English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes

journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of

Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sciences
Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor a, *, Jesús Rey-Rocha b, Ana I. Moreno c
a
Department of English Studies, Universitat Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, 12071 Castelló, Spain
b
Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
c
Department of Modern Philology, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, 24071 León, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the last decades, publishing research in the international arena has become an imper-
Available online 24 June 2014 ative among scholars in Spain. However, many researchers experience difficulties in
publishing their work in English-medium international journals. The present paper is part
Keywords: of a wider research project which aims at identifying, analysing and catering for the needs
Academic writing of Spanish researchers in English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP). The first stage
ERPP needs
of our project involved a large-scale online survey administered to researchers at five
Social sciences
universities and research institutions in Spain. This paper reports on the responses pro-
Intercultural rhetoric
vided by informants from the social fields of Education, Psychology and Sociology. Taking a
Spanish–English intercultural perspective, our objective is twofold: firstly, to explore the
difficulties experienced by Spanish scholars in these disciplines, along with the strategies
they use when publishing in English; and secondly, to identify their ERPP needs, with the
prospect of developing materials and courses which will help them produce effective
academic writing and publish their research internationally. The results point at a
generalised need for training in specific areas of academic writing, such as the rhetorical
sections of the RA and the most common problems and difficulties encountered by Spanish
authors when writing their papers in English.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the last few decades, publishing research in the international arena has become an ever-pressing need among Spanish
scholars. The current Spanish research system, established in 1989, requires its members to produce a substantial number of
high-quality scientific papers, which must be submitted and published in indexed mainstream journals in order to reach a
wider research community and achieve worldwide visibility among peers (Cargill & O’Connor, 2006; Kindelan, 2009; St John,
1987). As Kindelan (2009, p. 95) points out: “[W]e cannot escape the fact that to disseminate new knowledge at first hand
today means channelling information through prestigious scientific publications. For this purpose, it is necessary to inter-
nationalise science in Spain. This can be achieved by pushing investigators to publish in international journals.”
The research evaluation system in Spain, designed “to improve the quality of Spanish science and its visibility in journals”
(Jiménez-Contreras, Delgado López-Cózar, Ruiz-Pérez, & Fernández, 2002, p. 898), awards tenured professors and researchers

* Corresponding author. Department d’Estudis Anglesos, Facultat de Ciències Humanes i Socials, Universitat Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, 12071 Castelló,
Spain. Tel.: þ34 964 729627; fax: þ34 964 729261.
E-mail addresses: gea@ang.uji.es (M.-L. Gea-Valor), jesus.rey@cchs.csic.es (J. Rey-Rocha), ana.moreno@unileon.es (A.I. Moreno).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.05.001
0889-4906/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
48 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

with career promotion and salary increments, the so-called sexenios. In order to obtain a sexenio, the National Commission for
the Evaluation of Research Activity assesses five research contributions published in a six-year period. A special premium is
placed on publications in English in journals with a high-impact factor (Jiménez-Contreras, de Moya Anegón, & Delgado
López-Cózar, 2003; Lillis & Curry, 2010). This drive towards internationalisation exerts increasing pressure on researchers
and scholars across all disciplines, as Lillis and Curry (2010, p. 59) state: “[T]he imperative to publish in English places
demands on periphery scholars that many Anglophone-centred scholars may not contend with.”
The current dominance of English as the international language of scientific communication is beyond dispute. Important
issues such as equal access to the international academy as well as participation in knowledge production and dissemination
are at stake, especially in non-Anglophone countries where English is used as a foreign language (Curry & Lillis, 2004; Lillis &
Curry, 2006, 2010; Tardy, 2004). In such an environment, many studies have explored the academic writing difficulties faced
by multilingual scholars trying to publish their research in internationally refereed English-medium journals. Of special
relevance is the work on Hong Kong Chinese academics (Flowerdew, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), Portuguese researchers (Bennett,
2010a, 2010b), scholars from Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Slovakia (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010), researchers in Poland (Duszak
& Lewkowicz, 2008), Mexican scholars (Hanauer & Englander, 2011) and Spanish academics (Ferguson, Pérez-Llantada, & Pló,
2011; Fernández Polo & Cal Varela, 2009), to name but a few.
Focussing our attention on Spanish scholars, it has been established that many experience difficulties in publishing their
work in English in international journals in part because of a lack of familiarity with international discourse practices arising
from insufficient training in successful academic writing (Burgess & Martín-Martín, 2008; Moreno, 2010). Recent cross-
cultural studies on academic writing have also revealed the existence of significant differences in the rhetorical, stylistic
and discourse features used by Spanish authors and those used by their native English-speaking counterparts (Burgess &
Fagan, 2006; Kindelan, 2009; Moreno & Suárez, 2008; Mur-Dueñas, 2007; Valero-Garcés, 1996). An additional problem are
the low levels of proficiency in English, which in many cases contribute to feelings of inadequacy on the part of Spanish
scholars especially when comparing themselves to first language users of English (Ferguson et al., 2011; Fernández Polo & Cal
Varela, 2009).
One result of this situation is a growing demand among Spanish scholars for EAP courses or, more precisely, for courses on
ERPP (English for Research Publication Purposes). These courses “can be thought of as a branch of EAP addressing the con-
cerns of professional researchers and post-graduate students who need to publish in peer-reviewed international journals”
(Cargill & Burgess, 2008, p. 75). The objective of ERPP courses is to attend to the needs of scholars and researchers by
providing specific training in those skills relevant to writing and publishing research in English.
The present study is part of a wider research project currently conducted by ENEIDA (Spanish Team for Intercultural
Studies of Academic Discourse), which encompasses researchers from five universities and research institutions in Spain,
namely CSIC, Universidad de León, Universidad de Zaragoza, Universidad de La Laguna in Tenerife and Universitat Jaume I in
Castelló. The project seeks to arrive at a better understanding of the reasons why Spanish scholars choose to write their
research in Spanish or English and to publish this research in either national or international journals. At the same time, it sets
out to identify the disciplinary fields in which most difficulty is experienced and in which training needs are most acute, while
also isolating those academic genres and rhetorical practices which pose more of a challenge to Spanish researchers when
they write in English. A final and particularly crucial aim of the project is to inform the design of materials and training
courses tailored to the previously identified needs of these scholars in terms of writing for publication purposes.
One of the main innovative aspects of the project is precisely the intercultural approach it takes. Intercultural rhetoric, as
“a research field that seeks to identify and explain some of the rhetorical and stylistic accommodations that multilingual
writers need to make in order to achieve their communication goals interculturally” (Moreno, 2013; see also Connor, 2004),
provides us with the most suitable framework to explore the possible causes for the difficulties experienced by Spanish
writers who need to publish in English internationally, such as a potential transfer of rhetorical and stylistic features between
two different writing cultures, that is to say, from Spanish into English academic writing. By offering insights into the atti-
tudes, motivations, demands and needs of Spanish researchers with regard to reporting their research in English as opposed
to doing so in Spanish, we believe we will be able to design useful rhetorical solutions to facilitate the international
dissemination of Spanish research.
The first stage of the project consisted in a large-scale online questionnaire survey in which 37 questions were posed to
researchers with doctorates at the aforementioned universities and research institutions in Spain (see Moreno, Rey-Rocha,
Burgess, López-Navarro, & Sachdev, 2012). In the context of this project, the present paper draws on the responses to the
whole survey – which make up the ENEIDA database – provided by informants from three fields within the social sciences
(following the UNESCO classification), namely Education, Psychology and Sociology. Research in these disciplines has
experienced a gradual but steady growth in Spain in the last few decades. According to a recent study (García Delgado, Alonso,
& Jiménez, 2013, p. 41), the social sciences “have a significant presence in the Spanish system of science and technology,
incorporating more than one third of researchers in the public sphere” (our translation).
Traditionally, English has been the dominant language of communication in the natural sciences given its hegemony in
this disciplinary area. Ferguson et al. (2011, p. 57) claim that “English is generally more dominant in academic publication in
the natural than in the social sciences, and that life/physical scientists have longer experience with this dominance.” Lillis and
Curry (2010, p. 9) also indicate that “more than 90% of indexed natural science journals” are written in English. The social
sciences, on the other hand, have recently undergone a change in this respect and started to accept English as the main
publication medium. As Lillis and Curry (2006, p. 4) point out: “More than 90% of the social science articles in journals tracked
 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 49

by the Institute for Scientific Information in 2004 were published in English (Web of Science, 2005).” This view is also
sustained by Burgess and Fagan (2006, p. 46), who argue that “[t]he needs of those in science and technology have been the
major concern. Somewhat less is known about the differences in terms of publication strategies employed, resources used and
difficulties experienced by those working in the social sciences and humanities.”
Studies such as the one reported here attempt to fill this gap. Taking a Spanish–English intercultural perspective, our main
objective is twofold: on the one hand, to explore the difficulties experienced by Spanish scholars in these disciplines, along
with the strategies they employ when publishing in English; and on the other hand, to identify their writing needs in ERPP,
with the prospect of developing materials and courses which will help them produce effective and persuasive academic
writing and publish their research in international-level outlets.

2. Methodology

In order to determine the needs and wants in ERPP of Spanish scholars in the disciplines of Education, Psychology and
Sociology, we have drawn data from the ENEIDA database. This database was created in 2010 by means of an online survey. As
reported in Moreno et al. (2011), the survey had two major aims: a) to collect information about Spanish scholars’ publication
experiences in English- and Spanish-medium journals; and b) to collect information about relevant variables affecting writing
and learning to write in ERPP by contrast to writing in Spanish for similar purposes. Its overall objective was to allow for
future intercultural and cross-cultural studies to be carried out, as well as analyses of Spanish scholars’ needs in ERPP training.
The design, validation and implementation procedures of the ENEIDA survey as well as its participants are described in
detail in Moreno et al. (2011, 2012). In particular, 24 face-to-face exploratory interviews were conducted in 2010 at three of the
five Spanish higher education and research institutions participating in the project. The main purpose of these interviews was
to validate the content and the structure of the survey. The interviewees involved constitute a representative cross-section in
terms of gender, publication experience in English, and disciplinary field. On the basis of their responses, and after content-
analysing the interviews, a 37-question online survey was designed. The questions were phrased in such a way as “to avoid
leading participants to answer in specific ways and to avoid ambiguities” (Moreno et al., 2012, p. 164).
The questionnaire, which is available at http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php (Moreno, Burgess, Sachdev,
López-Navarro, & Rey-Rocha, 2013), contained six sections: 1. personal and professional information; 2. competence in the
use of Spanish and English; 3. choice of language for publication; 4. experience with publishing research articles; 5. current
writing strategies for publication in scientific journals in English; and 6. training in research article writing.
A decision was made to survey only scholars with doctorates (in order to control for lack of research experience), and to
distinguish between scientific fields, publication experience and proficiency in English. After piloting the online survey
among 200 informants, the final version of the questionnaire was administered online to a population of 8,794 scholars with
doctorates. From this raw population, 1,717 responded and completed the questionnaire, which represents a response rate of
19.5%. After this, the following filters were implemented to confine ourselves to the target sample: respondents had to a) have
Castilian Spanish as L1; b) have received their secondary and pre-doctoral education and training in Spain; and c) have
received their secondary and pre-doctoral education and training in Spanish. The resulting database consists of 1,454
participants who met those criteria. Out of these, 63.6% were males and 36.4% females, with a mean age of 46.34 years, and an
average of 16.18 postdoctoral years.
The present paper reports on the responses to the questionnaire provided by a total of 111 informants from the following
fields within the social sciences: 38 from Education, 50 from Psychology, and 23 from Sociology. These include all respondents
from these three fields who participated in our survey. It is important to mention that almost three quarters (73.3%) of our
informants expressed a willingness to collaborate in further stages of the project. Together this group make up 7.6% of those
who responded to the questionnaire. Education and Psychology (and to a lesser extent, Sociology) were the social science
disciplines which received the most number of responses to our survey. The results we report offer key insights into the
training needs of these participants and suggest the kinds of materials and approaches to training that would best meet these
needs. We also draw useful comparisons with other disciplines, especially Medicine, where the contrasts are particularly
striking, as well as with the undifferentiated group, which includes survey respondents across all disciplines, namely Natural
and Exact Sciences, Technological Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Personal and professional information

This section captures the personal and professional profile of the participants in the survey. Our population consists of
51.5% males and 48.5% females, with a mean age of 47.03 years and an average of 13.16 years from the date of obtaining a
doctoral degree.
As regards academic status, following the American categorisation (see Figure 1), most of our informants (43.2%) hold an
‘associate professor’ position, 12.6% are ‘assistant professors’ and 10.8% are ‘full professors’, while the rest hold lower teaching
positions (20.7%) or exclusively research ones (12.6%).
Certainly, age, research experience and academic seniority are important sociodemographic factors which must be taken
into account in our study, especially when dealing with publication success rates and experience (see Q24 in Section 3.4).
50 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

Figure 1. Professional status.

3.2. Competence in general English and English for academic purposes

Questionnaire respondents were asked to self-report on their general language proficiency according to five main
communicative dimensions, namely listening, speaking, spoken interaction, reading and writing. As Table 1 shows, more than
half of the informants rated their competence in reading for general purposes as ‘high’ to ‘very high’, while in all other
categories they exhibited little confidence in their abilities in English, especially those related to the oral skills.
These findings are consistent with the results obtained in the study by Fernández Polo and Cal Varela (2009), in which
scholars at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain were asked to rate their competence in English. In their survey,
oral production, especially pronunciation and fluency, was rated the lowest, whereas competence in the other dimensions
was described as average. This may be better accounted for if we consider the status of the English language in the Spanish
educational context, characterised by a traditional lack of emphasis on speaking skills. Moreover, as Lillis and Curry (2006, p.
6) point out, in Spain “English has historically been granted a relatively low profile with thus limited opportunities for
learning English”, in sharp contrast with other European countries, especially in northern Europe, where English is commonly
the language of instruction at the university level.
Regarding self-reports on EAP proficiency, almost half of our respondents estimated their command of spoken academic
English as ‘low’ or ‘very low’, whereas the ability to read specialised texts was rated the highest. If we focus specifically on
writing, which is the main interest in our study, we asked our informants to rate their competence in those aspects of ac-
ademic writing related to the research publication process: on the one hand, writing a research paper or a book chapter and,
on the other hand, corresponding with the editors and peer reviewers. As can be seen in Figure 2, social scientists rate their
competence in maintaining publication-related correspondence higher than their ability to write RAs, although the ratings in
both aspects are quite low, especially if we compare them with hard-science disciplines such as Medicine, where over half of
the informants report high levels of academic writing competence.
These low levels of self-reported proficiency suggest that special attention must be given to these crucial aspects of the
research publication process so that Spanish researchers in these fields may have a chance to participate actively in their
community of practice from the periphery (Flowerdew, 2000).

3.3. Language choices for research publication: attitudes and motivations

In order to determine the attitudes and motivations of our respondents towards writing for research publication purposes,
the first question (Q12) in Section 3 of the questionnaire asked them about the mean number of scientific articles they had
published as corresponding authors in English and Spanish in the ten-year period before December 2010, when the ques-
tionnaire was administered. The mean number of papers in English was 3.6 versus 11.1 in Spanish. This is in marked contrast
with the results obtained in the undifferentiated group, where 16.3 was the average number of RAs published in English
versus 6.1 in Spanish. The contrast is even more striking with Medicine, where the mean number of papers published in
English is 15 versus only 4.9 in Spanish. This is not surprising, given the fact that most Spanish social scientists feel more
capable and confident when writing in their L1, especially if we consider their levels of EAP proficiency. Another possible
interpretation is the local relevance of their research and the potential interest it may arouse in the immediate national

Table 1
Self-reported competence in general English.

Very low–low Average Very high–high

Listening (i.e., understanding TV and radio programmes) 40.6% 38.6% 20.8%
Speaking (i.e., describing events, giving instructions) 50.5% 24.8% 24.8%
Spoken interaction (i.e., discussing topics of general interest) 51.5% 27.7% 20.8%
Reading (i.e., reading newspapers and popular science magazines) 8.9% 25.7% 65.3%
Writing (i.e., writing short stories, personal letters and letters of complaint) 40.6% 30.7% 28.7%
 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 51

Figure 2. Academic writing competence related to the publication process.

context. However, this does not translate into Spanish overwhelmingly being the preferred language of publication, arguably
due to the fact that publishing in English is gradually being perceived as a more beneficial path leading to career promotion
and international recognition. A high proportion of our social science informants (82.1%) reported feeling ‘very motivated’ to
write and publish in English-medium journals, and more than half think it likely that their next article will be published in
English.
Another aspect to take into consideration here is the availability of publication outlets in English and Spanish in these
fields. None of our informants commented on a lack of Spanish-language journals in the social sciences; the problem is
that very few of these journals have an impact factor or are included in prestigious databases and citation indexes – for
example, out of the 2,731 social sciences journals included in the Journal Citation Report in 2010, only 81 (2.97%) were
published in Spanish (García Delgado et al., 2013). This may well explain why these scholars feel so motivated to publish in
English-medium journals. The situation is very different in the hard and natural sciences, for instance in Medicine, a
discipline where non-Anglophone scholars do not have much of a choice in terms of publication language since the
number of national medical journals in Spanish has dramatically dropped in the last few decades (García Delgado et al.,
2013; Navarro, 2001).
Apart from Spanish, our respondents also reported a number of publications in other Romance languages such as French,
Portuguese, Catalan (a language of northeastern Spain) and Italian. One likely explanation for the use of these languages is the
fact that the research reported may be concerned with aspects which affect the neighbouring geographic areas where these
languages are spoken. This further underlines the multilingual character of social sciences scholars in Spain (Lillis & Curry,
2010).
As for the reasons for publishing an RA in a scientific journal in English (Q13), the main motivation reported was the need
to communicate the results of research to the international scientific community (89.6%). Similarly, the desire for research
work in English to be widely recognised by the community was considered an influential factor by 88.1% of the social sci-
entists surveyed. This “international exposure” is also pointed out in Bennett’s (2010b) study of Portuguese researchers in the
humanities and the social sciences. One of our informants, for instance, explicitly mentioned as the main reason to choose
English the need to publish in high-impact journals in order to obtain a sexenio. Other important motivations were the desire
to get cited more frequently (68.7%) and the confidence in the quality of one’s paper (67.2%).
In contrast, motivations for publishing in Spanish were rated quite differently: the desire to communicate research results
internationally was considered a significant factor by 45.4% of our participants, noticeably lower than in English. In contrast,
communicating results to the local community was the main reason for publishing in Spanish (71.1%). This may be attributed
to the local relevance of most of the research reported in the social sciences, and also possibly to the fact that some social
scientists may still consider Spanish as a legitimate vehicle to disseminate knowledge and hope for the continued existence of
scientific journals in this language. In Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008), most of the Psychology scholars surveyed also selected
their L1, in this case Polish, as the preferred language of publication, mainly for reasons related to reaching their intended
audience more effectively, as well as the desire to be more widely recognised within the local research community. Having
research recognised was precisely another reason why our informants choose Spanish as a language of publication (55.7%).
Finally, receiving a higher number of citations when publishing in Spanish was rated as influential by only 22.7% of re-
spondents, whereas assessment of the quality of their paper led 55.7% of our respondents to publish in Spanish.
Interestingly, given the peculiarities of Spanish research today, where productivity is a key factor in career promotion,
when asked about the relationship between the productivity of Spanish researchers and publishing research in English or
Spanish, for almost three quarters of participants publishing in English helps productivity ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a lot’, while only 43%
are of the same opinion regarding publishing in Spanish.
These results clearly show the perceived importance of publishing in English in the social sciences in Spain today, despite
most scholars’ lack of confidence in their EAP writing skills, and are in line with studies such as those by Flowerdew (1999a)
and Fernández Polo and Cal Varela (2009). As stated earlier, the Spanish career promotion system puts a premium on the
number of publications and citations in high-impact English-medium journals, which explains the fact that most Spanish
social scientists are beginning to feel more motivated to write and publish their research in English rather than in their native
language. This, however, is a recent tendency, as pointed out by Jiménez-Contreras et al. (2003, p. 140): “[t]he fields of Social
Sciences and Humanities have had lower growth rates in percentage terms (i.e., the proportion of applicants who were
52 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

awarded sexenios in these disciplines was much lower in comparison with the ‘experimental’ sciences). [.] the results so far
suggest that researchers in these areas have yet to adapt fully to the evaluation system.”
The next item (Q17) asked participants about the specific factors which influenced them in their decision not to publish
their papers in English-medium journals. More than half (68%) think that their writing ability in English is below the standard
the journals require, which discourages them from sending their RAs to English-medium journals. This is consistent with the
self-reported levels of competence in academic writing addressed in Section 2.2 and may well explain the low mean number
of articles in English published by our informants in the ten-year period prior to December 2010. In addition, a lack of
knowledge of the writing conventions of international journals is the main reason not to publish there in 37% of the cases. In
fact, when our respondents were asked about their publishing experience (see results below relating to Q18), this factor
emerged as one of the main reasons for revision of the manuscript.
Amongst the difficulties experienced when publishing in English (Q18), our informants reported the following factors on a
five-point scale ranging from 1 (¼not at all) to 5 (¼a lot):

 features of my writing in English (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, ways of expressing ideas clearly in paragraphs, and stylistic
mistakes such as long sentences or complex constructions): 5
 not offering results of sufficient interest to the readers of the journal: 2
 presumed flaws in certain areas of the content of the research (e.g., design methods, use of statistics, etc.): 3
 not following the writing conventions expected by the journal when reporting my research (e.g., putting my research into
a wider context, appropriately reviewing the literature, clearly expressing my contribution to the field, making sure my
conclusions fit my objectives, etc.): 3
 not writing in accordance with the instructions in the journal’s style guide (e.g., word limits, format of tables, figures,
pages, citations, bibliography, etc.): 2
 not writing on a topic that fits the content of the journal to which I submitted the article: 2

These results regarding perceived difficulties are closely related to the experiences of publication our respondents have
had in the course of their academic career and in general terms coincide with the types of revision most often required by
journal editors and reviewers (see Q24 in Section 3.4). Lacking the necessary language skills appears to be a major obstacle
in getting research published in English, especially if we take into consideration the results related to self-reported
competence in EAP. These linguistic difficulties are also pointed out by Bennett (2010b), Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008),
Ferguson et al. (2011), Fernández Polo and Cal Varela (2009), Flowerdew (1999a, 2000), Hanauer and Englander (2011),
and Uzuner (2008).
This situation has led many of our respondents to make use of language services, especially translators, before submitting a
manuscript to a journal, although this very much depends on the availability of funds. Though expensive, relying on trans-
lators seems to be a successful strategy which contributes to lessening the burden of writing research in a foreign language
(see Q28 in Section 3.5).
So far, these findings indicate that, for the majority of our participants, publishing in English is associated with impact and
recognition of their research by their disciplinary community at an international level, which is not the case when considering
publication in Spanish. Interestingly, however, this does not translate into a significantly higher preference to publish in an
English-medium journal in comparison to a Spanish-medium one, at least in the fields explored. This may be due to the fact
that the social sciences, in contrast with the hard and the experimental sciences, “invite localization and make communi-
cation in English an ideological choice” (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008, p. 111). Moreover, the difficulties encountered when
trying to publish in English may tip the balance towards deciding to disseminate research findings locally to a very specific
readership, which may significantly increase the chances of publication.
Participants were also asked to consider to what extent publishing their research in Spanish and in English helps or
hinders communicating such research internationally (Q22). Most respondents believe that publishing in English has a major
impact in the international arena (89%) compared to publishing in Spanish (18%). With regard to the participation of Spanish
researchers in international networks, 90% think that publishing in English increases Spanish scholars’ visibility in inter-
national forums, while 18% believe that publishing in Spanish clearly diminishes international visibility. Moreover, when
asked about which of the two languages contributes more to the advancement of global scientific knowledge in their field,
42% feel that publishing in Spanish encourages such progress ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a lot’, but publishing in English is reported to do
so by almost twice as many respondents (77%). Undoubtedly, these factors represent a significant difference regarding the
perception of the impact of one’s research and can be related to the results obtained by Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008), in
whose study the main reasons nominated for publishing in English were, firstly, the fact that most prestigious journals and
periodicals are in English, and secondly, the perception that publishing in English gives access to a wider, international
audience.
In contrast, publication in Spanish is regarded as a key factor for the survival of journals in this language (85%) and for the
development of an academic language in Spanish (73%). These results suggest that most of the social scientists surveyed
consider publishing in English as more beneficial in terms of international recognition of their work but still believe that
Spanish plays a crucial role in the dissemination of knowledge in their fields. In this sense, they must strike a balance between
their personal motivations and motivations connected to benefiting the local discourse community.
 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 53

3.4. Experience with publishing RAs

After exploring the attitudes and motivations of survey participants towards publishing in English, we now turn to focus
on their personal experience with the publication of their research in order to identify the most recurrent difficulties
experienced by Spanish social scientists in the writing of their RAs and in the subsequent publication process.
Despite their high levels of motivation and their belief that publication in English has benefits for Spanish science in
general and work in their own discipline in particular, the success rates of these scholars when writing in English (Q24) is
relatively low: less than a third succeeded in having their paper published with hardly any changes, while over half were
asked to revise their texts. In the undifferentiated group, the percentage of cases in which papers in English were accepted
with minor changes was also quite low (26.2%). In Medicine the figure was slightly higher (36%), which suggests that in this
discipline scholars are much more experienced in ERPP writing than their counterparts in the rest of disciplines; this can also
be related to the average number of articles published in English, which is considerably higher in the medical sciences (see
Section 3.3 above). Another important factor which may be related to publication success is postdoctoral experience: in the
social sciences, our respondents had finished their PhDs on average 13.16 years previously, whereas in Medicine the mean
number of research experience years was 18.07. Regarding academic status and seniority, the proportion of associate pro-
fessors and tenured staff was also higher in Medicine (50%) than in the social sciences (31.5%).
The type of revisions which were most often required by the journal editors had to do with the style and the discourse
features of the texts, such as sentence length, complicated paragraphs, grammatical and lexical mistakes, and so on. This is in
agreement with Uzuner’s (2008) analysis of the most typical problems encountered by multilingual scholars involved in
international publication, which basically include poor expression in English, limited vocabulary, complicated syntax, unclear
modality, and inappropriate usage of idiomatic expressions. To a lesser extent, content adjustment was also required, as well
as the requirement to conform more closely to the writing conventions expected by the journal, that is, putting one’s research
into a wider theoretical context, appropriately reviewing the literature, or clearly expressing one’s contribution to the field.
Those participants who had their articles initially rejected reported as one of the main reasons for rejection the fact that
they did not use appropriate discourse and stylistic features in their writing. The presence of flaws in certain areas of the
content of their research, such as design, methods or use of statistical tests, was another common factor for rejection. As
secondary reasons, we find not following the writing conventions expected by the journal and not adhering to the in-
structions in the journal’s style guide.
These findings are consistent with the studies by Flowerdew (1999a, 2000) and Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008). The former
suggests that non-native English speaking scholars face linguistic difficulties when writing for publication in international
journals in English as well as difficulties related to academic writing itself. In the latter, the authors identified problems with
the English language as the main reason for rejection, followed by the fact that the topic of the RA was of no interest to the
journal in question or the fact that the paper did not meet the journal’s requirements.
In contrast, the success rate when submitting a manuscript in Spanish is considerably higher (59.8%), probably because
writers are more familiar with the Spanish academic register and conventions. In fact, when revision was required, the main
reason had to do with the content of the paper rather than with discourse conventions or style. In contrast, having flaws in the
content was not a significant reason for rejection of manuscripts written in Spanish. Another potentially contributing factor
which may influence the higher success rate of Spanish-written manuscripts is the fact that they are submitted to national
journals with lower rejection rates in comparison with international English-language journals.
The second item regarding experience in RA publication (Q25) explored which sections of the paper in English pose more
difficulties or prove to be more challenging during the writing process. The discussion section was found to be the most
complex one, followed by the conclusion, the theoretical framework, the introduction, the methodology and the abstract. For
the undifferentiated group, the discussion, the conclusion, the introduction and the theoretical framework are also the
sections of the paper that give our informants the most trouble (see Table 2).
The fact that the discussion section poses more challenges is not an unexpected finding since this is the section in which
writers must convincingly demonstrate the relevance of their research and relate it to the previous literature, which calls for a
good command of a wide array of rhetorical and discourse features. Flowerdew (1999b), in his interview-based study of

Table 2
Difficulties related to RA sections and publication documents in the social sciences and across all disciplines.

Social sciences All disciplines

Abstract 26.9% 21.5%
Introduction 44.8% 30.3%
Theoretical framework 58.2% 26%
Materials and methods 37.3% 14.9%
Results 43.3% 22.5%
Discussion 78.8% 46.6%
Conclusions 60.6% 30.8%
Acknowledgements 16.9% 6.4%
Cover letter 32.8% 13.9%
Response to reviewers’ comments 50.8% 26.8%
Correspondence with the editor 30.3% 14.3%
54 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

Chinese researchers’ problems in writing for academic publication in English, affirms that the introduction and the discussion
sections are the most problematic parts “because they require a persuasive style of writing in which the individual voice of the
author needs to come through. Writers have to convince their readers (including editors and reviewers) in these two sections
of the importance of their research and the arguments they are putting forward” (1999b, p. 258).
Uzuner (2008), in her thorough review of research on the publication practices of multilingual scholars, states that the
most challenging RA sections to write in English are the introduction, the literature review and the discussion. These are the
parts “where scholars make the rhetorical moves of counter claiming, raising a question, and indicating a gap in the current
literature to insert themselves into the scholarly tradition, create a research space for their work, and promote its significance
and value” (2008, p. 255). Uzuner attributes these difficulties to cultural issues, not linguistic ones, and asserts that the
stylistic divergences found in the papers of multilingual scholars have to do with their specific cultural values, which often do
not match those of the disciplinary community.
In similar terms, Moreno et al. (2012) suggest that Spanish scholars’ difficulties in writing the discussion section are related
to the differences in “the critical attitude of Spanish researchers towards previous academic works, and their own findings” (p.
172) rather than to potential low levels of proficiency in English, and hypothesise that “the more familiar Spanish researchers
are with the conventions of the RA genre in English-medium journals (including the display of an appropriate critical attitude
towards their own and others’ previous work) the less difficult they will find it to write discussions in English” (p. 173).
Regarding the documentation involved in the publication process, half of our informants deemed responding to the
comments and suggestions made by peer reviewers difficult. In contrast, writing the cover letter and corresponding with the
editors during the evaluation process are considered the least complicated tasks (see Table 2 above). The complexity of
responding to reviewers’ comments is underlined by studies such as Feak (2009), who considers responses “as a polite
conversation with the reviewers and editors in which changes are negotiated and discussed in a polite, professional manner”
(p. 20). Cultural divergences are therefore an important issue which may influence the success in getting one’s paper pub-
lished. Gosden (2003) even points out that “the linguistic and rhetorical skills required for such research process tasks are
likely to be much more complex than those required for the core activity of writing research papers” (p. 100), especially for
non-native English-speaking authors.

3.5. Current strategies for writing for publication in scientific journals in English

As for the preferred strategies employed by our participants to prepare and write their texts for publication purposes, the
findings point at a great interest in getting familiar with the similarities and differences between Spanish journals and in-
ternational journals as far as research writing for publication is concerned.
As shown in Figure 3, when preparing an RA for publication (Q27) our respondents are most familiar with the journal’s
subject matter, its style guide, the writing conventions expected by the journal and, to a lesser extent, the editorial process.
Regarding stylistic features of academic writing (i.e., sentence length, paragraph organisation, ways of expressing ideas clearly
and with an appropriate style, grammar and vocabulary), less than half of our informants reported to be familiar with such
aspects, which explains the difficulties experienced when trying to publish their papers in internationally refereed journals
already dealt with in Section 3.3. These results show that potential training courses must particularly address this area, which
may prove crucial in the publication of one’s research.
The next item (Q28) involves the writing strategies generally used by Spanish researchers when writing an RA in English.
As Table 3 shows, almost half of our informants do not feel prepared to write their texts directly in English so they write them
in Spanish, while less than a third report writing partly in English and partly in Spanish. On the other hand, around a third of
those surveyed write their articles in English and have their paper edited afterwards, mostly by an expert in the field who is
also a native speaker of English. A significant proportion of our respondents opt for the services of a professional translator, in
most cases a native speaker who is familiar with the discipline. These findings coincide with the results obtained by
Fernández Polo and Cal Varela (2009) in a survey administered to scholars across disciplines, where the most frequent
strategy involves writing the text in Spanish and then having it translated by a professional. Bennett (2010b) also points at
translation of Portuguese-written texts as a common practice among humanities and social sciences researchers in Portugal.
Only 6% write in English and send their paper directly to the journal without any further revision by an expert in the field,
either native or non-native. This contrasts sharply with the results across all disciplines, where around a third submit their

Figure 3. Degree of familiarity with aspects of the RA preparation process.

 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 55

Table 3
RA writing strategies in the social sciences and across all disciplines.

Social sciences All disciplines

Submission with no revision 6% 32.4%
Writing in English and. 31.3% 48.7%
- NS familiar with field edits 13.4% 17%
- NS not familiar with field edits 10.4% 13.5%
- NNS familiar with field edits 6% 16%
- NNS not familiar with field edits 1.5% 2.2%
Writing partly in English, partly in Spanish and. 21% 29.1%
- NS familiar with field translates 7.5% 3.7%
- NS not familiar with field translates 6% 2.3%
- NNS familiar with field translates 7.5% 2%
- NS not familiar with field translates 0% 0.4%
Writing in Spanish and. 41.7% 10.6%
- NS familiar with field translates 13.4% 4.8%
- NS not familiar with field translates 10.4% 2.7%
- NNS familiar with field translates 13.4% 2%
- NNS not familiar with field translates 4.5% 1.1%

paper with no revision and almost half write directly in English with the help of a text editor. Again, the lack of confidence in
their academic writing abilities may well explain the strategies used by Spanish social scientists when preparing their
manuscripts, especially their need for the assistance of translators.
Both familiarity with the field and native speaker status of the editor and/or the translator are two important factors about
which our informants were surveyed. The results reveal that familiarity with the discipline is regarded as a higher priority
than native speaker status. Previous studies, such as Fernández Polo and Cal Varela (2009), reported similar findings in this
respect: “Researchers tend to prefer being helped by an expert colleague from their field with a sufficient knowledge of
English rather than by someone with a good command of English but no familiarity with the subject” (2009, p. 159). In their
study of publishing academics in Psychology in four non-Anglophone countries, Lillis and Curry (2006) found that language
professionals (i.e., translators) “tend to focus on sentence-level revisions and direct translations”, while academic
professionals (among which discipline specialists are included) usually orient to “knowledge content and claims, discipline-
specific discourse, and target publication interests and conversations” (pp. 14–15). The role of expert editors or “professional
academic literacy brokers” (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010), therefore, becomes crucial in the process of preparation of papers, and
is a factor which will be explored in more depth in subsequent phases of the project.

3.6. Training in the writing of RAs for publication

This section focuses on the specific preferences of our informants regarding ERPP training. The first question (Q30) asked
researchers which strategies have helped them in the process of writing their manuscripts in English. The results indicate that
most social scientists have acquired their writing competences mainly through extensive reading of RAs in their field and by
paying attention to the features of other authors’ writing, as well as through the practice of their own writing. To a lesser extent,
the comments and suggestions made by journal editors and reviewers are another factor which has helped our researchers to
improve their RA writing skills. Formal training such as special doctoral courses and practical workshops on academic writing has
proved to be much less helpful, probably due to the fact that such specialised courses are not readily available at most universities
and research institutions in Spain, rather than to the fact that they do not prove to be of much assistance (see Figure 4).
While our informants did not consider explicit training very helpful in the process of writing their papers, when asked
about their needs in terms of future ERPP training, approximately half of the respondents expressed their willingness to
continue their training in RA writing. As shown in Table 4, such training should be offered by means of translation and editing
services, practical workshops and computer-based resources, rather than theoretical courses and textbooks.
These training preferences match the current needs and strategies of scholars in our survey. Interestingly, Fernández Polo
and Cal Varela (2009) report that conversation classes (not included in our questionnaire) and courses in specialised English,

Figure 4. Helpfulness of RA writing strategies.

56 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

Table 4
Training preferences.

Textbooks with practical exercises 42.3%

Computer-based interactive help 71.8%
Theoretically oriented courses 42.3%
Practically oriented workshops 79.5%
Translation and authors’ editing services 82.1%
Theoretically oriented books 28.2%

together with scientific writing courses and translation services, were the strongest preferences among the scholars surveyed.
As pointed out by Lillis and Curry (2006), the role of mediators or “literacy brokers” in the production of scientific texts, both
before and after submission to a journal, must be taken into account when dealing with the “practices surrounding academic
knowledge production” (p. 3) in non-English dominant contexts.
When asked about which aspects of RA writing should be addressed in potential ERPP courses (Q32), most respondents
reported a preference for receiving training in writing for publication in fields related to their research (see Figure 5), which
may be connected to their low success rate in terms of publishing in English-medium journals already mentioned in Section
3.4. Another important concern amongst our informants is learning how to write each section of a research article or, as
Uzuner (2008, p. 255) puts is, “the rules and laws of research reporting”, which basically entails the creation of a research
niche in which to make a contribution to the discipline.
These results confirm the existence of a general need among Spanish scholars in the social sciences for training in specific
aspects of academic writing which are considered particularly problematic or challenging. As a matter of fact, EAP courses
offered at the university level in Spain address precisely these areas, with a special focus on the sections, moves and steps of
RAs (Moreno et al., 2011; Mur-Dueñas & Lorés Sanz, 2010).
The next item (Q33) concerned the conventions and policies of scientific journals, more specifically to what extent they
should be addressed in potential training sessions in order to increase the chances of success in publication. The options
chosen by most respondents, as Table 5 shows, had to do with adapting a research story to the discourse and writing con-
ventions of the journals and understanding better the differences between research writing for publication in Spanish and in
international journals. About half of the respondents also expressed an interest in getting to know the review process fol-
lowed in international journals, that is to say, the editor’s role and the role of peer reviewers.
With regard to which aspects of RA writing should be addressed in the training sessions (Q34), especially concerning how
to ‘tell one’s research story’, our informants were asked to rank the following options on a five-point scale ranging from 1
(¼none) to 5 (¼a lot):

 Ways to clearly express my interpretation of the results of my study: 4.39

 Strategies to ensure text flow so that readers will readily understand my reasoning: 4.35
 Strategies to express the relevance of my contribution to the field more clearly: 4.18
 Ways to clearly link different parts of the article, i.e., ideas, paragraphs and sections: 4.04
 Structures for expressing my ideas clearly and precisely: 4.04
 Appropriate academic style in my discipline, e.g. personal versus impersonal: 4.02
 Strategies to organise my ideas logically and coherently: 3.96
 Structures for expressing my ideas in correct grammar: 3.94
 Ways to express my claims with the appropriate degree of confidence and certainty: 3.84
 Ways to appropriately review the literature: 3.55
 General academic writing vocabulary: 3.55
 The specific terminology in my field: 3.51

As can be observed, preferences in training are mainly related to how to write the discussion section of the RA – reportedly,
the most complex part of the scientific paper – where results are interpreted in the light of the previous literature and where

Figure 5. Aspects of academic writing to be addressed in EAP courses.

 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 57

Table 5
Conventions and policies of scientific journals to be addressed in the training sessions.

None–a Average Quite a

little lot–a lot
A better understanding of the review process in scientific journals 28.2% 17.9% 53.8%
A better understanding of ‘what’ is usually reported about the research in scientific journals 32.1% 17.9% 50%
Learning how to better ‘tell my research story’ in accordance with the journal’s discourse and writing conventions 10.3% 14.1% 75.6%
A better understanding of the similarities and differences in research writing for publication in Spanish versus 19.2% 11.5% 69.2%
international journals

writers must convince their audience of the relevance and value of the research presented, in other words, its contribution to
the discipline. Besides the discussion section, these findings also point at the need to receive training in aspects which have to
do with writing the RA in general, such as providing coherence and flow to the whole text, linking the various sections of the
paper, and using an appropriate academic style.
Regarding the types of publications which should receive more attention in the training sessions (Q35), the most
prominent genre is the empirical article, chosen by almost all respondents. The pre-eminence of this genre is pointed out by
authors like Flowerdew (1999a), who states that internationally refereed journal articles are “the most important form of
research publication” (p. 141) because of the professional prestige attached to them, and Lillis and Curry (2010), who consider
the journal article as “an indicator of scholarly performance” whose ever-growing status “is paralleled by the ever-growing
use of English as the medium of such articles” (p. 9) (see Figure 6).
Finally, our last question (Q37) asked participants to rate their preferences regarding the background of the potential
training personnel in the EAP courses according to the following qualities: research experience in fields related to one’s
discipline, experience of publication in scientific journals, experience of research on academic texts, experience in the
teaching of academic writing, experience in authors’ editing of RAs, and experience in the translation of RAs. As Figure 7
illustrates, the most appreciated assets are experience in publication in scientific journals and in the editing of RAs.

4. Conclusions

This paper has attempted to raise awareness of the challenges faced by Spanish scholars regarding publishing in English
and in English-medium international journals. Our objective was to explore the situation in the social science fields of
Education, Psychology and Sociology by means of a needs analysis survey on several aspects concerning experiences and
difficulties with the publication of papers, as well as preferences regarding potential training courses in ERPP.
We trust that the results obtained will contribute to shed light on the reality for Spanish scholars and researchers in the
social sciences seeking to get their work published, a knowledge area in which, as already pointed out, English is playing a
more prominent role as the vehicle of scientific communication, due to motivations related to gaining promotion and
internationalising one’s research. However, Spanish is still valued as a language for publication when dealing with issues of
local relevance. Linguistic difficulties and lack of familiarity with writing conventions appear to be the major obstacles to
publishing research in English-medium international refereed journals. There is an obvious need for training in specific
aspects of academic writing, with empirical articles being the highest priority, given the fact that the RA stands out as the
most significant written artefact in terms of production and dissemination of knowledge. Instruction should particularly focus
on the difficulties generally encountered in the process of publication and on the cultural differences and similarities between
writing for research publication purposes in journals in Spanish and in English.
Overall, the need analysis carried out is extremely revealing in terms of assessing the specific ERPP needs of our group of
informants. By means of a questionnaire administered online, we were able to gather a wide variety of data regarding our
informants’ sociodemographic, educational and experiential background, motivations, attitudes, views, writing strategies,
previous experiences and difficulties, and training needs both in relation to English and to Spanish for research publication
purposes. The implementation of the survey was preceded by preliminary exploratory interviews and by the piloting of the

Figure 6. Training preferences.

58 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59

Figure 7. Background preferences.

questionnaire before finalising it. It is the first large-scale online survey that includes comparative data on learning and
writing for publication purposes, which may result in more illuminating needs analyses in ERPP.
As instruments to collect large amount of data, questionnaire surveys also have their limitations (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007; Long, 2005), such as the potential low response rate and the use of close-ended, predetermined questions
with specific categories and answer options, which “may limit possible responses and may result in overly simple treatments
of complex issues” (Long, 2005, p. 39). Besides, the way in which some of the questions have been asked may not be adequate
for other more focused studies on specific issues. Another issue to take into consideration in survey-based research is that of
self-selection bias: the possibility that those who decided to respond and actually filled in the questionnaire had a particular
interest in the research carried out, probably because of their own perceived difficulties and needs in ERPP. We are aware that
the approach taken in this study is mainly a large-scale quantitative approach – so as to gather as many data as possible on
self-reported writing difficulties faced by multilingual scholars in Spain – and that some issues would be best explored by
ethnographically oriented methods to investigate the real difficulties in ERPP. This will be pursued in subsequent phases of
the project by means of text histories (Lillis & Curry, 2006, 2010) and ‘talk around text’ questionnaires and interviews with
authors, reviewers and journal editors. Finally, some relevant variables which may have influenced the responses obtained in
our survey, such as the age of the informants and their research experience, are also worth investigating further.

Acknowledgements

This study is part of a project financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO), of
which Ana I. Moreno is the PI. It would not have been possible without the collaboration of the following institutions and
researchers: the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC); the Universidad de León; the Universidad de la Laguna, Pedro
Martín-Martín; Universitat Jaume I; the Universidad de Zaragoza, Rosa Lorés Sanz, Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Enrique Lafuente;
the technical staff (José Manuel Rojo, Belén Garzón and Almudena Mata) from the Statistical Analysis Service at the CSIC; the
Galician Center for Supercomputation (CESGA); our interview informants and all the survey participants. We would especially
like to thank Sally Burgess for her invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Bennett, K. (2010a). Academic discourse in Portugal: A whole different ballgame. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 21-32.
Bennett, K. (2010b). Academic writing practices in Portugal: Survey of humanities and social science researchers. Diacrítica – Série Ciências da Linguagem,
24(1), 193-209.
Burgess, S., & Fagan, A. (2006). From the periphery: The Canarian researcher publishing in the international context. In J. Oliva Cruz, M. Mc Mahon, & M.
Brito (Eds.), On the matter of words: In honor of Lourdes Divasson Cilveti (pp. 45-56). La Laguna: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna.
Burgess, S., & Martín-Martín, P. (Eds.). (2008). English as an additional language in research publication and communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
Cargill, M., & Burgess, S. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: English for research publication purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2),
75-76.
Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2006). Getting research published in English: Towards a curriculum designed model for developing skills and enhancing
outcomes. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 79-94.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304.
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.
Duszak, A., & Lewkowicz, J. (2008). Publishing academic texts in English: A Polish perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 108-120.
Feak, C. (2009). Negotiating publication: Author responses to peer review of medical research articles in thoracic surgery. Revista Canaria de Estudios
Ingleses, 59, 17-34.
Ferguson, G., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Pló, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1),
41-59.
Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 8, 152-164.
Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Writing for second language publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145.
Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Problems in writing for academic publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1),
127-150.
García Delgado, J. L., Alonso, J. A., & Jiménez, J. C. (2013). El español, lengua de comunicación científica. Madrid: Ariel.
 M.-L. Gea-Valor et al. / English for Specific Purposes 36 (2014) 47–59 59

Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 2, 87-101.
Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written
Communication, 28, 403-416.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., Delgado López-Cózar, E., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Fernández, V. M. (2002). Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature, 417, 898.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National
Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32, 123-142.
Kindelan, P. (2009). A fresh look at Spanish scientific publishing in the framework of international standards. European Educational Research Journal, 8(1),
89-103.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-
medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3-35.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London and New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 19-76). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied cross-cultural perspective. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C.
Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 57-71). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Moreno, A. I. (2013). Intercultural rhetoric in language for specific purposes. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Moreno, A. I., Burgess, S., Sachdev, I., López-Navarro, I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA questionnaire: Publication experiences in scientific journals in
English and Spanish. Retrieved [30/09/2013] from Universidad de León, ENEIDA’s website http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php
Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Writing research articles for publication in English-medium academic
journals: Which section is the most difficult for Spanish scholars and why? Ibérica, 24, 157-184.
Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., Martín-Martín, P., Gea-Valor, M. L., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2011). Spanish researchers publishing in scientific
journals: Motivations, views, strategies, experiences and training needs. In 2nd International PRISEAL Conference: Publishing and presenting research
internationally: Issues for speakers of English as an additional language. Katowice, Poland, 9–11 June 2011.
Moreno, A. I., & Suárez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
7(1), 15-26.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). Same genre, same discipline; however, there are differences: A cross-cultural analysis of logical markers in academic writing. ESP
Across Cultures, 4, 37-53.
Mur-Dueñas, P., & Lorés Sanz, R. (2010). Responding to Spanish academics’ needs to write in English: From research to the implementation of academic
writing workshops. In R. Caballero Rodríguez, & M. J. Pinar Sanz (Eds.), Ways and modes of human communication (pp. 501-510). Cuenca: AESLA y
Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
Navarro, F. A. (2001). El inglés, idioma internacional de la medicina. Panace@ Revista de Medicina, Lenguaje y Traducción, 2(3), 35-51.
St John, M. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6(2), 113-120.
Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus Rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247-269.
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7,
250-263.
Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish–English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.

Maria-Lluïsa Gea-Valor is a Senior Lecturer in English Language, Linguistics and ESP at Universitat Jaume I (Castelló, Spain). Her research interests lie in the
field of genre analysis, especially evaluative and promotional genres. She has specialised in the academic book review and the book blurb.

Jesús Rey-Rocha is a Senior Researcher at the Research Group on Scientific Evaluation and Transfer, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). His current
research lines include the dynamics, attitudes and motivations of scientists in relation to Science Communication and the Public Communication of Science.

Ana I. Moreno, Senior Lecturer in English at the University of León (Spain), is the Director of the ENEIDA (Spanish Team for Intercultural Studies on Academic
Discourse) Research Group. Her research interests concern English for Academic Purposes, needs analysis, writing difficulties, intercultural rhetoric and
genre analysis.