22

I've seen this question on suggesting someone get a native speaker to edit and check. But my situation is rather different.

Several colleagues and I wrote an article for a special volume of a journal. The initial review was R&R with some pretty severe changes requested. We've made those changes. After that we received an odd e-mail from the editor for the special volume (via her assistant -- but via subsequent e-mail confirmed to be under her direction):

We have carefully read it over, and in order to move forward, we highly recommend that you kindly consider seeking out academic editorial services in order to meet ... standards.

Then later in the message:

We recommend that authors have their manuscripts checked by an English language native speaker before final approval of their submission; this will ensure that submissions are judged at peer review exclusively on academic merit.

The publisher and journal are not known for being predatory.

As a native English speaker, I was rather surprised that the journal said this. So I reread the article and there aren't any gaping grammatical or structural issues (I actually edit papers for others who are non-native speakers in addition to my own publishing, so I'm rather accustomed to the sorts of mistakes they make).

What is a good way to respond to this request?

Edit to make clearer, I absolutely agree that part of what one should do when told find an editor is to find and get some objective checks done on the writing itself (non-author parties and other forms of third parties competent to check). My question is assuming you've cleared that hurdle and have received this sort of comment.

Community
  • 1
virmaior
  • 5,109
  • 1
  • 18
  • 35
  • 4
    Perhaps ask for specifics? Is there a possibility that the journal expects a different dialect of English from the one you are used to? For example, English vs. American. Spellings, and to a lesser extent punctuation, are different. – Patricia Shanahan May 13 '16 at 02:11
  • 11
    From what you describe, this does not look like good editorial practice at this particular journal. The only thing I can think of is that some or all of the message from which you quote is "boilerplate" material, which may have been used thoughtlessly without paying attention to the revised manuscript. – Yemon Choi May 13 '16 at 02:21
  • 4
    I agree with @YemonChoi in that it's standard boiler plate stuff. The journal may not have a budget to hire editors or someone to look over stuff. So they put the onus on the authors. – Prof. Santa Claus May 13 '16 at 02:22
  • 10
    I had one manuscript criticized by a reviewer for the large amount of typos, and a few examples given. They were all perfectly fine British English. – Davidmh May 13 '16 at 06:58
  • Does the quoted text come from a reviewer, an editor or the journal office? Who sent this e-mail? This seems important information, and it is missing. I am downvoting for now. – Federico Poloni May 13 '16 at 09:54
  • 1
    Their own first sentence is incorrectly punctuated so I'd find another journal. – TheMathemagician May 13 '16 at 12:09
  • Having another person read something is always valuable. We all make mistakes. Your edited-in paragraph says "to find get", for example. Not to say the journal is truly right, but perhaps there are things that you missed? – ErikE May 13 '16 at 15:41
  • 1
    @FedericoPoloni editor's assistant for the special volume (not the regular editor). But it looks like it's clearly some sort of boilerplate. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 22:07
  • 1
    I have received similar comments lately. My response now is to note that grammatical and typographical errors are not exclusive to non-native speakers. Also I remind reviewers that a name that does not sound western does not imply an author is not a native speaker; yes, this implies that the reviewer is racist! – Prof. Santa Claus Apr 19 '20 at 03:29

4 Answers4

41

While one should avoid antagonizing editors where possible, I think it would be reasonable for you and your coauthors to respond with a matter-of-fact email that includes the following points:

(1) one of the authors, namely yourself, is a native English speaker;

(2) said author has re-read the revised manuscript, and did not find obvious defects in the grammar or idiom;

(3) it would be greatly appreciated if the editors or the referees could point out the exact places in the revised manuscript, where it is felt that further correction is needed to meet the desired standards.

If they are being picky in good faith, point (3) should not cause a problem. If they stall or ignore point (3), then at this point it might be worth asking other people in your field or related ones if they have had similar experiences with this journal or its editors.

Yemon Choi
  • 1,535
  • 1
  • 16
  • 20
  • 19
    In #3, requesting the exact places where there are problems may be asking too much. It's much better to ask for a sample of places that are in question. As a reviewer who has written such a demand for English usage help, I always give a sample of the problems first. – Bill Barth May 13 '16 at 12:23
  • 1
    I disagree with this answer, because you might be right, but you'll just get rejected with a different story. Obviously the reviewer doesn't like the English, so you should change something (rewrite for clarity). Stating that one of the authors is a native speaker is just rebutting one of the wrong assumptions the reviewer made while helping you, it doesn't do anything about the main problem (bad English). – VonBeche May 13 '16 at 14:27
  • 3
    @VonBeche It is far from clear to me that there is any bad English, and -- having refereed many articles and published quite a few myself -- it seems much more plausible, given the passages quoted by the OP, that the paragraph concerning English is part of standard boilerplate. Furthermore, if concrete instances are not given of where the English is regarded as deficient, authors have every right to ask for clarification. – Yemon Choi May 13 '16 at 15:15
  • @BillBarth Good point. I do think that it is important to ask for specific places or instances where improvements are sought, because this is the place where an editor or referee might reconsider, or back down. (I speak from personal experience.) – Yemon Choi May 13 '16 at 15:18
  • 6
    @VonBeche You suggest to the OP that he or she "... should change something (rewrite for clarity)". Let us assume that the OP knows what they are talking about when it comes to the clarity or otherwise of the article; then how can one "rewrite for clarity" without knowing what is sought? House style and referees' predilections can vary quite widely; some people seem to really care about the use of the subjunctive, while others view it as often being an archaism; some people forbid prepositions placed at the end of a sentence, despite Churchill's caustic rejoinder; and so on. – Yemon Choi May 13 '16 at 15:21
  • 3
    @VonBeche The comment is coming from the assistant to the editor for a special volume (based on clarifying e-mails, this is a request from the volume editor) -- rather than a comment from one of the reviewers. Didn't want to make it the focus, but assistant for the volume editor and the volume editor do not appear to be native speakers of English themselves. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 22:27
21

In some cases reviewers have nothing to say about the content of the manuscript, so they request general language editing. In other cases the language you choose may be grammatically correct, but very distracting. I've read papers with perfect grammar, but the word choice was so bizarre that it distracted from the idea.

In this case you should:

  1. Re-read the paper yourself - fix any problems you see (there must be some)
  2. Have another, non-author, academic read the paper.
    • If your colleague could understand the work, and the language was not distracting, then email the editor for clarification. For example "My work has been reviewed by native English speakers, and no major issues were found. Can you please elaborate on what changes you would like to see to this manuscript."
    • If your colleague could not understand the work, rewrite or use an editing service.
Joshua I. James
  • 566
  • 2
  • 10
  • While I take your point on a certain level, for the purposes of the question, we'll make the assumption that the problem isn't with the style of my English. Do you have an answer that addresses how to respond to an off-base request that one use an editor or find a native speaker? – virmaior May 13 '16 at 03:09
  • 17
    You should never assume there is not a style problem, that is why I recommend having one of your colleagues read your work to see if they find anything. If they see no problem, then the issue is likely with the reviewer/editor, at which point you should request clarification. A simple reply to the editor saying "My work has been reviewed by native English speakers, and no issues were found. Can you please elaborate on what changes you would like to see." I'll update the answer to be more specific. – Joshua I. James May 13 '16 at 03:17
  • I would also like to say that this happens to me about once every 1 - 2 years. Sometimes it is a problem with my editing, sometimes it is just a reviewer trying to find something. Having a quick peer review can usually sort out which one it is. – Joshua I. James May 13 '16 at 03:19
  • 4
    I'm not making the assumption in my own life. I'm just explaining that I'm not asking for advice as to how to check my writing. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 03:32
  • 3
    I can see that you're not asking for advice on how to check your writing. However, given your situation, I think "check your writing" is a necessary step to resolving the problem you've outlined, and an independent check is probably the best way to do it. Personally, I think your best bet would be Nos. 1 and 2 in this answer, followed by No. 3 in the answer by Yemon Choi. – J.R. May 13 '16 at 08:40
  • 2
    I completely accept one should do something like #1 and #2 when you get told "find an editor."Maybe I was insufficiently clear in my question, but I'm asking assuming one has cleared the hurdles related to doubts about the writing itself. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 09:58
  • 2
    @virmaior You say "assuming one has cleared the hurdles". Have you actually cleared those hurdles and have had your article looked at by a different native speaker? (Without meaning to nit-pick, your phrase "I'm not making the assumption in my own life" in an earlier comment does not come across as one "a native speaker" would use). If you have (and they found no problems), you should probably explicitly state this in the question (in which case the answer is they're boiler-plating or don't understand English themselves, so change journal). – TripeHound May 13 '16 at 16:28
  • 2
    @virmaior: if you've already cleared the hurdles, i.e. you've already done the thing they asked you to do, then all you can really say to them is, as Joshua indicates, "our academic editing service, who is not just me in a different hat but an actual different person, is absolutely stumped as to what problems you might be talking about". Bluntly, the fact that one of the authors is a native speaker is completely irrelevant if you have a native-speaking non-author editor already. The problem (and I don't know whose fault this is) is that neither you nor your editor is producing prose they like. – Steve Jessop May 13 '16 at 17:43
  • 1
    @TripeHound I'm saying for the purposes of the question, assume that hurdle is cleared. I'm not saying we won't do due diligence on that front -- just that it's completely not what I'm trying to ask about in this question. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 22:10
  • 1
    @SteveJessop I'm sorry. My expression was not supposed to mean that we hired an editor (i.e., the thing they asked us to do). It was meant to indicate that for the purposes of the question, I'm asking what one should do taking as an assumption that the writing is not in need of a native check / edit. (Again, it's not that we won't do due diligence in checking it to make sure but that there's no question there worth asking -- any time I've ever been told to do a better job editing or get someone to look over something for style, I've done it). – virmaior May 13 '16 at 22:21
  • 5
    @virmaior: I really think you are too hung up on this idea of a "native" check. They say it needs editing. You say it has no "gaping grammatical or structural issues". These things can both be true, because "no gaping grammatical errors" is an absurdly low threshold for a competent edit. So, OK, it's had a native check. Ignore that paragraph. Concentrate on the paragraph where they said it desperately needs a better edit. – Steve Jessop May 13 '16 at 22:39
  • ... but if you insist that the problem is, "the journal says X about my paper, and X is false, what should I do?" then I suppose you either build a case involving independent opinions that X in fact is false, and present it to them, or else you withdraw the paper from consideration and submit elsewhere. If you believe it meets their standards for quality of prose, and they believe it doesn't, you're kind of stuck. If they really did intend to hint darkly that your text isn't even at "native speaker" level, that just shows how deep the disagreement is. – Steve Jessop May 13 '16 at 22:44
  • 1
    @SteveJessop your latter comment focuses precisely on what I'm asking (or intending to ask) -- journal says X about our paper and X is false where X is something that seems askance in both timing and merit. The specific X is "consider using an editing service" spelled out as premised on the authors not including a native speaker. (Note the timing is also odd: this is after it has already been sent to reviewers 1x and we've tried to address the issues they raised (primarily content-related but 1 or 2 structural issues) but before being sent to the reviewers again). – virmaior May 13 '16 at 23:03
  • @SteveJessop Maybe the editors or other editorial staff have simply dropped the ball on this one. It happens from time to time – Yemon Choi May 14 '16 at 13:35
11

It could be that the second quotation is simply boilerplate that is sent to every submission. In particular, it is written in the abstract "We recommend that authors", rather than "you" or "the authors". The journal may find it easier to send this to everyone rather than trying to work out the native languages of the authors.

The first quotation is more direct, and may indicate that there are issues of style (perhaps relating that particular journal's house style), rather than a problem with the level of English.

Gremlin
  • 259
  • 1
  • 7
  • This. They recommend academic editing services (because, rightly or wrongly, they think the paper badly-written). Furthermore, they recommend that the editor (or anyway someone who checks the paper) be a native English speaker. – Steve Jessop May 13 '16 at 17:30
  • 2
    +1. I add that the boilerplate text could possibly have been an error. Sometimes people may be using "copy&paste", or even clicking on a button which causes text to be added. Or one person may have reviewed the paper, and told another typist what feedback to provide. I'm not saying that I have strong cause to believe that an error did actually occur. I'm saying that it's better to presume such a thing is a possibility (rather than to feel offended). – TOOGAM May 13 '16 at 19:00
  • It's for a special volume of the journal, so I'm not entirely certain the person sending the e-mail would have access to all of the boilerplate they use, but it's a fair and interesting point. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 22:12
3

This happened to me but by one of the peer-reviewers. I am a native speaker and as it happens I also have a masters in English Literature as well as a medical degree. What we did was to write a concise response to that comment which said we confirm that the manuscript has been checked by a native English speaker with a masters degree in English. We did not mention that this person was one of the authors all along. I think that the reviewer just saw non-English names in the author list and fired off that comment quickly as it's no drawback for him/her to say it and it then ensures the authors make really sure their language is up to standard.

croc7415
  • 476
  • 2
  • 8