Well, to answer that question, let me present a scenario. A person grows up with his mother language, then have to study in national language in school which is totally different than mother language. After that studies are in English which is totally different that national and mother language. (This is my case).

So for doing research, the additional efforts are to be made to understand the language in which already performed work is present, and then language skills are also needed and extra efforts need to be performed for representing the work done to the whole world. 

But it's also a fact that research work is present mostly in English, and we can't isolate ourselves from it. So the simple answer is , DEAL WITH IT. 

@ Haris ,

My scenario is similar to yours: mother tongue is Russian, the national language in school Hebrew  and the Research work in English. A little confusing.

This is a good question

I agree  with Philippe that most of research results are presented in English exclusively or sometimes side by side with the researcher`s native language.

It seems like there is a convention (may not written) to use English as a language of science. English today is not simply the language of British, Americans and Australians but rather is the language of science. This is fortunate because English is a simple language, easy to learn and easy to understand. For example, a verb has three forms in English but has so many forms in Arabic that are very tough for a non-native (and sometimes for native) to master.

On the contrary, let us imagine that everyone can publish his research in his mother tongue. This would make PUBLISHING of science make less sense. You publish your finding so that EVERYONE  in the field gets access to it. If you for example speak French and I speak Arabic, neither you nor me would be able to read the other`s science and I think this would seriously hamper the development of the whole world.

Nonetheless, I would say that publishing science in English on the other hand, makes it hard for millions of people who are not prepared to learn English, to read science. This problem should be dealt with in each society perhaps by translation, by having more people committed to learn English or so.

There is an important issue about how to use a language other than your mother tongue in science. The point is not simply to translate words to your language and then think and then translate back what you want to say to English and then write it down, but rather is to train yourself to think in English. This should take longer time to master but is more efficient way of dealing with science information.

Again, thank you for the question.

My point of view currently is the I shall accepted as is, but also that it does not necessarily means "bad"...

Likely, the research work would be performed more efficiently if we would not have to jump all the time from one language to another... but then how to disseminate results and encourage others, and get encouraged to further research?

Plus mastering a foreign language broadens your scope, mind, and even your cultural approach

Language is a means of communication,but it becomes a barrier during cross country communication. Hence English is one of the way to remove the barriers. But science has no such barriers.It totally depend on your liabilities whom you want to convey your research to. similarly whose research you want to read or listen for e.g.some Chinese journal publish there research in Chinese but some of there research is that good , they have been read in many part of the world because of advancement in translation technology.

hence summarizing all ,if your research is worth to be recognize and readable by all than language does not matter.

undoubtedly   you could understand non-scientific words in your mother/national  language but  there are many scientific  words which you don't find in your national language ... and you could only understand them in English...even if you want to write a research paper in your language probably you find it more difficult than english....

I absolutely agree with all ! 

It doesn't matter if we like it or not, but now  English is  the universal language for scientific conversation (and not only). Of course, for all of us much easier to write and speak in the native language. But, try to imagine that someone will start to translate your article from Hebrew or Russian. I don't envy him :) 

Vladimir, I understand you very well, because my situation is even more complicated yours: Russian (mother tongue), Hebrew, English, but also Italian in addition. Many languages in the head really can create confusion, but only at the beginning, then it passes. On the other hand, more languages you know, it makes it easier to study the next.  I'm don't discuss the fact, that you will have more opportunities in the life and the career. Take life easy, English is still not a bad option: maybe one hundred years later people will be forced to study Chinese :)

I wish you great success in your work! 

One function of research is to discover the mysteries of Nature. Another is to communicate the results of that research to others,  so they can be confirmed or dis-proven.  It is an unfortunate fact at this cycle of history, English is the dominant lingua franca (language of commerce) of science. English will reach the widest possible audience. Please do your research in the language you are most comfortable, but be prepared to report it in English or be overlooked. 

As one side benefit of English (ignoring the wacky spelling!) my experience is that an English sentence can be mangled badly and still be understood. I have not found most other languages to be as forgiving.

You have my sympathies, with this issue. I am currently struggling to learn Chinese and Korean for a pet project. 

As Greek, Latin, and Chinese dominated their spheres and were replaced, so too English will yield to something else one day. Maybe I'll need to learn yours in the future?

(I have intentionally  written this message in my mother tongue for demonstration purposes. My apologies for it)

Es evidente la necesidad de disponer de un idioma preestablecido (de alguna manera) para comunicarse y facilitar la difusión de los resultados. El hecho de que se trate del idioma inglés entiendo que obedece a motivos historico-socio-económicos. Para los que el inglés no es nuestra lengua nativa, esto resulta una complicación adicional,  un esfuerzo extra que hay que hacer. Podemos quejarnos de eso, pero en la medida de que no es una situación fácilmente cambiable, tenemos que asumir la situación (al menos si queremos comunicarnos con el resto del mundo). Al final lo importante son los resultados de la investigación, no el esfuerzo que le cuesta a cada uno generarlos y difundirlos, aunque esto resulte cruel a veces. En concreto a mi me resulta un esfuerzo extra no despreciable escribir (correctamente) en inglés. 

No comparto la opinión de Philippe de que un idioma ajeno mejora el uso que hacemos de las palabras al no estar viciadas. Creo que ese ejercicio de revisión se puede hacer más eficazmente en la lengua materna.

I second Gaber's point on thinking in English, rather than translating into it. Far beyond the context of science, that is a critical step in language acquision, whereby one already implements naturally fixed collocations of the target language (for instance, 'age of acquisition' rather than 'acquisition age', and 'traffic lights' rather than 'lights of traffic').

That critical step, a night-to-day change as it often feels, might in fact predict one's take on the current situation of English 'imposition.' Indeed, it's just a lot harder for those thinking in their first languages: one then has to translate, as Vladimir states, and that doubles the workload. Thus, non-English-native scientists should try and break onto the latter linguistic stage ASAP, where one can develop a text not perfectly but at least thinking in English right off. 

Besides, I totally agree with Philippe's remark on the bright side of this reality. We can kill two birds with one language.

Peter, I find your example from the reviewers an interesting, probably common case of confirmation bias--a bit sad too but that's the current reviewing system.

I think  Miguel Samplón-Chalmeta wanted to provide a practical example of why we have to use a commen language for science. If there was no convention on English for science, we would not have been able to even have this great conversation! I actually do not know a single word of spanish (I think this is  Miguel Samplón-Chalmeta` language) and hence do not know what he wanted to say!

It is a good thing for everyone to speak at least two languages, The world will denfinetly evolve faster.

Gaber, yes I wanted so. Esentially I said A) English is now the scientific language and you have to deal with that although it implies a double effort. B) English (for non English native speakers) forces you to clearly state the concepts (as Phillipe said) but in my opinion this is not an advantage. You can better do the same in your own language. (Anyway, the Phillipe argument is good; I have been reconsidering it during these days)

For me to write a good text in English is hard. To write a *good *text in Spanish (mi own language) is also hard. But eventually I can assure that my spanish text is good and 100% correct and I never have these feeling with English.

Peter, in Spanish things could be quite the same, and I agree with you in that. But then we are facing another problem: natural (human) languages are a hard way to communicate objective facts (probably because they have to work in an non-objective environment).

Then this lead us to the following conclusion: native English speakers have to do great effort to fail to communicate something. And non-native English speakers have to do a double great effort to fail to communicate something.

(well, probably things are not as horrible as that)

Extremely interesting ping pong or even french billiard among above all Miguel, Philippe, and Peter.

Great contributions! Enhorabuena! Gratulation e meus parabéns...

And I like your open minds and the fact that you recall yourself being considering the views of the others, excellent!

Now, I think the problem posed by Peter is somehow "ill-posed", while I understand Peter's points (and please apologize for my english, but my german is not much better, only my spanish and galician could be better, but agreed with you not necessarily easier to understand).

"Language" beyond programming language, or the description of mathematics or logic as a language, "language" in the common sense is not objective (as mentioned before). Further to that it is alive and everchanging (except maybe for extinct languages).  To complicate it further language is only the medium for human communication, so it is necessarily ambiguous and strongly depending on the emissor and receptor (also human beings like us), and language/human communication always has an emotional charge associated.

So irrespective on whether native or foreign language speaker, an unambiguous human communication is likely impossible.

But on the other hand, all these elements strange and difficulting rigorous and formal dissemination of scientific findings, make the language an unvaluable tool and ultimate lead to literature.

So I feel none of you was looking for a medal as winner of this argumentative contest, but you all three deserve my congratulations!