Scientific translation as a factor of publication quality and visibility
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-25-30
Abstract
n today’s global scientific landscape, where competition for the attention of the international research community continues to grow, high-quality scientific translation plays a vital role in effective scholarly communication. This article highlights the importance of English as the primary language of international academic exchange and explores how accurate, well-structured, and stylistically appropriate translation influences the perception, discoverability, and citation of research articles. The discussion focuses on key differences between scientific translation and other types – such as literary or technical – and outlines common mistakes often caused by reliance on automated translation tools. Drawing on real-world examples, the article illustrates how inaccuracies in translating titles, abstracts, keywords, and figure captions can diminish the academic value of a publication and hinder its indexing in major databases. Particular attention is given to working with terminology across different fields of study, emphasizing the need for contextually appropriate English equivalents that clearly and naturally convey the author’s intended meaning to an international readership. The final section discusses stylistic conventions of English-language academic writing– such as the preference for active voice, concise phrasing, and terminological precision – and their impact on how a text is evaluated by editors and reviewers.
About the Author
Alla N. Artsishevskaya
Scientific Translation Service TEXT, Moscow, Russian Federation
Head
References
1. Hyland K. English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge; 2006. 356 p.
2. Ammon U. Linguistic inequality and its effects on participation in scientific discourse and on global knowledge accumulation– with a closer look at the problems of the secondrank language communities. Applied Linguistics Review. 2012;3(2):333–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2012-0016
3. Montgomery S. L. The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2017. 312 p.
4. Kirillova O. V., Parfenova S. L., Grishakina E. G., Kochetkov D. M., Kuleshova A. V., Bazanova E. M. et al. Methodological Recommendations for Preparing and Formatting Scholarly Articles for Journals Indexed in International Scientometric Databases. Moscow: Nauka; 2017. 159 p. (In Russ.).
5. Flowerdew J. Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly. 2000;34(1):127–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588099
6. Lillis T. M., Curry M. J. Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London: Routledge; 2010. 224 p.
7. Flowerdew J. Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching. 2015;48(2):250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000523
8. Curry M. J., Lillis T. Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly. 2004;38(4):663–688. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284
9. Salager-Meyer F. Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2008;7(2):121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009
10. Bowker L., Buitrago Ciro J. Machine Translation and Global Research: Towards Improved Machine Translation Literacy in the Scholarly Community. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Ltd; 2019. 128 p. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787567214
11. Olohan M. Scientific and Technical Translation. London: Routledge; 2016. 262 p.
12. Hynninen N., Kuteeva M. “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2017;30:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.009
13. Medvedeva N. Applying translation mistakes classifications to work out the translation quality assessment criteria. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. 2021;118:116–122. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.12.16
14. Lacruz I. Cognitive effort in translation, editing, and post-editing. In: Schwieter J.W., Ferreira A., editors. The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2017, pp. 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch21
15. Bangalore S., Bangalore S., Behrens B., Carl M., Ghankot M., Heilmann A., Nitzke J. et al. Syntactic variance and priming effects in translation. In: Carl M., Bangalore S., Schaeffer M., editors. New Directions in Empirical Translation Process Research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB. Cham: Springer; 2016, pp. 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_10
16. Schaeffer M., Carl M. Measuring the cognitive effort of literal translation processes. In: Germann U., Carl M., Koehn Ph., Sanchis-Trilles G., Casacuberta F., Hill R., O’Brien S., editors. Proceedings EACL 2014 Workshop on Humans and Computer-Assisted Translation (Gothenburg, April 2014). Kerrville, TX: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2014, pp. 29–37. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-0306
17. Sager J. C., Dungworth D., McDonald P. F. English Special Languages: Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter; 1980. 400 p.
18. Byrne J. Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006. 295 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4653-7
19. Schäffner C. Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics. 2004;36(7):1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
20. Montalt V., González-Davies M. Medical Translation Step by Step: Learning by Drafting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing; 2007. 308 p.
21. Gile D. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2009. 283 p.
22. Chesterman A. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2000. 219 p.
23. Salager-Meyer F. A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes. 1992;11(2):93–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80002-X
24. Montgomery S. Of towers, walls, and fields: Perspectives on language in science. Science. 2004;303(5662):1333–1335. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095204
25. Jamali H. R., Nikzad M. Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics. 2011;88(2):653–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z
26. Paiva C. E., Lima J. P., Paiva B. S. Articles with short titles describing the results are cited more often. Clinics. 2012;67(5):509–513. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2012(05)17
27. Majhi S., Sahu L., Behera K. Practices for enhancing research visibility, citations and impact: Review of literature. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2023,75(6):1280–1305. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2023-532
28. Hartley J., Sydes M., Blurton A. Obtaining information accurately and quickly: Are structured abstracts more efficient? Journal of Information Science. 1996;22(5):349–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551596022005
Review
For citations:
Artsishevskaya A.N. Scientific translation as a factor of publication quality and visibility. Science Editor and Publisher. 2025;10(1):104-113. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-25-30
Views:
22
Email this article 
