Avalilação PREreview de Mapping Research on Global Englishes: A Bibliometric Analysis

This review is the result of an online, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by Translate Science. The discussion was joined by 3 people in total, the three review authors. The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of two weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

The study is a descriptive quantitative bibliometric analysis of Web of Science data that covers the whole field of Global Englishes, as previous qualitative reviews focused on specific parts of the literature. It specifically addresses the research questions: What are the key research themes in Global Englishes? How are authors, articles, journals and countries contributing to this literature? And how has the literature developed over time? Key themes identified are Identity, Pedagogy, and Multiculturalism; Attitudinal Shifts and Critical Pedagogies; Global Englishes for Intercultural Communication; Pedagogical Awareness; and Curriculum Integration and Learner Awareness. Three clusters of influential authors are identified, focused on sociolinguistics, teaching, and intercultural communication. Geographically, they find a cluster of Asian and North American research and of European research as well as a diverse “cluster” of research from other countries. They find two clusters of journals focused on Global Englishes in teaching, and another cluster of journals concerned with intercultural communication. The literature overall is fairly new. From approximately 2018, they find the literature progresses from foundational topics like intercultural communication and identity, to applications in teaching (2020-2022), to emerging themes like automation and translanguaging. The authors ask what are the gaps and future research directions in Global Englishes, but leave this question largely unaddressed.

Major issues

• Search terms: The authors point out that different terms may be preferred which fall under the umbrella of Global Englishes, yet they solely rely on this term and do not justify this choice. We would appreciate more clarity in how the authors interpret the related paradigms in GE in respect to their use of a more narrow search query for their primary dataset. Why was the search query limited to terms related to GE and how does this impact the reported themes of the GE field as described in the paper? Address specifically how papers related to a single global variety of English (for example, Philippine English) are included or not in the analysis.

• Limitations: We recommend that the paper include a Limitations section. More discussion of the following limitations would be helpful:

  • Bibliometric analysis: Limitations of the bibliometric approach to better situate readers to more critically understand the results of the keyword clustering. For example, point out keywords that they did not expect to cluster based on the authors’ understanding of the field and what these findings mean for an understanding of GE and GELT.

  • Representativeness of sampling frame: Discuss the limitations of peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles in Web of Science in terms of how they may not fully represent the literature on the topic of Global Englishes.

• Reproducibility: Report the code and/or settings that were entered into the software used for visualization as well as criteria for determining the final number of clusters (depending on the clustering method applied). It was not clear the extent to which the study authors read the papers. For example, how was it determined if the article’s primary focus was on Global Englishes? Did both authors read the paper or the abstract to determine that? Can you report an interrater agreement?

• Tables and Figures: We recommend significant revisions to the tables and figures. If the authors seek to publish this article, they are likely to encounter the expectation that the visual communication works in black and white, without reliance on color. The guideline referenced by the Taylor & Francis journal Asian Englishes might be a good starting point. Moving some color charts to supplemental materials might also be an option. For Figure 1, note that you may be expected to obtain permission for the journal to reproduce this figure. Consider revising the paper to work without it by explaining the paradigm in text. Color does not add meaning to Figure 3. We recommend revising it to black and white or converting it to a table. Figure 4 will clearly be a challenge to present if black and white. Even in color, the distinction between yellow for Pedagogical Awareness and green for Attitudinal Shifts and Critical Pedagogies is hard to identify. Some suggestions include numbering the clusters so they can be referred to in text by numbers rather than colors and finding a way to address the very faint text used to convey depth. In Figure 9, to improve legibility, consider outlining boxes with a color (or pattern) rather than filling them in. Figure 10 was unreadable in print. Suggestions relating to multiple figures include providing fully explanatory captions, explaining that the software flattens capitalization of acronyms and proper nouns, and providing a clear explanation of interactive versions available online rather than relying on a QR code. We also identified some numerical issues. In Table 1 it is not clear how all Average per Year values were calculated. Include a formula and double check all values (for example, Pennycook 2023 should probably be Pennycook 2003). In Figure 2, it is not clear why 223 articles were included in the bibliometric analysis, when 231 articles in English were found, but only 191 had Global Englishes as a primary focus.

Minor issues

• In table 1 English notation for decimals would be a ‘.’ instead of a ‘,’ be consistent, as dot notation is used in the text.

• Figure 9: Perhaps a typo “Overly” meant to be “overlay.”

• Consider presenting the evolution of GE research in chronological order, to show how more recent literature builds on earlier literature.

• Mention in text that only 3 non-English papers were dropped.

• Figure 7 review and explain whether England, Ireland, and Scotland are consistent units of analysis.

Overall assessment

The authors’ introduction helped orient us to the themes, theoretical core, and practical concerns of GE and Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) as previously described in the literature. The analysis provided useful guidance on what we might want to read next to better understand this literature.

Concluding remarks

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.