Academic publishing and the peer review process are generally global by nature. However, the international scope of publishing, which uses the English language, presents both opportunities and challenges. While it ensures broader reach for a greater impact, non-native or ESL (English as a Second Language) authors face challenges in effectively communicating their research.
Recently, Dr. Henry Arenas-Castro’s team pointed out major language barriers in biological sciences publishing. Among the 736 journals they analyzed, only 8% offered author guidelines in non-English languages. Fewer than 7% published non-English articles and just 10% allowed citations from non-English sources. Furthermore, only two journals (0.3%) assured that language quality alone wouldn’t lead to rejection. This highlights the challenging nature of tackling linguistic inclusivity in publishing.
A study found that non-native English speakers face language-related rejections 2.6 times more often than native English speakers. These findings were supported by an internal analysis conducted by the American Journal of Roentgenology. They found that manuscripts from China faced higher rejection rates due to language issues, a challenge less common in most other regions.
Although manuscripts with major language issues are generally rejected, in some cases, meritorious papers are accepted even with minor language issues. However, during peer review, reviewers point out areas for improvement in a manuscript. A survey-based study reported that non-native English speakers encounter language-related revision requests 12.5 times more frequently than native speakers.
Addressing their feedback can require additional experiments, analyses, or rewriting certain sections of the manuscript. As a result, comprehending and responding to their comments clearly becomes important to reduce the chances of misinterpretation, which may lead to unnecessary revisions, extended review cycles, further revisions, and delayed publishing. Therefore, addressing reviewer comments carefully is crucial, as it demonstrates the commitment to quality and academic rigor, thereby helping in a positive editorial outcome.
Challenges in Responding to Reviewer Comments
Addressing reviewer feedback thoroughly is crucial for authors, as each revision moves the manuscript closer to meeting the high standards required for publication. Misinterpreting or inadequately addressing feedback could impact the final assessment of their work. Some common challenges encountered by non- English-speaking authors are:
-
Understanding Reviewer Feedback:
Failure to understand the reviewer comments may lead to misinterpretation and inadequate revisions. This is often seen when the reviewers use technical terms or jargons. Non-English-speaking authors may struggle to interpret complex feedback and therefore may misunderstand the comments shared by the reviewers.
-
Dealing with Critical Feedback:
Sometimes, a reviewer might question fundamental aspects of the research. Language barrier may further complicate the objective of such feedback. This can make authors feel defensive or discouraged, hampering a constructive mindset. As a result, they may respond inappropriately, potentially leading to manuscript rejection.
-
Clarity in Communicating Revisions:
Authors must effectively communicate revisions by specifying how they addressed each point raised by the reviewer. This requires a professional tone that exudes confidence and clarity. However, it is important to ensure that the response is polite. Striking the right balance between a professionalism and politeness can be challenging for a non-English speaking author.
Although peer review aims to assess the quality and accuracy of research, reviewers may sometimes unintentionally focus on language issues rather than scientific merit. Therefore, experts advise asking your mentor and colleagues to review your response letter. A study found that non-native English speakers seek language-based feedback from colleagues for more than 75% of their publication documents. They can help identify the gaps highlighted by the reviewer and check the tone, language, and grammar
Check out this FREE DOWNLOADABLE with sample responses to address critical reviewer comments.
In addition to seeking feedback from peers, researchers can consider seeking the help of professional services and tools, to bridge the gap in communication and save time.
Role of Professional Services and AI Tools in Responding Reviewer Comments
Here’s how tools and services can help researchers address reviewer comments effectively:
-
AI Tools for Drafting and Proofreading Responses:
AI-powered tools can assist authors by offering style suggestions to ensure clear and polished language. This is valuable for clear communication. Such tools only craft basic responses or adjust the tone and grammar of initial replies to a reviewer’s comment.
-
Specialized Publication Support Services:
Specialized support services like the ones for addressing reviewer comments can help authors structure and refine responses to reviewers’ feedback. Experts in the field guide researchers in addressing each comment constructively, ensuring that responses meet high standards of clarity and professionalism. Such services may also help you with revision of the rejected manuscripts and get them published as well.
-
Editing and proofreading services:
Professional services enhance the readability and coherence of the manuscript and the response letter. Proofreading services can help authors address reviewer comments on language and clarity, improving readability and adherence to academic standards.
This creates a positive impression on the reviewers. Such services often offer end-to-end support along with manuscript revision support. If you’re aiming to polish your submission and respond to reviewer comments with precision, Enago’s professional services can offer valuable support by ensuring that the feedback is addressed accurately and improve the overall language quality.
-
Translation Services:
Authors facing language barriers can use translation services to translate their responses and manuscript sections for a better understanding. This will ensure that language does not impede effective communication. Additionally, using a translation service helps to convey revisions accurately.
Addressing reviewer comments is a critical step in the publication process, as it directly impacts the likelihood of manuscript acceptance. For non-native English speakers, language barriers add a layer of difficulty to this already demanding task. The globalized framework of academic publishing highlights the need for tools and support systems to level the playing field.
Professional services and specialized tools can ensure the authors’ responses are clear, accurate, and professionally articulated. By investing in resources that support effective communication, authors can significantly improve the quality of their responses, ultimately strengthening their manuscripts and increasing their chances of successful publication. This will ensure that valuable research is effectively communicated and assessed across linguistic and cultural boundaries.
