N※N

Science is leaving behind women, non-English speakers. We must level the field

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. on-english-speakers-we-must-level-the-field.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Saturday, September 20th 2025 at 13:58 GMT by ThePrint
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Science is leaving behind women, non‑English speakers – we must level the field

In a compelling piece that has already sparked debate across research circles, The Print’s “Science is leaving behind women, non‑English speakers – we must level the field” (https://theprint.in/science/science-is-leaving-behind-women-non-english-speakers-we-must-level-the-field/2747624/) lays out a stark picture of how entrenched gender and linguistic biases continue to shape the global scientific enterprise. Drawing on data from a range of studies and interviews with scholars from diverse backgrounds, the article argues that the academic system is not only skewed toward English‑speaking, male‑led institutions but is also systematically marginalising women and scholars from the Global South.

1. The English‑language monopoly

A cornerstone of the article is the observation that the vast majority of high‑impact journals—those that define a scientist’s career trajectory—publish exclusively in English. According to the report, “the proportion of papers indexed in major databases like Web of Science and Scopus that are in languages other than English has fallen from 8 % in 1990 to a mere 3 % in 2020.” This linguistic gatekeeping means that research produced in other languages often goes unnoticed by the international community, which in turn limits citations, funding, and career advancement for non‑English‑speaking scientists.

The article links to an open‑access project, “Decolonising the Scientific Alphabet” (https://decolonise.science), which catalogs peer‑reviewed journals in French, Spanish, Arabic, and other languages, arguing that these outlets should receive the same prestige and indexing status as their English counterparts.

2. Women’s publication gap

While the language bias is systemic, gender bias is deeply embedded. The article cites a 2022 meta‑analysis from Nature that shows women are publishing at 1.5 % fewer papers than men across all disciplines, and they are cited, on average, 12 % less frequently. Moreover, women occupy only 29 % of editorial board positions in top‑tier journals (the article references the “Global Editorial Board Survey” hosted by the Committee on Publication Ethics).

The piece highlights real‑world stories from early‑career women researchers in India and Brazil who describe the “publish or perish” culture as being especially unforgiving. They report that even when publishing in high‑visibility journals, they are often cited less because reviewers, editors, and readers unconsciously favour male colleagues. The article further notes that women are under‑represented in invited talks and keynote slots at major conferences—an omission that perpetuates a cycle of visibility.

3. Intersectionality: when language and gender collide

The Print article goes beyond two‑dimensional statistics to examine the compounded disadvantages faced by women who also happen to be non‑English speakers. A 2021 survey of 1,200 scholars in the Global South shows that women scientists who publish in their native language receive 30 % fewer citations than their male counterparts publishing in English. In other words, even when women attempt to navigate the English‑only system, they encounter a “double bind” that further diminishes their impact.

The article references an interview with Dr. Amrita Rao, a physicist from Bengaluru who published a seminal paper in a regional journal that later gained traction in a global venue after an English translation. Rao’s story underscores the importance of institutional support for language editing and translation services—a point the piece stresses as a policy imperative.

4. Funding and infrastructure gaps

Beyond publication, the article underscores how funding agencies are skewed. A recent audit by the European Commission found that proposals submitted in languages other than English are more likely to receive lower scores, even when controlled for technical merit. The article highlights a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that revealed women applicants receive, on average, 4 % less funding per grant cycle than men.

Furthermore, the print notes that digital infrastructure disparities exacerbate the problem: many countries lack robust high‑speed internet access or institutional repositories, meaning their researchers are unable to engage fully with open‑access mandates that have become standard in most high‑impact journals.

5. Calls for systemic change

The article does not stop at diagnosing problems; it offers concrete actions that journals, funding bodies, and universities can adopt:

1. Multilingual editorial boards – Encourage editors who are fluent in multiple languages to diversify the review process.
2. Open‑access translation services – Provide grants that cover professional translation of abstracts and key sections, ensuring non‑English articles are visible to the wider community.
3. Equity metrics in hiring and promotion – Incorporate citation counts, editorial roles, and conference speaking slots for women and non‑English scholars into promotion criteria.
4. Bias‑aware peer‑review systems – Implement double‑blind reviewing to mitigate conscious or unconscious preference for English or male authors.
5. Funding safeguards – Establish a dedicated fund for women and non‑English researchers that covers application fees, conference travel, and publication costs.

The Print article ends by quoting a statement from the World Association for International Research and Development (WAIRD) that reads: “Science is a universal endeavour; its greatest strength lies in its diversity. To maintain that strength, we must dismantle the walls that prevent equal participation.”

6. Wider context and global resonance

The piece frames the gender‑language imbalance as part of a broader conversation about decolonising science. It links to UNESCO’s 2023 “Science, Technology, and Innovation for Development” report, which calls for an inclusive framework that recognises knowledge systems beyond the Anglophone West. The article notes that several leading institutions—including the University of Cape Town and the Indian Institute of Science—have already launched initiatives to support multilingual research outputs, a trend that the article sees as a beacon of hope.

7. Conclusion

“The Print” article is a clarion call that echoes throughout the scientific community: gender and language inequities are not quaint relics but active, data‑driven barriers that restrict the breadth and depth of scientific progress. By underscoring the intersectionality of these issues and offering actionable remedies, the piece invites researchers, publishers, and policymakers alike to rethink the structures that have long governed scholarly communication.

In a world where knowledge is increasingly accessible, the onus is now on the scientific ecosystem itself to ensure that accessibility translates into equal opportunity—regardless of gender, nationality, or mother tongue. The article ends with a sobering reminder that science can only thrive when its contributors are truly valued and visible.