I can sympathise with Hamachan Hamazaki on this, and would like to add my
own two bits. I'm a native English speaker with a pretty good writing
background, and experiences with reviewers often drive me up the wall. First
of all, some reviewers insist on the use of jargon - I once wrote a paper on
how scientists could better promote a general understanding of biodiversity
in which I pointed out that protecting biodiversity does not involve just
saving cute fuzzy seals and pands, but also ugly worms in the mud - the
reviewer complained that this language did not belong in a scientific paper
and I should refer to charismatic megafauna instead. I have also been
accused of writing like a journalist, even in the style of Scientific
American. So much for professional training in writing! In an artcle
presenting a general theory of optimal management of a two-species fishery I
was told that the species had to have Latin names. Hey, this was a general
theory! So I called the species Quid pro Quo and Dolus fictus, but jokes are
not allowed either, so the editor finally settled on the exciting Species A
and Species B. Readability is seldom an issue.
As for acceptable standards, when I am working on an EU project I use
British spelling and usage, but many reviewers insist on American English.
In fact, when I was living in Canada as a Canadian citizen employed by the
government of Canada, I sometimes had reviewers complain about my using
Canadian spelling in submissions to Canadian journals! Plus many reviewers
are pretty arrogant about correcting spelling they don't understand. I once
had a reviewer meticulously correct my use of weighted, as in weighted
average, and replaced every occurence with weighed.
I feel strongly that dealing with the language is primarily a job for th
editor, not the reviewer. Of course the reviewer should point out serious
problems, but I consider my responsibility as a reviewer is to evaluate the
science, not the language.
Of course the language has to be clear in the final version, and it is best
to check it with someone fluent in the language or with a scientific editor
(disclaimer, I do scientific editing so this is not a disinerested comment),
but I think we should make every effort not to discriminate against
colleagues who were not brought up speaking English.
Bill Silvert
Portugal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamazaki, Hamachan (DFG)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] THE COST OF PUBLISHING RE: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access
and Intellectual Imperialism
I always submit manuscript after being edited by my native English speaker
co-workers and a professional editor. Even after those editing, journal
reviewers often put low on Readability Criteria, such as
* Interest: Captures and holds readers' attention.
* Understandable: Uses easy-to-understand language and flows smoothly.
* Development: Appropriately sequences and constructs paragraphs and
sentences to support the central idea and conclusions.
* Mechanics: Uses acceptable standards of spelling and grammar.
