Scientific research is mainly shared through peer-reviewed articles that are published almost exclusively in the English language. This reality is a challenge for non-native English speakers, for whom it often takes longer to read peer-reviewed publications and write their own papers, grant applications, and conference abstracts. Revisions may involve multiple translation efforts and require additional help. Journals demand or suggest using translation services that are expensive and often unaffordable, particularly for scholars in the global south. Furthermore, evidence suggests that language is a central issue in the lack of objectivity or biases during the peer-reviewed process. Comments about the usage of language are common and sometimes rude. This gives native English speakers an advantage as they don’t have to deal with reviewers’ hurtful comments about their writing skills or apply for extra funds to pay for revision, editing, and translation services.

Despite some benefits that maintaining a central language could have, it reduces the impact of studies published in other languages and makes them less likely to be read or cited. Overlooking these studies can reduce scientific evidence or concentrate it in regions where English is the native language or better understood. When we fail to cover larger geographical areas and fail to include scientists and researchers from all languages, local knowledge can be lost. This may increase the dependence of non-Anglophone scientists on high English proficiency collaborators, limiting their participation at international congresses to communicate their findings and reducing the recognition of their contributions. These practices increase parachute science and decrease the diversity and equity of science and knowledge.

Our multilingual group of National Geographic Explorers hosted a series of discussions to move towards a more equitable science. First, we want to draw attention to the problems that monolingual science faces based on personal experiences. Next, we present different perspectives and think of possible solutions to create a more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful science. We propose that the first step could be the creation of multilingual networking communities to support non-Anglophones, facilitating the creation of multilingual conference activities, and normalizing translation practices to multiple languages in scientific journals. A more multilingual scientific community will make science more accessible to the multilingual public and increase access to scientific research for scientists, students, and beyond academia.