences that can be sorted out before publication.

Hopefully such a mindful approach of reviewers toward linguistic challenges will result in a higher number of reviewers who help to polish the gem of a great study instead of just polishing the English writing.