An overview of publication practices and beliefs, with the non-native scholar in mind (especially for Brazilian researchers).

1. Introduction to Academic Writing
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
PRPPG7000

8. MA & PhD Program

16. Awesome
ideas!Genius!

22. E N G L I S H

23. In Science Citation Index (SCI)
Source: Hyland, K. (2015). Academic Publishing and Challenges in
the Construction of Knowledge. Oxford University Press.

28. http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/205.p
ng

30. 27.9%

31. 27.9%
21.6%

32. 27.9%
21.6% 37.6%

33. http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/205.p
ng

34. 27.9%
21.6% 37.6%

35. Clarissa Ribeiro Reily Rocha, pesquisadora da USP
e MIT, vencedora do 8º Prêmio Octavio Frias de Oliveira
(Pesquisa em Oncologia), 2017
"Não há como ter
pesquisa de qualidade
sem financiamento,
mesmo que haja
formação, mesmo que
haja interesse".

40. Exemplo típico
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

42. Hyland (2016)
“Attitude surveys reveal that English as an Additional
Language (EAL) authors often believe editors and referees
are prejudiced against them for any non-standard language
uses…” (p. 59)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

43. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

44. Flowerdew (2008)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

45. Flowerdew (2008)
● “While it is difficult to find concrete evidence that writers
who use English as an additional language are discriminated
against in academic publishing there is a lot of anecdotal
evidence to suggest that they may be.” (p. 78)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

46. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

47. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

48. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

49. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

50. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

51. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

52. Hewings, M. (2006). English language standards in academic articles:
Attitudes of peer reviews. Revista canária de estudios ingleses.
● 228 evaluations of manuscripts submitted to English for
Specific Purposes (1998-2004);
● Evaluation by 56 different reviewers;
● Manuscripts organized by type of author (native, non-native);
● Further separated into 3 categories (Accept,
Revise/Resubmit and Reject).
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

53. Preconceito?
(NON-NATIVE)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR
(‘REJECT’)
(NATIVE)

54. “Whatever the reasons, they
appear to lie outside any
difficulties authors may have
had in producing written
English.” (p. 61)

55. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

57. Why articles are rejected
● Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only
research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
● Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept
manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education
reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
● Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not
accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
● Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is rejected.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2.
● McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why
referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 31(4), 455-470.
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

58. From Sullivan (2002)
1.Manuscript sent to wrong jornal
2.Content does not provide new information
3.Information is too old or out of date
4.Topic is too narrow
5.Important contributions to topic are missing
6.Author has relied too heavily on the literature
7.Manuscript was a class paper or speech
8.Too little information about method, or method includes serious flaws
9.Paper does not make a point
10.Poor writing

59. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

60. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR
“Lack of a clear and compelling rationale…”

61. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR
“Lack of a clear and compelling rationale…”
“Concern about the novelty of the work…”

62. Exemplo:
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

63. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

64. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

65. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

66. Contributors to publication success (or failure)
LANGUAGE
WRITING
THE RESEARCH

67. LANGUAGE
WRITING
THE RESEARCH

69. Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

70. Hyland (2016)
● “I am not, of course, claiming peer review to be perfect. […]
There is, however, little evidence to support the idea that
there is a widespread and systematic bias against writers
whose first language is not English.” (p. 66)
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

71. 2011
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez - UFPR

72. There are no native
academic writers.

77. From Sullivan (2002)
1.Manuscript sent to wrong jornal
2.Content does not provide new information
3.Information is too old or out of date
4.Topic is too narrow
5.Important contributions to topic are missing
6.Author has relied too heavily on the literature
7.Manuscript was a class paper or speech
8.Too little information about method, or method includes serious flaws
9.Paper does not make a point
10.Poor writing

80. Helen Sword
University of Aukland

82. “BASE” of successful academic writers
Behavioral habits
Artisanal habits
Social habits
Emotional habits

86. “BASE” of successful academic writers
Behavioral habits
Artisanal habits
Social habits
Emotional habits

93. MA & PhD Program

97. IMAGE OF EDIT

98. “acceptance”

105. Register: goformative.com
• Do “Module 1” task.
• Necessary for full evaluation of student.