Social justice in applied linguistics: Making space for new approaches and new voices

Abstract

s in the languages, varieties, or dialects of their choice. While it would have been ideal for full papers to appear in the same way, space constraints meant this was not possible. We also requested that the whole issue become permanently Open Access. Although this was not possible, Cambridge did agree to make a selection of articles rotating open access. By the nature of ARAL’s structure, we are still limited in our access to emerging scholars because we rely primarily on the networks and expertise of the board. However, using this, or other issues, to delay action and continue discussing or looking for better options impedes progress. So, the ARAL board took the decision that we, as a field, need to start acting on calls for change, even if (or maybe especially if) the initial attempts are not perfect. Based on our experiences with the current issue, which were overwhelmingly positive, we encourage other academic presses and journals to pilot whatever alternative publishing approaches they may be discussing and be open to joining ARAL in the journey to a more socially just and inclusive applied linguistics publication environment. This might involve considering some version of collaborative peer reviewing—the approach followed in the current issue, where authors and mentors are connected and encouraged to correspond frequently and privately (i.e., with feedback, summaries and/or reports—which are not made public, or even shared with editors) with the goal of creating an informal, collegial environment in which authors (who were mostly more junior scholars, in the current issue) feel comfortable soliciting feedback on new ideas and refining existing ones. We ultimately chose this model of review because we viewed it as being potentially the most fruitful for emerging scholars who are looking to expand their professional networks and establish themselves within the field as well as in publishing. The response of the community to our request to serve as mentor-reviewers was extremely positive. Almost everyone we contacted enthusiastically agreed immediately 2 Alison Mackey et al.