Equity-Driven Peer Review for Research with International Students

Written by Melissa Whatley (College of William & Mary) and Santiago Castiello (Seton Hall University)

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a growing body of research centering international students, and authors are increasingly seeking to publish this work in general education journals rather than journals with a specific international education focus. This shift is likely because (1) these journals are often more valued by the job market and tenure and promotion committees; and (2) recent sociopolitical shifts mean that international student concerns are important to an audience that has traditionally been focused almost entirely on domestic students. We welcome this shift, as it indicates that scholarship by/with/about international students is no longer a niche concern. However, authors seeking to publish research with international students in general education journals may encounter roadblocks to publication through the peer review process, particularly from reviewers and editors unfamiliar with international contexts. These roadblocks include arbitrary perceptions of what counts as “good” academic writing in English, deficit perspectives of international students that construe them as passive participants in their educational decision-making, and misunderstandings about international student issues. George Mwangi and Yao’s (2020) equity-driven lens for internationalization framework highlights a need for reviewers and editors to approach the peer review of manuscripts written by, about, and with international students critically and carefully, with respect for the diverse perspectives and experiences that authors and research participants bring to the table. This lens focuses our attention on how scholarly processes such as peer review can serve to perpetuate long-standing systems of power and inequity if left unexamined.

This blog post was inspired by our own experiences publishing research that focuses on international students in journals that do not have an international focus. While we benefited significantly from the peer review process in that comments and feedback from both reviewers and editors served to strengthen the contributions of our work, we also noted that sometimes the feedback we received was not especially attuned to the reality of international students and their contexts. For example, the following comment from a reviewer about the very real possibility that international students in the United States could be deported for failing to enroll in sufficient in-person, face-to-face coursework during the COVID-19 pandemic ignores the reality of what it means for an international student to lose their legal status in the United States: “The line “face deportation” seems somewhat sensationalist, though a very real legal possibility. A more accurate description would be that international students would “lose their status,” which does not automatically result in deportation.” The realistic expectation that an international student who loses legal status would subsequently face deportation proceedings is not at all “sensationalist” and reflects very real concerns that international students face on a regular basis. As another example, I (Santiago) as a non-native English speaker, have received language-related feedback over the years. While this is valid and appreciated, it’s important to consider how these comments are delivered and what assumptions they may carry. Feedback like “do more proofreading” or “your proposal has many grammatical errors” can be helpful when specific and constructive. But when vague or uncontextualized, these comments risk reinforcing linguistic bias. Comments such as these, directed at what is perceived as non-native English, ignore linguistic diversity in the English-speaking world and, perhaps more pragmatically, the fact that individuals who grow up speaking English as their first language are also very capable of grammatical and spelling errors. 

Rather than simply critique the elements of the peer review process that we feel are not supportive of research with international students, we offer the following suggestions for reviewers and editors with limited international experience who find themselves working with manuscripts that focus on international students:

1. Pause before reviewing: Take a moment to reflect on your own cultural assumptions and biases. Are your critiques stemming from a perspective grounded in a single national or cultural context that does not transfer to other parts of the world? Are you assuming that your own experiences and understandings of the law and government in your own country are similar to those of people from other parts of the world?
2. Prioritize substance over style: Focus on the clarity of the argument, methodological rigor, and significance of the findings rather than writing style. What counts as “good” academic writing is not universal. 
3. Avoid vague feedback: If you feel you must critique the way that a manuscript is written, focus your feedback on specific, actionable suggestions for improvement rather than vague comments about “writing style” or dismissive criticisms about “academic writing.”
4. Context matters: If you are unfamiliar with the study’s context or topic, avoid making sweeping generalizations or comparisons to your own familiar context. Do not assume that other contexts function similarly to your own.
5. Be culturally and linguistically humble: If you see terms or concepts that you do not understand, ask for clarification rather than dismissing the research outright.
6. Center humanity: Remember that international students and scholars are people, not “resources” for their current educational contexts and institutions. These individuals have agency in their own educational decision-making and should not be viewed from a deficit or passive perspective.
7. Check your work: Once you have written your comments to the author, re-read them and check for the following:
   1. Am I assuming that certain perspectives, practices, or educational models are inherently better than others?
   2. Am I using language that discusses international students or even manuscript authors as deficient or lacking?
   3. Have I used outdated or offensive terms such as “developing/third world”; “foreign students”; “non-native speakers” (without stating the language and assuming it is English) or “ethnic/diverse” (when only used for non-White) in my review?
   4. Have I written about international students and scholars acknowledging their humanity, agency, and diversity?

As reviewers, if we fail to check our positionality, peer review can become a process of harm (even unintentionally), especially for scholars writing about global issues who bring diverse perspectives, knowledge and ways of knowing to their work. But if we approach the peer review process with care and cultural humility–driven by an equity lens–then it can become a process of dialogue and mutual growth.

Additional resources:

Journal of College Student Development (JCSD) Supplemental Guide for Bias Free Writing (https://myacpa.org/jcsd-supplemental-style-guide/)

George Mwangi, C. A., & Yao, C. W. (2020). US higher education internationalization through an equity-driven lens: An analysis of concepts, history, and research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 36, 1-62.

About the Authors

Melissa Whatley is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at William & Mary (VA, United States). She is editor-in-chief of the Critical Internationalization Review and an editor for the Journal of Global Higher Education. https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissa-whatley-482053266/

Santiago Castiello is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Seton Hall University (NJ, United States). He is also part of the editorial board of the Critical Internationalization Studies Review, the Journal of Global Higher Education, and Educación Global. https://www.linkedin.com/in/santiagocastiello