English is often described as the current universal language—or lingua franca—of science, much as Latin was during the Early Modern period (late 15th–18th centuries); however, this claim is open to question. Two fundamental differences can be identified. First, Latin was adopted as the scholarly language because the accumulated erudite knowledge of the time had been expressed in that language. For this reason, the renowned Italian physicist Galileo Galilei1 (1564–1642) published his first major work on astronomy in Latin, Sidereus Nuncius (1610). Similarly, the eminent British scientist Isaac Newton (1643–1727) published his seminal work in Latin, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). English, by contrast, became dominant for very different reasons linked to the power dynamics of dominant nations following the Second World War. Prior to the dominance of English, particularly during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, other languages were also used for scientific communication and enjoyed comparable acceptance within the scientific community. For example, Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) published his work in French. Alessandro Volta (1745–1827) published in Italian and French, and Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) likewise published in Italian before emigrating to the United States. Similarly, three major milestones in physics were published in German: Max Planck′s (1858–1947) postulate for quantum theory (1900), Albert Einstein′s (1879–1955) two theories of relativity (1905, 1915), and Erwin Schrödinger′s (1887–1961) fundamental equation of quantum mechanics (1935). Likewise, Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852–1934), Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine in 1906, published his groundbreaking discoveries on neurons in Spanish. The second difference is that, when Latin served as the universal language of science, it was neither a vernacular language nor one spoken in everyday life by the general population. By the Middle Ages, Latin had evolved into the various Romance languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Romanian. Precisely because Latin was already a dead and immutable language, it was considered suitable for the universal communication of scholarly knowledge. In this historical period, Latin can therefore be understood as an authentic lingua franca, which, by definition, is not a native language of any of its users (Carli and Calaresu 2017). Thus, until the eighteenth century, anyone wishing to approach science, understand it, and communicate about it had to learn Latin. English, by contrast, should not be considered a lingua franca of science, as it is currently the native language of a significant number of scientists, granting them an evident advantage over those for whom it is not. In fact, a recent study has found that the use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximizing the contribution of non-native English speakers to scientific research, particularly in the early stages of their careers (Amano et al. 2023). This communicative disadvantage can be interpreted as a case of what Miranda Fricker terms epistemic injustice (Fricker 2007), a concept that has been examined in the context of organizations (Wilmot 2024), marginalized or underprivileged social groups (McConkey 2004), institutions of science (Grasswick 2017; Vučković and Sikimić 2023), and multilingual classrooms (González-Howard et al. 2023; Kerfoot and Bello-Nonjengele 2023). In what follows, the latter two areas of epistemic injustice within the context of science education are briefly discussed. In school, epistemic injustice emerges when monoglossic policies compel learners to acquire and demonstrate knowledge in a single language that is not familiar or native to all students. For example, Deng et al. (2022) found that in English-medium chemistry classes with students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, those with lower English proficiency demonstrated poorer scientific argumentation in their written work compared to their peers with higher proficiency. Similarly, Liu et al. (2021) reported that non-native English-speaking university students in Arts and Sciences participated less in collaborative learning and co-curricular activities than their native-speaking peers and showed smaller gains in objectively assessed critical thinking skills. These findings illustrate the tangible consequences of linguistic inequities in educational settings and highlight the need for pedagogical approaches that recognize and value students′ full linguistic repertoires. As an alternative to address this linguistic problem, Kerfoot and Bello-Nonjengele (2023) propose adopting multilingualism as a point of departure, legitimizing all languages within students′ repertoires in order to reduce epistemic hierarchies. This perspective aligns with translanguaging pedagogies, which advocate allowing students to express what they know and are able to do across their full communicative and semiotic repertoire (Fine and Furtak 2025). In this regard, Charamba (2021) found that the implementation of translanguaging approaches was associated with increased student participation in scientific practices, improved conceptual understanding of scientific content, enhanced confidence and epistemic agency—particularly among students previously marginalized by monolingual policies—and a reduction in linguistic hierarchies, thereby promoting greater epistemic equity in the science classroom. Similarly, González-Howard et al. (2025) concluded that intentionally and reflectively integrating multiple languages into science teacher education is a necessary condition for advancing more just, inclusive, and transformative science education, both in teacher preparation and in future practice with multilingual learners. So, if research in science education has established strategies to address epistemic injustice arising from multilingualism in the classroom, could these approaches serve as inspiration for addressing similar forms of epistemic injustice within the field of science education research itself? Without attempting to directly compare school and academic contexts in terms of linguistic challenges, and drawing on previous studies (Amano et al. 2023; Carli and Calaresu 2017), it can be argued that science education researchers whose native language is not English generally have to make a considerably greater effort than their native English-speaking peers to internationalize their work. Beyond the inherent difficulty of scientific communication (Petzold et al. 2025), this process requires mastering field-specific terminology and expressions in English, as well as identifying their equivalents in one′s own language. It should be emphasized that, unlike the exact and experimental sciences, science education is a social science; therefore, argumentation and narrative play a particularly important role in research. As a direct consequence of these challenges, translating research into English often compels authors to relinquish certain nuances, expressions, and stylistic features in order to make their texts comprehensible to an Anglophone audience. This frequently raises the question of how many research studies in science education may have failed to achieve the international recognition they deserved simply because they were not written in English. Indeed, using a single language for the communication of scientific research entails an inherent loss of the diversity of ideas that emerge within the plurality of languages (Vučković and Sikimić 2023). Therefore, linguistic communication barriers constitute a clear factor of epistemic injustice within the field of science education research. The linguistic obstacles are particularly pronounced at international forums for science education research, where presentations and discussions are conducted exclusively in English. Native English-speaking researchers are exempt from this challenge, as they produce research and deliver lectures in their mother tongue, an act predicated on the assumption of universal comprehension. Notably, this dynamic persists even when such conferences are hosted in non-Anglophone nations, with English remaining the default language of presentation, often supported only by ad-hoc simultaneous interpretation for attendees. In some instances, even this basic accommodation is absent, leaving non-native speakers at a profound disadvantage. However, to the best of my knowledge, researchers whose native language is not English are never allowed to deliver a keynote in their own language at international science education conferences organized by or held in Anglophone countries. From an equity perspective, would it not be fair for non-English-speaking researchers to present in their native language, with simultaneous interpretation provided for those who do not understand it? Several years ago, Siu Ling Wong and Derek Hodson published an interesting article in Science Education entitled “From the horse′s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge” (Wong and Hodson 2009). When I first read the title, I did not understand what was meant by the expression “from the horse′s mouth.” Its literal translation into Spanish made no sense to me. I therefore had to investigate its meaning, discovering that it is a British idiom referring to obtaining information directly from the most reliable source. I would never have imagined that a horse could be considered a source of reliability. In Spanish, we also have figurative expressions with the same meaning, such as “saber algo de buena tinta” (“to know something from a good ink”) or “saber algo de buena mano” (“to know something from a good hand”). However, if a Spanish researcher were to use literal translations of these expressions in the title of an English-language paper, it is very likely that the expressions would be rejected or that the author would be advised to replace them with something more “natural” in English (e.g., “to know something from a reliable source”). Allowing Anglophone authors to use idiomatic expressions from their own language in scientific publications thus constitutes a clear linguistic advantage for them and an epistemic disadvantage for others. Many expressions and nuances became obstacles for non-English-speaking science education researchers when we first began writing in English. For example, in the context of Ibero-American countries we speak of “didáctica de las ciencias,” which could be literally translated to English as “didactics of science,” to refer to the field of knowledge and research devoted to improving the teaching and learning of science. In English, however, the expressions “science education” or “science teaching” are typically used. Yet in Spanish, these latter terms do not have the same meaning as “didactics of science.” “Science education” or “science teaching” refer to the enactment of the science curriculum in the classroom, regardless of the methods, approaches, and resources used, whereas “didactics of science” denotes the academic field that studies those aspects. In their discussion of language and science, Carli and Calaresu (2017) have already addressed this by examining how certain scientific fields are named and/or conceptualized depending on whether they are situated in an Anglophone linguistic context or in other contexts, such as continental Europe. The dominance of English also has implications for the terminology used in science education in non-English-speaking contexts, as insufficient attention is paid to the careful adaptation of certain terms to these contexts. For example, some concepts recently incorporated into the Ibero-American science education context include “epistemic agency” (Stroupe 2014) and “student agency” (Arnold and Clarke 2014), which have been translated literally as “agencia epistémica” and “agencia estudiantil” (or “agencia del estudiante”). In my view, however, these translations are inappropriate. In English, “agency” has three main meanings: (1) an organization or business that provides a service, (2) action or intervention that produces an effect, and (3) the capacity to make decisions and act independently. In Spanish, however, according to the Royal Spanish Academy, the term “agency” (“agencia” in Spanish) corresponds only to the first of these meanings. Consequently, for a Spanish speaker, “student agency” may simply suggest that the student belongs to some kind of organization, rather than conveying the intended sense of autonomy, decision-making, and capacity for action. This semantic mismatch becomes particularly problematic when these terms are examined in their original theoretical context. In English-language science education literature, “epistemic agency” refers to the capacity to shape, produce, evaluate, and actively use knowledge rather than passively receive it (Zhang et al. 2022), while “student agency” refers to students′ proactive and transformative participation in classroom activities (Mameli et al. 2023). Both uses clearly correspond to meanings (2) and (3) of the English term “agency.” Accordingly, in Spanish context “epistemic agency” should have been translated as “capacidad epistémica” (i.e., “epistemic ability”) or “acción epistémica” (i.e., “epistemic action”) depending on the context in which it is used, and “student agency” as something akin to “capacidad del estudiante para la acción transformadora” (i.e., “students′ ability to engage in transformative action”). Yet this has not occurred, and we already find works in Spanish that have adopted these literal translations (e.g., Costa Ramos et al. 2021). A reverse linguistic imposition would surely not have taken place. All of the above reflects some of the linguistic experiences of a native Spanish-speaking researcher; however, in light of the findings reported by Amano et al. (2023), it is likely that other researchers whose first language is not English face similar challenges in their scientific communication practices. Moreover, translation issues such as those discussed above should not be regarded as merely anecdotal, but rather as shaped by implicit evaluative norms in science education research that privilege Anglophone conceptualizations and linguistic conventions—norms that operate not only in the writing of research articles but also in their review and editorial decision-making processes. As such, these issues point to a broader pattern in the field, whereby English-based linguistic norms influence what is considered legitimate, precise, or conceptually acceptable knowledge. In Fricker (2007) terms, this situation constitutes a form of hermeneutical injustice, as dominant Anglophone frameworks constrain the interpretive resources available to non-English-speaking researchers, limiting their capacity to fully articulate their perspectives and have their knowledge adequately recognized. None of that is intended to suggest that non-native English speakers should stop using or publishing in English, which, of course, we will continue to do with conviction. Rather, it is an invitation for Anglophone researchers to also make the effort to disseminate their findings in languages other than their own, and for the international science education community to ensure that all researchers have the opportunity to publish or present their work in the language they master best. As Kersting et al. (2025) argue, establishing multilingualism and multimodality as structuring principles of science education is key to ensuring equitable, socially relevant, and conceptually deep learning, especially in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts. There are currently sufficient means and resources to make this feasible in science education research. Vučković and Sikimić (2023) frame all of this as an epistemic equity challenge, implying that researchers disadvantaged by their linguistic abilities (Amano et al. 2023) should receive support from the broader scientific community. This support could take the form of mitigating agents—individuals or organizations that act as a communication bridge between individual researchers and the scientific community (Vučković and Sikimić 2023). Given all these considerations, and in order to move toward a more epistemically just international research landscape, I contend that the key lies in ceasing to privilege English and instead seeking to reconcile the use of multiple languages for communicating debates and research findings in science education. Following Carli and Calaresu (2017), an ideal scenario for achieving linguistic equity in a multilingual scientific communication context would be one in which researchers—including in their roles as reviewers and editors of academic publications—possess sufficient skills to understand work published in languages other than their own (at least those closely related or widely spoken),2 while also having the option to disseminate their research in their native or predominant language. If publication editors then consider it appropriate or necessary to translate a work into English, they should do so without imposing any additional cost or workload on the researchers. Today, sufficient resources exist to overcome many lexical-semantic barriers across languages: artificial intelligence enables translations that largely preserve characteristic nuances of each language, and simultaneous interpretation has long facilitated communication and debate at international scientific events. In light of this, does it still make sense to continue prioritizing English as the primary language for maximizing the international reach of science education research? In the Ibero-American context, for example, this issue has largely been overcome, as most journals allow publication at least in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. Moreover, many of these journals are indexed in leading bibliometric databases such as SCOPUS and/or Web of Science—for example, Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias (Spain), Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física (Brazil), and Educación Química (Mexico). The question is: when will Anglophone journals take this step? Similarly, science education research conferences in the Ibero-American context commonly allow presentations in both Spanish and Portuguese, while opening or closing lectures may also be delivered in English if it is the speaker′s first language. In contrast, it is striking that an international event such as the successive editions of the ESERA (European Science Education Research Association) conference permits presentations only in English, excluding all other official languages of the European Union. This decision likely reflects political rather than budgetary considerations. Moreover, a significant proportion of attendees are native speakers of these other non-English languages. For instance, Spanish alone is spoken officially in 21 countries and by over 600 million people worldwide, including nearly 60 million in the United States. This could also prompt the organizers of NARST (National Association for Research in Science Teaching) conferences to in both Spanish and English. I not the of English in that but rather issues of equity and epistemic at a educational institutions should be to these When we have a language, which is not a lingua franca for a of the scientific community does not have to time and resources to learn the languages and that time and resources which the will use to learn and to use the language can be used by native speakers for their research a international language, the of is therefore, but is simply from the community to a of the community. It is that, at a time when science education to such as epistemic and implications (Grasswick 2017; Fricker et al. when language is as a factor and Bello-Nonjengele 2023; Vučković and Sikimić 2023), this has still not been taken in science education research. the issue to a of key of science the to be is that a and debate on this issue can within the international science education research including researchers, and organizers of scientific It is that some of the ideas discussed may to advancing this writing original writing review and intelligence have been used with the of improving the writing of the All is the work of the