‘The language needs to be improved’ Part 2: A peer in science, but not in language.

We previously reported the problem of reviewer comments that the writing of a paper is poor and needs to be improved, when no such need in fact exists – the language is fine (https://dmed.co.jp/en/blog/how-to-handle-the-language-needs-to-be-improved-reviewer-comments). We described the nuisance of such comments, and suggested a workflow for how to deal with them.

We noted that many reviewers who comment that the language of a well-written paper 'needs to be improved' are themselves not native English speakers. This fact is immediately discernable to us – professional editors – from their writing. Could this comment be a form of self-aggrandizement? Or a fall-back in the absence of any real comment?

We also noted that most journals now offer editing as a for-profit service. Authors might wonder why they are told that the language of their well-written paper 'needs to be improved'. They might ask whether the journal is drumming up business for the journal’s editing service.

Alas, the problem continues. Here is a case in which Reviewer 1 and 2 - in their first comment - directly contradict each other:

Reviewer #1: Thank you for this manuscript which I read with interest. The manuscript is well written and the statistical analysis seems sound…

Reviewer #2: Following are my major concerns.

1. The writing is not clear enough, with poor grammar and inadequate explanation. A proof read is needed.

The author commented to us:

'I have heard that this kind of thing is common when Japanese people submit, and I trust your company, but I would appreciate it if you could correct any grammatical errors in the parts that have no changes.'

The paper was completely fine, and required no changes. Reviewer 1 - a native speaker - was right. Reviewer 2 - a non-native speaker - was wrong.

But we had to reread the entire paper again, to meet the author's trust.

The comment on 'poor grammar' is particularly disturbing. Writing style and expression can vary, and quality is subject to opinion. But grammar follows concrete rules, and errors are obvious to any reasonable reader. There were zero grammatical errors in this paper. 'Poor grammar'? The comment was nothing but humbug.

A 'peer' is defined as someone with the same abilities as other people in a group. Reviewer 2 may have been a peer in scientific ability, but not with regard to language. Journals know well the dependency of authors on acceptance. They should be certain not to take advantage of this dependency. They should ensure that the services they offer are made responsibly and without pressure.

Which leads to this: journals which offer for-profit editing of submitted papers should deprecate reviewer comments on language made by non-native, non-'peer' reviewers.