The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences.This work was funded by the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT180100354 (TA), The University of Queensland strategic funding (TA), and the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816) (SC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewe

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts

NATCITIES-23080325_data.csv

This is the dataset utilised for analysis.</p

Changes in Green Space Use During a COVID-19 Lockdown Are Associated With Both Individual and Green Space Characteristics

Mobility restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic present a useful study system for understanding the temporal and spatial patterns of green space use. Here, we examine green space characteristics and sociodemographic factors associated with change in frequency of green space use before and during a COVID-19 lockdown in Brisbane, Australia drawing on a survey of 372 individuals. Applying regression analysis, we found that individuals who visited a different green space during lockdown than before tended to decrease their frequency of visits. In contrast, individuals who continued visiting their usual green space during lockdown were more inclined to increase their number of visits. Changes in frequency of green space use were also associated with particular characteristics of their usually visited green space. The presence of blue spaces and accessibility (carparks/public transport) were associated with increased frequency of use while foliage height diversity was associated with reduced frequency of use. We found that females were more likely to change their green space visitation frequency during COVID-19 compared to men and they also reported greater importance of green spaces for social and family interactions and spiritual reasons during COVID-19 compared to before. Males showed greater increases than females in the importance of green space for nature interactions and mental health benefits during the COVID-19 lockdown compared to before. Our results provide key insights for future resilient urban planning and policy that can fulfil a wide range of physical and psychological needs during a time of crisis and beyond.</p

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.publishe

The data underlying Figs 2B, 3A, 3B and 4C, S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9.

The data underlying Figs 2B, 3A, 3B and 4C, S1, S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9.</p

Survey participants by nationality and first language.

The gender composition of the participants was 339 female, 556 male, and 13 participants in other categories, with the median age of 39 (range: 18–77) years old and median 13 (range: 1–55) years of experience in research. (DOCX)</p