Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions

By J. Flowerdew. 2001

357 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c99ed5f5ed8b321ed253cf553c26e27868a9d57

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. B. Kwan
2. Yongyan Li
3. J. Flowerdew
4. M. Curry
5. T. Lillis

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. J. Flowerdew
2. B. Kwan
3. Yongyan Li
4. M. Curry
5. T. Lillis
6. U. Wingate

Citations in the corpus

• An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: the Hong Kong case (2010, background): “This, however, has been found to be a major challenge for some novice and off-network researchers from non-Anglo American contexts (see, e.g., Belcher 2007; Flowerdew 2001; Okamura 1995).”
• Shaping Chinese novice scientists' manuscripts for publication (2007, background): “George Braine and Christine Pearson Casanave have been our most supportive colleagues in the larger research project of which the present study is a part.”
• The Non-Anglophone Scholar on the Periphery of Scholarly Publication. (2007, background): “In the late nineties I conducted a study of Hong Kong Cantonese L1 academics (across the disciplines) and their publishing practices (Flowerdew 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000, 2001, 2005).”
• Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman's ''Stigma'' tell us? (2008, background): “…who are sympathetic to the predicament of EAL writers in general (e.g., Ammon, 2000; Canagarajah, 1996, 2002; Cargill & O’Connor, 2006; Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b, 2001; Swales, 2004), proponents of World Englishes as a possible more inclusive way forward (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Kachru,…”
• Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars (2006, background): “Flowerdew (2001) noted that one of the criticisms made by center journal editors of peripheral scholars is that they are too “parochial” (p. 134); yet our study, as illustrated in Text History 2, indicates that the value attributed to peripheral work may often be its localness.”