Submissions from developing countries
In this issue, you can read about the ways in which Elsevier and other publishers increase access to science through programs like Online Access to Research in the Environment (OARE). Our question addresses the other end of the scale. As an editor, how do you deal with submissions from developing countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Cambodia, Mozambique)?a) I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them.
b) I take into consideration the fact that they are from developing countries and do my utmost to get them published. This can include giving the author feedback on language, style and content.
c) If I see potential, I will contact the publisher and recommend the author be sponsored for e.g. language editing before considering the paper further.
If you had to choose one of the above statements, which one would it be and why?
June 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
In most cases, option (a) applies to my procedure. Only if I dare to predict that the manuscript in question would definitely be accepted if some formal (language or style) problems have been solved, I follow policy (b). I had no idea of option (c) whatsoever.
Best regards
Michael Schmitt
May 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
My policy is between (a) and (c), leaning more toward (a), but within reason. If the problems are purely related to language issues, I am willing to give the authors a chance. However, if the scientific quality is not there I do not care where the paper comes from and reject it.
As a good example, we receive many articles from PRC. The English is actually not bad, but the papers often are way outside the scope of the journal or more or less scientifically not interesting or outright irrelevant. All these papers get rejected, either directly without review, or after reviewers have looked at them.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I was not aware that option C) was available.
The quality of the science is always paramount - there is no reason whatsoever for accepting for publication inferior material. There is one rider to this and that is that many “developing” countries do not always have the most up-to-date technologies and as a consequence their submitted papers often employ more “classical ” and the conclusions from carefully designed well-executed and interpreted investigation must await the application of more definitive study. In other words, sound work that will be pursued by the authors (as facilities become available to them) or by others elsewhere. The other aspect that should be borne in mind is that there is a place for “archival” papers - often perceived as rather pedestrian
but which make definitive obervations which will form, eventually, the bases for more mechanistic investigations.
A direct answer from the options above is that I employ a hybrid of A) and B)
April 26th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
A, B and C at the same time!
A: the standard should not be lowered.
B: authors can be given more careful feedback and suggestions to do the necessary research to bring the paper on the level. I usually do this.
C: I was not even aware that the publisher can provide such a service to authors! it is very useful to have, please advertise this better among editors. obviously it is only relevant to do this if the content has potential to reach the desired quality.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I agree with a mix of A and C (C would be my preferable choice).
Also, I do not think that it is necessary to add a new statement how deal with submissions from developing countries.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:38 am
I lean towards B. The science and content must still be up to journal standard but I will help in any way I can. If my reviewers like the content, then I suggest to the author(s) that they seek help from someone whose native tongue is English. I expect residents and other English-speaking authors to clean up their own syntax and grammar, but it would be very nice to be able to provide help with language through Elsevier.
My rationale? When I present in countries where the native tongue is not English, I am grateful for any assistance and translation. When I host speakers, it is only good manners to help them look the best and most capable that they can…poor language abilities hinders the most brilliant content, and we all lose out.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
My approach would be a mix of A and C, with a dash of B. First, I will look at the actual content and potential of the results presented (A), not so much at the form (C). IF, only if, both A and C are affirmative, THEN I will try to get the paper published (B). We all know from the many conferences and meetings that we have attended that some are more challenged by foreign languages than others. That does not affect the actual content as much as it does affect its form or appearance.
It is not about lowering the standard, quite the contrary: getting more authors to comply with the set standards by adapting the form of their contribution. However, lacking content is under all circumstances a grave and inhibiting omission.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
My opinion is close to B. I would add, that often people from developped country offer good but badly packed projects. With the editorial help they may migrate from the unpublishable to the articles of value well above average. If that is my expectation, then I search for referee who would take a burden of (often) long discussion.
OK, I may be biased with the definition of developped country. May be I should rather write isolated scientific community.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I am in favor of proposition A.This is because any lowering of standards will have a negative effect on the journal.All first class authors will start not submitting their works,while the readership,impact factors,citations,etc will start falling down. People will adjust to high standards.For example,I observe a significant improvement with respect to english as well as content of papers coming from mainland China,as compared to the situation 10-15 years ago.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I agree with A and with C(C would be my preferable choice).
April 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them. I give also feedback on journal style of writing to the authors.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I tend toward a). On occasion, if all that is required to make a paper publishable is editing the language, I will go with b).
April 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Choice between A and B; not so much experience with developing countries, although some from northern Africa, but mostly judging on how I deal with submissions from China, which in terms of writing a paper is often “developing”. I will put a little more effort into getting such a paper through, and even if I reject, I see to it tht they get feedback that would help them improve for the next time around with another paper or in another journal.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I choose the statement A, however, I give also feedback on language, style and content of the manuscript to the authors.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Choice: A
It’s important for our journal to strive for the highest standard of original publications, hence rigourous peer review regardless of the origin of the manuscript is essential. If the language needs editing, we always recommend that the authors seek help from a native speaker before submitting a revised paper- that seems to work in most of the cases.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Choice B only if the paper has scientific merit and the author is willing to get outside help with English usage and grammar
April 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Choice: C
This policy should apply, not only to papers submitted from a developing country, but to any paper which does not meet the standards of language or style expected in a contribution to a scientific journal. In applying this policy, an option should be provided in the action column of the submission to allow the editor or the editorial office to return the paper to the publisher for sponsorship in language or technical editing before the manuscript is sent through the review process. It should require only the clicking on a button to send a standard letter to minimize the addtional burden on the editor.
I strongly believe that the language of a manuscript should be corrected before it is forwarded to reviewers as it can cause significant irritation to the reviewer if it is hard to read. We have returned manuscripts to authors requesting that they seek help in editing their submissins but we did not offer any guidance as to where they can go. A guidance by the publisher would be most useful. If the author does not improve the language or presntation in general, then the paper should be rejected on that count alone, which takes us back to option A.
I would like to learn a bit more about what Elsevier has in mind concerning sponsorship:
- Who will provide assistance in editing?
- What would it cost the author?
April 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
On balance , I suppose I would say “C” if I am forced to choose one. However, I do apply “A” but if I recognise that an author is struggling with language, whether from a developing country or a country where English is not the first language, I would apply”B”. But at the onset the science and methodology must be sound as no amount of improving the language makes wrong or bad science better.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
High standards have to be kept irrespective of the origin of the paper submission. However, in the area of language, I believe we can offer support. My experience had been that most reviewers try and assist a little in improving, however in most cases this is not adequate and thus professional help is recommended. If needed, I also ask for more than one revision.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Subject to otherwise positive comments from Reviewers, my current policy is somewhere between Options A and B (although poor use of English is not confined to papers from developing countries). If I don’t have time to help myself I recommend that authors seek professional help. After this direction some authors seek local ‘amateur’ help. However help from a local English teacher may not be sufficient to bring Technical English to an adequate standard.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
If forced I would choose A. However where English is a problem I ask them to get advice from an English speaker, preferably before sending to referees.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
My answer is (a). I try to mantain high standards, irrespective of the nationality of the authors. Language editing may be a useful service provided by Elsevier once the paper is recommended for publication.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I believe that high standards have to be kept irrespective of where the paper comes form. However, as an editor, I encourage the referees to make positive suggestions for improvement for those papers that only need some more work to be accepted. For papers from developing countries, this can also include giving the author feedback on language.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
In principle, I am for (a), and try to stick to it. I do not think it is real help for researchers in developing countries if we encourage them with publishing poor manuscripts.
On submission, each manuscript is checked against format requirements and language (the latter is done by reading the Abstract and the Conclusions). If there are any problems, it is sent back immediately with proper instructions.
Scientific novelty and level are judged next through peer reviews (they may get overruled by the editor occasionally, but not for “political” reasons). When the work is scientifically valuable but the language is poor, I request language editing, repeatedly if needed, even after two revisions. When the authors do not take such requests seriously enough, I may correct a few paragraphs to convince them, which usually works. Otherwise no language editing is provided by our journal; extremely stubborn authors are advised to find another journal.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I encourage authors and personally edit papers that are approved by reviewers,
The quality is expected to be excellent, no matter where the paper comes foom
April 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
A)
It is my opinion that maintaining the highest standards, irrespective of the source of a paper, is the only way to ensure the journal remains the leading journal in the field.
I receive too many papers to be able to give detailed advice on every paper received from the developing countries, However I always respond with helpful advice and feedback to all enquiries from authors so as to help them meet the high scientific standard required.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:21 am
I am treating all papers essentially the same; i.e., I will not publish a paper which is scientifically not sound or does not meet the scientific quality standard of the journal, no matter where the manuscript comes from. If needed, I give advice on how to improve to manuscript, e.g., language, format etc. This is indeed often the case for manuscripts from developing countries. I refer them to the professional editorial services which Elsevier lists on their website.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I am treating all papers in the same way, that is I am requiring from all papers to meet equally high standards for scientific contribution, novelty and style. Sometimes, when I see a potential in a paper coming from a developing country, I am more patient in asking for more than one revision. As I am not a native English speaker, I cannot help myself to improve English. To my knowledge, Elsevier does not provide such a service. So, I am asking the author to find an advisor on his own.
April 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
For quality, I treat all papers equally. It does no-one any favours if they think their paper only got in because it came from Gondwanaland. However, my referees sometimes correct the English, and so do I, if I have time. Also, I often require English editing by the authors before I will publish, but this may be from major European countries as well as from developing countries. If the paper cannot be read or is ambiguous because of its poor English, it should not be published.
I therefore tend, but not exclusively, to proposal [a].
April 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
We generally fall within a and b. We will help with copy editing if it is a student, although this is a very rare event. Within the science we have set strict standards for purity of compounds, endotoxin testing and a description of the drug under study. If this is not met the paper is rejected. However, if a paper meets these standards but has serious stylistic/grammar difficulties, we will return for revision prior to send out to review. If we were to send out directly, we frustrate the reviewers and set the author up for failure. In addition, we have an option for a preliminary report which is used if the Mx appears interesting but does not meet scientific standards. We ask the author if they would consider this venue and if agreeable and the meet other critiques it may be published in this manner. One example would be a study with 6 patients, which is insufficient to reach significance, yet the data is interesting.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
No matter where the manuscript comes from, each manuscript is prechecked whether it meets the formal requirements of the journal. In addition, I check whether it meets the quality requirements. Language is only one aspect of quality. If the quality of the language does not allow to put the manuscript into the review process, then I send it back to the authors recommending language checks first. If the manuscript is readable and understandable and I see potential for publishing it I send it to reviewers. Normally at least one of them is a native speaker and able to give help with the language. Should the paper be recommended for revision I recommend language checks in addition.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:05 am
The choices are not as simple as the a, b and c implies. Generally of course one will reject any paper where the science is not deemed to be of the appropriate standard. Many papers that come from authors whose first language is not English often require substantial editing. I take particular note of the referees advice on dealing with manuscript from authors from developing countries, if their advice is that the science is good then I am prepared to make substantial editing efforts to make the languag and style clear.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
clearly “A” to keep the quality of the journal, and of the science. Afterall, the subscriber to any journal is interested in new and significant information - particularly in cases where the journal subscription may be expensive.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mostly “a” answer.
Only ocassionaly, when there is a novel idea, I take into consideration the nacionality of the authors.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Main point is to keep the journal standards up. However, we are keen to publish worldwide and if the papers are good enough they are accepted. We do operate some leeway with English etc and we have recently introduced an “additional editing” stage to help improve English.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:28 am
I have been editor for 25 years for Applied Catalysis A and my territory was Central Europe and Russia as well as Africa and Middle East. During this period a considerable improvement occurred, so I always took the version ‘a’ that is, I wanted to keep the standard of the journal. In the beginning the major problem was the language, this is why for a considerable period there was language correction provided by Elsevier.
I think the most important to keep the standard of the journal. If the paper does not reach the standard, there are more other journal to publish it.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I would answer (a) as an ideal and practically (b).
I think my judgment of acceptance depends on the scientific value of the manuscript, which is its originality and quality. I never have distinguished the manuscripts by their submitting countries. Also I never have double standard to judge them. However, the almost submitting manuscripts fast need our help to improve the shape, style and language regardless of the countries. It might be obvious that rate of the manuscripts to need our help is exactly higher in the manuscript submitting from developing countries than those from senior countries in the science.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:11 am
A: To maintain scientific standards and expectations in an uniform manner.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
In view of the comments already given one hardly can say anything new. Averaging over all the votes given yealds a result which was predictable. Every editor feels the need to uphold principles according to (a). On the other hand, it´s against his grain to brush off a scientist who has worked hard, often under very unfavourable conditions, to produce something which is neither mainstream science, nor easily intelligible, when written in his own prose. Helping such people to publish good work has two acvantages: They usually learn quickly the requirements of modern scientific publishing and, lateron, often enrich the journal with somewhat different views and subjects. For an example, Chemical Physics has gone through phases where the influx of manuscripts of the above category was quite significant. We had periods with this kind of interesting, but non-perfect, submisions from southern Europe, eastern Europe and Russia. Now it is mainly India and China who´s scientists sometimes require special treatments but are worth the effort. So, in real editorial life, option (b) is often indispensable, while (c), in this wording, would rather suit the editing of soft-science journals.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Just as with many of the previous posting editors, I fall somewhere between A and B. As an editor, I feel that my primary responsibility is to ensure that the science of an article is correct and contributes to the literature. If the language is the only factor preventing the paper from meeting the standard for publication, then I recommend to the authors that they find colleagues or copyeditors who are proficient in English (the default language of the journal) to assist them with their manuscript if they wish to resubmit.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I treat all papers following (A) without concern to the country origin. Most important than languaje and style are scientific quality, novelty, and impact. If those are met, style and languaje can be corrected and the Editorial may help on that. To reach the decission, two or more referees are contacted and stimulating comments are given to upgrade the manuscript. I understand that people from these countries must learn the proper way to submit quality papers, and referee’s comments should help on this.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I agree with A and with B. With A about the scientific merit of the work; with B about feedback on language. There are some sound papers, with a poor language. In their cases, I reject them but I encourage resubmission, looking for a proper edition of those results.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I treat all papers the same (choice A), irrespective of their source. In terms of language, I often find that papers from developed countries have as poor grammar and logical construction as do papers from developing countries.
April 9th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I go along with c with the scientific merit of the manuscript as the first consideration. Other than this, it depends on the degree of help required in the use of the language. There are two levels of help needed. The first level is purely a matter of the language which is not clear in the sentence or expression. Editorial help will solve this problem. The second level is the use of technical terms. This comes from authors who are never published outside their langauge, or they are using techniques which is outside their expertise. This can not be amended simply by editing of the language. It requires the input of expertise in relevant field.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I go along with A. The standard of the journal should be the same for all authors and therefore the mathematical correctness and novelty of a paper has to be independent of the location of the country of the author. A different matter is that once the mathematical importance of the paper has been established the author could get some help to improve the language and its presentation.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:01 am
My vote is A.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I treat these papers as I do the papers from more scientifically advanced countries. If the science is good, I work with the authors on revising sentence structure and grammar. If the science is not up to the standard of the journal, the paper is rejected. Papers with excessively bad grammar are rejected without review. I must point out that even papers from western Europe come to my desk with poor grammar, and I work these authors as well. I don’t see much of a difference between papers from the third world and those from western Europe, although the number of papers in the former category is minuscule in number.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:34 am
I go along with A. However. I do help any authors with language problem independent of which country they originate from.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:29 am
A. I treat them like any paper as for as the science is concerned. I do try to help in improving English if I have time.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I do try to assist authors from these countries (that represent perhaps 2% of papers I receive). Areas such as Tunisia have a strong French participatiuon/links, while some central African states have UK connections. Local technologies/applications can be unique and of interest for dissemination elsewhere. Local economic influences on a generic techology’s acceptance are also relevant.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I have supervised many PhD students from third world countries during some 25 years (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Peru, Bangladesh…). I think the only way to support science in the third world is to treat their papers as any other papers! Othervise, their papers will not be taken seriously by others! And it will not be to the benefit of a journal if it is known that there are “double standards” for publication.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I treat those papers like any other paper. Language problems are of secondary concern. When, based on scientific merit, the reviewers’ reports are favorable, I ask for a revision in which I clearly state that fixing the language is a prerequisite for further processing of the manuscript. I usually direct the authors to the Elsevier site with the addresses of the external services dealing with English editing. I was not aware of option ©.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:12 am
If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them. However, when there is scientific merit, I take into consideration the fact that they are from developing countries and give them help and/or more chnces to revise it until they reach acceptable standard. I do not use C, but do give such recommendation directly to the authors.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Potentially all three responses have merit. The first judgement must be on potential. Given the resources available (ie: feedback, language editing or translation assistance), does this paper have the potential to meet the standard of the journal.
If the answer is no, then the paper would be rejected. If there is problem with language, then the first recommendation would be to seek assistance from someone whose first language is English, preferably with a publication history. However, a judgement must be made at some point about whether sufficient rigour and clarity can be reached to reach the standard.
April 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Most of the time I would chose (b); I have not really considered (c), but this would seem to me a good possibility. However, how could I get Elsevier to sponsor language editing, or access to recent publications without too much administrative efforts on my side?
April 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I definitely agree with the answer “a”. The journal should have only one standard. Writing a paper well is part of the responsibility of the author. One who has problems with writing should get assistance from one’s university/institution (English department or colleagues). This approach should also help such people to improve.
April 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I definitely agree with the answer “a”. The journal should have only one standard. Writing a paper well is part of the responsibility of the author. One who has problems with writing should get assistance from one’s university/institution (English department of colleagues). This approach should also help such people to improve.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I definitely agree with answer “a”.
As a reviewer I am responsible for proper merit level (and opinion) of the Journal and for scientific value given to the readers.
Scientific assessment which depend on anything else than merit value of the paper is - in my opinion - crime.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I do not have a fixed approach. It depends on the subject area and the novelty of the material reported. In some cases where the paper is very much a me-too and archival report I tend to reject. In others where there is novelty but difficulties with the science I seek to help bring out what might be the essence of the ideas. I do not in general reject on the basis of language usage.
April 7th, 2007 at 10:46 am
I take into consideration the fact that they are from developing countries and do my utmost to get them published. This can include giving the author feedback on language, style and content. However, if there is no merit, I reject them.
April 7th, 2007 at 3:33 am
If someone is working in a developing country they often do not have access to the same resources as writers in other parts of the world. If this seems to be a problem I try to help authors with this. I do not worry about a 100% accurate English text until I get to the final accepted version of the paper. Then, my assistant editor does work on the paper before I send it to Elsevier as an ‘accept’. I did not know, however, that the author can be ’sponsored’ for language editing. I’d like to know more about this.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I hold all papers to the same scientific standard. If the English is poor I first ask the authors to enlist the help of someone fluent in English to help them. If the English is still poor I contact the journal for help in language editing. I will not send a paper to a referee until the language is adequate.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
If the paper appears to be sound technically but needs work on the English, I carefully edit a few pages to illustrate the difficulty and ask the author(s) to get help.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
If everything else was equal you would choose the best paper technically, regardless of origin. In practice, there are a lot of papers with similar technical weight, so you reject those with the less good English/structure. The real question arises when you have a very good paper but poor English. I then put myself out to a considerable extent to help get the paper up to an acceptable standard, but where this is not possible you can only reject with advice on getting assistance.
Incidentally, if anyone could develop software to redistribute a and the automatically they would make a fortune.
April 6th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
My strategy was often close to B. As editor you have to serve to. Rejecting is always very easy. Now I am more practising C. if it is only a language problem.
April 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
If the problems are only with the language I ask that they first seek editorial assistance from one of the Elsevier’s sites (international sience editting or Asian science editing) before I send it out for review. If there are scientific problems, following review, I just treat them as I would any other submission.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I prefer version B or C, provided that there is only the language problem and authors cooperate. I remember my own troubles. The good English translator is a problem he/she should be the expert in area at the same time.
In this regard, the old system of annotated manuscripts was ideal for both sides (reviewers and authors). There is this time back. The evolution spiral came to here!!!! We have choice avaiable in JFE that reviewer print the manuscript annotate it with blue or red pencil as earlier, scan it on special scanner that prepares one pdf file. This file is attached to the general reviewers comments and everybody is happy.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I find difficulty in answering your three possibilities. Option b would be my first choiuce but as situations are not that straightforward, I find that I am often considering all three possibilities. I strngly feel that the science should dictate the decision, in cases where the science is weak and the writing style is also poor then possibility a is applicable but in other cases, where the science is good and novel then the editor has to decide between possibilities b and even c. In cases where the science is excellent and their is a great deal of innovation but the writing style and English are poor then I usually refer the authors to the English language editing services outlined in the instructions to authors.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
It used to be (b) but is (a) now because we are being buried under an avalanche of papers from China and need some form of triage. Many universities seem to have adopted a graduation requirement of 3 papers published in international journals and I am not happy about becoming an unacknowledged examiner for PhD theses.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
It is difficult to give a straight answer based on three possibilities. If I have to choose between these three possibilities, I should go for b). However, it is not that simple. My answer is in between a) and b) and I should also consider c) when required.
Scientifically, a paper has to meet the standards of the journal. However, if all scientific elements are present but the paper is not well organised, then I am willing to help and improve the manuscript. I made abstraction of the available time for doing this work. If it is only a language problem, I may contact the publisher but mostly it is not only a single language problem but a combination of problems.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
It is difficult to answer these questions. I would say that my position is A, as the main purpose of a journal is to convey the best scientific practice and research. However, it is sometimes the case that an effort is made (suggestions to the authors, minor corrections, etc.) when a paper with good potential shows up.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
When I first started reviewing manuscripts, I felt sympathy for the author’s situation, and probably let some manuscripts through that were not really up to scratch.
This was reflcetd all too fast in a declining impact factor of the journal (I don;t know if those events were correlated).
Nowadays, in theory, if I saw potential I would recommend they get editorial support.
IN practice, a poor manuscript presentation almost always reflects weak experimental design.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I use a mixture of A+B. I only accept papers that meet the criteria for scientific content and originality, but I am less demanding and offer more feedback on English for authors from Asia.
As far as C goes, I have no confidence that Elsevier have the capability to contribute anything to language. Their only interest is in statistical metrics that measure performance (profit?). Long gone are the days when desk editors at North-Holland carefully checked manuscripts and contacted editors with queries on wording and on equations in papers.
April 6th, 2007 at 10:51 am
It is A for sure, however, in combination with the B effort ‘This can include giving the author feedback on language, style and content.’
April 6th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I would chose “B” for the reasons explained in the point.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I would chose “B”, although A and C are never lost as options.
My journal, Cell Biology International, is the official publication of the IFCB, and it was set up to serve the worldwide fraternity of cell biologists as members of their own national societies brought together through this overarching organisation. To date we have resisted “cherry picking”, and inevitably through our policy our IF remains low.
I started up a service called “Manuscript Presentation Service” under the auspices of IFCB, which ran fully sibsidised for two years. It became BioMedES, which now has about 4-5 MSs per week to handle for journals of all descriptions, and is increasingly sought after by authors whose native tongue is not English It levies modest charges - about cost plus 10-20%. It has expanded recently through recruitment of sub-contractors who handle full translations from languages such as Russian, Chinese, and Portugese.
Most MSs come from developing societies in a poorly presented state, both in the English used and in the formatting of the articles. If these papers are going to have a fair chance at peer review (provided the science can be seen to be sound and interesting), this service is - in our own not so humble opinion - almost indispensible. They can subsequently be submitted by the authors with much more confidence.
The alternative to this is that papers produced by people from developing countries tend to end up in poor quality, poorly circulated journals that are seldom if ever seen by mainstream scientists, even if they include gems that might win Nobel Prizes.
The editor’s role in all of this is crucial. He or she can act like a petty despot and be harsh, or at the other extreme, highly conciliatory and leading himself or herself into a heck of a lot more work. The former are those with high impact journals that could almost run automatically with hardly any workneeding to be done, whereas the latter probably have low IFs and are difficult to sustain unless supported by a society or benevolent organisation.
There is no simple answer to this question; each individual paper has to be considered on its merits as well as where it comes from. Its reception and treatment depend on the philosophy of the journal receiving it, and the empathy (or lack of it) of the editor.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I cannot recall receiving a paper from any developing country for Foot & Ankle Surgery. I would cetainly give help with the EWnglish language but otherwise feel that these papers must be subjected to the uisual peer review.
Tom Smith
April 6th, 2007 at 9:06 am
As an review editor of an analytical chemistry journal I must assure the scientific quality of the review articles published in the journal, regardless of where they come from.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:40 am
I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of the journal, I reject them. In fact once the objectives and the standard of a journal is defined, the editors must follow them. As for the English, I ask always the authors to present their manuscript in the most perfect lenguage, and try to help them as much as I can.
The problem for the scientists of the developping countries is to have also the possibility and to be encouraged to publish their own results. In that sense the Editors could suggest them convenient journals (less high standard). The impact factor value is a useful data for the choice of the convenient journal. This is the reason why it is important to have journals with different standards. Not only high quality journals should exist.
Publishers should take care of the problem of publication in developping countries. Researchers of developping countries must be encouraged to publish their own results, even if these works are less deepen than those performed in a developped country.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I treat them like any other paper. Most of the papers submited to Transactions include authors who do not have English as a first language. This means that many papers will need multiple revisions but the authors cope well.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:21 am
I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them.
I come myself from a problematic region of Italy and I can well understand language problems and difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that standards have to be met and have to be the same for all authors. This can also be an input to ammeliorate and a target to reach.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I think that b) is a possible alternative, it means try to help if possible, not only in language, but also in Science Policy.But no compromise if the revised paper does not reach the high scientific standards required.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:07 am
My gut feeling is that it would be treated like any other paper, to ensure consistency and rigour across the journal. However, as with any new author we will provide what support and advice we can in order to encourage their writing and publication. Any support that is available from the publishers would only be a bonus.
April 6th, 2007 at 4:39 am
a) I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them.
In my opinion, for any scientific journal of repute, one of the most important aspect is quality of papers it publishes. And, from this point of view, there cannot be double standards for quality. Hence, I treat them like any other paper. I always pay attention on the English version of the manuscript and advice authors to improve it (if need be); sometimes I also suggest them how to improve and where to improve.
April 6th, 2007 at 4:21 am
I would answer a), b) and c).
I treat all manuscripts equally, in terms of their content. The highest scientific standards are imperative for any journal. However, when I see that manuscripts are from developing countries and there are problems in the use of English or organization, I encourage authors to modify their manuscripts in order to meet the standards of the journal. Manyreviewers often provide positive feedback to the authors that will result in a much better revised manuscript, or in the case of a rejected manuscript, helpful information for a future submission.
Option c), as a benefit available to authors from developing countries is a great help to meet consistency in publishing standards.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:37 am
I generally treat all submissions the same. The novel idea is most important. The language should be understandable but it may be edited with the help of Elsevier. If the Publishers like to have more papers from developing countries, some encouraging measures should be taken with a detailed guideline. The peer-review process for all submisisons had better be at an almost the same standard for the editors to control, otherwise the journal quality will be difficult to control or enhance.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:17 am
b). As a Pacific Islander, I can appreciate what it takes just to get a study completed and written for submission to a good journal. The help we can provide to researchers from developing countries will help them to assist others in their own countries. Some of the most creative ideas come from researchers in developing conuntries. Helping them to get their work published will provide developed countries access to their work.
April 6th, 2007 at 2:21 am
I agree with C- I sometimes will ask them to work with an editor before we send it out for review.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:23 am
My answer is a).
The quality of journals is most important.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:18 am
None of the above. I make some allowance but not the extreme
forms suggested by (B) and (C). In fact, the situation does not arise
so often as develpoing countries are not in a position to make
strong contributions to structural biology. For the most part.
April 6th, 2007 at 1:08 am
I usually take the option b). This is because I have realized the difficulty that they write a paper of good style in English. This does not mean not only grammatical points but also the wat of thinking scientificcally in English.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:31 am
B seems most accurate for my reactions; there is no reason to suppose those from third world countries won’t be very able and
may well just lack direction. That can be very gentle and effective.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am
a)
The review should be fair to all, and it is important to maintain the quality of the journal. It is expected that the number of submission from developing countries will exponentially increase if we treat them differently.
For the technical quality of the paper, I explain in the review not only why the paper is not good enough for publication but also how the paper can be improved encouraging the author to improve the quality of his/her work.
For langueage problem, I have the same problem as a non-native English speaker. I try to be geneours in so far as the minimum level is maintained.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:21 am
I believe all manuscripts should be processed as consistently as possible. In my view option A is the best way to ensure a level playing field for all manuscripts submitted.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I don’t think that we do the authors or our journals any favors by printing substandard science no matter where it comes from. I try to be fair to all entries no matter where they come from, but I have no qualms about rejecting a paper for technical reasons.
Language is another matter. Although English is the current lingua franca, many of our authors do not always express themselves well. In those cases I urge referees to be generous so long as the content is acceptable, and I will either make corrections or urge the author to find a colleague with a strong command of English to give them a hand. In my case I get papers from authors in South America who are doing lovely science but are not fluent. I’ve been able to work with them to get their work published.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Advances in Applied Mathematics. I suppose it’s easier in mathematics. Mathematical standards are absolute and a paper will be accepted or rejected according to “universal'’ standards.
We have offered help on writing or organization to authors. However, I had very disappointing experiences with this. This problem is not limited to “developing countries'’, however.
The European Mathematical Society publishes a very useful pamphlet with suggestions for authors who have problems with English. This pamphlet would probably be useful to people in other areas.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
The standard of the paper, when finally published, has to be consistent with other published papers and the meet the criteria required for publication. This includes the standard of English. At the initial review stage - unless a paper is almost unintelligible (whereupon it is sent back to the author with suggestions/advice - usually to get a native English speaker to look at the text) - I ask reviewers to be tolerant of expression on the premise that if the paper has value, language can be subsequently corrected. After that we have various approaches - from editing by the editor (increasingly rare these days because of volume of submission), native speaker helps, copy editor helps to use of professional editing for which an author pays.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I’m somewhere between a and b.
If the science is poor, the article will be rejected — sometimes without a peer review.
If the sience is acceptable, the paper will be peer reviewed and if there is support from the reviewers, I soemtimes will help the author revise the paper based on reviewer comments. This help usually begins after the author submits the revised paper, and then only if help is necessary.
Jim
April 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Quaternary Research - a goal of the journal & the publisher is to increase geographic participation. In order to do this without relaxing standards, the editorial staff when I was editor worked heavily with promising overseas authors who were reviewed as having done meritorious and publishable work, but perhaps with substandard organization or writing. This was done, for the most part, by the editors, not by reviewers, although some volunteered to help. Usually we would ask for the author first to consult a fluent English-speaking, scientifically literate colleague before we gave it a shot. Sometimes we had to do this even though there may have been a native English-speaking co-author! After publisher’s offices were set up overseas, I sometimes referred authors to them for some help, too.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Your three questions are obviously too simple, i.e. I myself couldn’t subscribe to any of them.
My own procedure is as follows: Unless a paper already at first glance is not to the scope of the journal or is not acceptable on other formal grounds, it will be sent out for reviewing. If the referees find the scientific essence alright or at least promising, I try to get the paper published, i.e. I see that all the constructive criticisms of the referees are attended by the author. If there are only minor language problems I do sometimes some language editing myself unless the author can find a native speaker in his area.
At this point I find it very interesting that Elsevier offers sponsoring a good paper by paying for professional language editing (which usually is too expensive for colleagues from developing countries). Why have I not been told earlier about this possibility?
April 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
While I am not sure if I have been always consistent, I would like to stick to the standards of the journal. The most important aspect of the manuscript is the potential contribution of the manuscript. It there is potential for sufficient contribution, I am willing to work with the authors to improve the language, data analysis, and other presentation-related matters. If the potential contribution is not at the level the journal expects, the paper will have to rejected.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
If paper is promising topic and wil be of value to our readers we will work with the author to improve grammerical, syntax and other problems. In most cases this involves asking them to have someone very fluent in English edit their paper. Our section editors then work on the results to make bring the paper up to our standards for publication.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I take a rather hard line on this. However, I am willing to cut the authors some slack if the paper has scientific merit. My main problem is with the volume of papers from China. My understanding is that Chinese
mathematicians get paid for each paper they publish in a western journal.
I can hardly blame them for producing shoddy work, especially as it
applies to language.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Country of origin or stage of development has no relevance for treating a paper. Period. All papers are created equal as far as criteria and refereeing process is concerned. However, no paper should be penalized because of poor English. Information Processing & Management has on its site a list of available services that authors can contact (with pay) for editing. Elsevier gave discretion, but without any public announcement, that it will subsidize English editing for outstanding papers. A larger issue is involved here as well: Elsevier has abandoned copy editing of all contributions. (Obviously, because of costs). Possibly, copy editing should/could be re-instituted as one of the remedy for poor English, which is not limited to contributions from developing countries.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
To be published the scientific content needs to meet the journal’s standard. If rejected, I ask the reviewers to send comments as extensive as possible, more than the standard. While some of these critiques are rather severe, it is in the authors benefit. Thus the submisson becomes not only a rejection experience but hopefully also it provides elements fpr them to consider in new submissions.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Mutation Research-GTEM:
If the scientific content does not meet our standards, the papers are rejected. If English usage is a problem, I and/or the reviewers first determine if the experiments were properly designed and conducted and if the data are appropriately analyzed and reported. If so, an effort is made to improve the English. Some reviewers will voluntarily edit a paper and sometimes I will edit them. However, if the scientific content is potentially acceptable, our usual practice it to ask the authors to address the reviewers’ comments and to have the English edited before submitting a revised manuscript.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The answer is not as simple as a, b or c. Authors should not be penalized for not being fluent in English. However I believe the the fundamental question, when reviewing a submission, relates to the originality of the study, the quality of the data, the ethical issues and the added value of the manuscript. Hence a support to the author is, to my opinion, warranted when these criterai are met.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Probably C.
I think it is of utmost importance NOT to make any alteration to the peer review process regarding the content of a manuscript in light of the economic situation of the country of origin. However, I do believe that providing some aid in language is helpful to allow authors to present their content in an understandable fashion. As we all know, reviewers are often very busy people and will likely become grumpy if they have to wade through very poor prose, even if the content is itself publication-worthy. Such grumpiness will increase rejection rates for reasons only peripherally related to the quality of the work itself.
I would strongly argue against statement B. It amounts to of kind of ’social engineering’ of the peer review process. Peer review only works as an optimization process if it focusses on the content of the work rather than other factors.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
My journal (Linguistics and Education) receives a certain number of submissions of this sort that are simply not relevant to the topic of the journal–for example, they are about some linguistic issue that has no relevance at all to education. Those are clear rejections.
The range of language issues that are at issue here is very wide, and they have different implications for editing, reviewing and so forth. Some authors are proficient but not completely idiomatic–or have some spelling and grammatical errors. When these issues are moderate, I feel it is well worth it to help the author, who is not likely to have resources at his/her home institution or elsewhere to get this help.
But when authors come from very different rhetorical traditions, the task is both harder and more complicated, because the “fixes” are deeper and harder to explain. Moreover, different styles may make it hard for reviewers to grasp and assess the argument, or the connections between different parts of the argument. Often, this sort of rewriting simply goes beyond the scope of what editors or reviewers can reasonably be expected to do. However, this is one of the obstacles that we should be facing as editors if we want to be more inclusive. That is, it is not just about having good data, or good ideas–it’s about participating in particular communities of discourse and writing. At the moment, I believe we are collectively pretty narrow about what we accept.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I will not consider the country of origin of the manuscript in my decision, and I will treat all the manuscripts that I receive equally. My primary focus would be on the content of the manuscript. Good language skills are required to make sure that the reader, unequivocally, understands the manuscript content well.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
In the journal that we manage, we are now receiving many manuscripts from authors in developing countries. All submittals are treated equally. That is, if the minimum standards are not met, the paper is rejected. However, if the science or message would be of interest to our readers and if the authors’ mother tongue is not English; then we try to help the author or authors as much as possible in terms of grammar and preparation of a clearly written manuscript.
In the past we have suggested to authors to have their submittals reviewed by English speaking colleagues or “professinal services” but that option has not worked to our Editorial Office’s satisfaction. In several cases the authors have spent well over USD 400 and the outcome is not satisfactory. This amount is substantial to people living in developing countries.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is the responsibility of the Associate Editors, the Editorial Board and most importantly the reviewers to have to correct the manuscript. This should be done on an strictly voluntary basis.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Somewhere between A and B depending on the actual region. I receive many manuscripts from some developing countries that are well represented in our literature (Turkey, Iran) that I tend to put in the A category, and some from regions that we hear rarely from (African continent, underdeveloped southest Asia) that I put in the B category. I edit the international journal BURNS associated with the International Society of Burn Injury, and this particular injury is very prevalent in underdeveloped regions. I feel it is our responsibility to publish information from these regions as well. Sometimes they need some help in improving the quality
April 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I think that all papers must be evaluated for their scientific value regardless of the country . If the paper is interesting the English style can be easily improved .
April 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
If the science is sound, I will recommend that the authors find an English editor/proof reader at their institution where the manuscript originates. The manuscript is returned to the author with a recomendation that he/she work with the local editor to generate a manuscript in proper English before resubmitting. I do not feel that the editorial bord or reviewers have any responsibility to rewrite a manuscript. On occasion, I will contact the publisher and recommend the author be sponsored for language editing before considering the paper further.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Our publication is “Tuberculosis” but our focus is fundamental microbiological, immunological, pathogenesis, etc., aspects; we discourage case reports, clinical studies, etc., since these aspects are well covered in other journals. In view of the title (which we have qualifed) and the focus, and the recent upsurge in the popularity/citation index, we must reject an inordinate number of manuscripts of a “clinical” nature from TB endemic regions (developing nations). Therefore we reject mostly based on content. When we get manuscripts relevant to our mission, from developing regions, we generally treat them under your Category B question. We bend over backwards to help, even intervening with the editing process (Erich Heftmann mentions a “desk editor”; I do not have such available to me) . A good example is a “special” issue arising from a TB meeting in Cuba. While the manuscripts from “the West” were fine, those from Cuba/S. America were very good in scientific content but required the type of editorial work that, frankly, one would not normally devote to a poorly presented manuscript from, say, the US.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I am probably not totally consistent - time pressure is a key factor here - but operate between B and A. Clearly the paper must have intrinsic merit to be considered. Giving advice on language would demand more time than I have. However, I will try to give additional guidance in my editor’s comments to assist authors from developing countries (and also PhD students, for that matter). That said, many lead or corresponding authors from developing countries either have co-authors in developed countries or work for international organisations. These submissions I treat as A.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I always help authors in getting the best out of their manuscript - and I do a bit more for authors from developing countries - they deserves that having so many obstacles on their way.
However, if it is too bad or not of relevance to readers outside the autor’s country I reject it with comments on where I would recommend the paper to be published
April 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
It is A - the only way of getting the standards of science in developing countries up is to ensure that the same quality is required for their manuscripts as for others. Otherwise one can always say that since we are from developing country, we should be treated differently - when would it end?
April 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
My way to treat papers does not fit any of the A, B, or C, or perhaps partially fits each. The journal that I am involved in encourages papers with innovative methods or innovative use of existing methods. All papers are treated equally as long as there is innovation, regardless of language skills. I provide help to edit those papers with English not up to the standard.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I operate and will continue on A.
It is not a my problem to develope science in developing countries.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I treat all manuscripts alike. Foreigners have language problems, but so do American authors. I depend on the desk editor to put all manuscripts in acceptable form before they are published.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
(A). All papers are treated equally. I inform all the authors of the
exact reasons for rejecting a paper, i.e. feedback is provided.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
My choice is a. However if good results are presented in papers from developing contries, help with language editing should be carried out.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I operate on A, but I always try to help the authors in improving their use of English language. So long the technical content is good, I would encourage the author to seek help of an English speaking person to make the paper more readble. One must remember that language is an issue not only with developing countries but also with many European countries. Why, then single out ‘developing countries’? It is certainly not right, in my opinion, to compromise technical standards.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I totally agree with Eric Suuberg
April 5th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I handle according to statement B or C, however also for B the paper should have a minimum level of quality. I realize that it is more difficult for them to get papers published and particularly young scientists can use some help.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
My choice is A. My experience is that scholars in my thematic field (governance of science and innovation) originating from developing countries in most cases enjoyed at least some education (BA, MSc, PhD, …) in “first world” academic environments. Normally they are not in need of a special treatment — if at all, then help with language editing. This will, of course, be offered if required or obviously needed (using a service provided by the publisher), as is the case with any author.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Personally, I agree with the comment by another that it is not cleanly a,b, or c. First and foremost, the science must be sound. It is hard to get anyone engaged with a paper if they see that the technical contribution is weak. If the paper passes that test, then it becomes a matter of seeing who is willing to invest the time to help with language issues (though very important, rarely the major issue) and with the issues of context (Where does the field really stand, and do the authors have an adequate sense of what the real questions are). Mostly, this happens as a matter of course- reviewers will step up and offer help, if they believe it will do some good.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I operate on “b” because I observe good science in delevoping contries under less than ideal research circumstances and I make every effort to eliminate the “language barrier by “suggesting English grammar and usage corrections. Oftentimes it is simple a matter of adding the articles “the” and “a” to improve the comprehension…
April 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
We are receiving more and more manuscripts from Asian and South American countries and do our best to handle submissions in a fair way when the paper suffers from language problems. Most of our editorial board would go with a), because improper language is so off-putting. As Editor-in Chief I favor b), and have to closely monitor these kinds of submissions to see that they are not rejected outright. Usually I will try to find an English editor/proof reader in the country where the manuscript originates, return the manuscript to the author and recomend that he/she work with the local editor to generate a manuscript in proper English before resubmitting. I do not feel that the editorial bord or reviewers have any responsibility to rewrite a manuscript, although occasionally this has happened.
On the other hand, the publisher wants to grow the business and sell new subscriptions to individuals/institutions in these emerging nations. I have repeatedly been encouraged by the publisher to appoint representatives from emerging countries to our editorial board and have done so when the scientific reputation of a potential new board member is well established. But when I have ask the publisher to help correct the language in some of the papers that are scientifically sound but have major problems in the presentation, I have been informed there is no mechanism to do this. In fairness, it has been a few years since I have made such a request and maybe this former policy has changed.
If the publisher sincerely wishes to generate new revenue from these emerging countries by attracting more submissions from contributiors in these nations, the publisher should establish a uniform procdure to handle these language issues. Some minor changes in grammar or spelling are common made during the review process, but major rewrites cannot and should not be the responsibility of the editorial board.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
My tendency is go with A. I have worked all of my scientific career in developing countries, so I know the obstacles that face developing country scientists in both carrying out research and writing it up for publication.
But we always considered that if our research was accepted it was because it was of international standard, and not because we were given concessions.
If the science in a poorly presented paper looks sound, I will always try and assist the authors by suggesting they have it edited by an English language service or colleague, and giving them suggestions on presenting data succinctly which is more difficult in a second language. I do spend time on fine tuning the language if it is accepted for publication but this is not confined to developing country papers, but extends to all second language authors.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I absolutely prefer option a), for the same reasons as have been already expressed by other editors. Quite a number of these manuscripts are sloppily prepared, not follow Guide for Authors, with a great number of typos, as if their authors expect that they will be specially treated and somebody will do the job for them. If equally treated, they learn very fast and derive proper conclusions.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I treat them like any other paper. I choose answer (A). I would like to have (C) available for those papers that have good content but need a bit of a push on the language front.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
a - Must meet the scope, aims and standards of the journal. Allowances are made for language.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
a and b - I try to help them, but I insist that they meet our standards.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I choose A & C.
Maintaining the standard of the journal is always #1 priority. However, most authors from developing countries do need help in language editing of their manuscripts.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I like the idea of C though I’ve never tried it.
Usually in practice I take a special look but do A.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“A” is the answer. However, in the past year or so, all of the manuscripts which I have handled from developing countries (from Asia, especially Far and Middle East, and North Africa, mainly Egypt) were very poorly written. I do not wish to reject any manuscript because of poor English but, in the same time, there is only a limited amount of time which can be spent on the language aspect of manuscript. I did inquire about any help from Elsevier on this topic — similar to what is available to Japanese authors. However, I was told that there is no special program available within the Elsevier, and I was referred to a few commercial firms which provide editorial assistance. Therefore, part “C” is new to me, and would like to learn more about this service.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I prefer option (a). Papers submitted to the journal should fulfill the requirements of the journal with regard to scientific quality, format and the language independent of their country of origin. Otherwise, it is unfair to the authors who spent a lot of time to comply with the standards of the journal. In any case, a lot of corrections are made by the reviewers to improve the style, English etc.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I would prefer a combination of options A and C if the manuscript contents address some important research.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I prefer option a). Scientific research is a global activity to which most developingcountries, large and small, are already significant contributors.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
A mixture of a) and b) in that all papers get feedback and information on language use
and technical content presentation.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
option A, althought I would prefer to have option C
April 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I treat all submissions equally. If a paper (from a developing country) contains useful material that supports the journal’s goals but is poorly written, I will ask the authors to have the paper re-written by an English-speaking copyeditor and resubmit the paper. It then undergoes the normal reviewing process. When papers are somewhat better written, I will send them to three of my global reviewers who will usually make suggestions about both content and presentation.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
At least two thirds of the submissions to our journal, Science of the Total Environment, are from developing countries. We are therefore forced to deal with a hugh number of submissions in this category - hundreds annually. Consequently we do a bit of both (a) and (b), and sometimes (c). We are now using Elsevier’s technical screening process, and it rejects many submission on language even before they get to our editorial office. Those that do are treated as in (a), and a small number that are good science get language editing from me (b).
April 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I treat equally as any other paper. I always send feedbacks to improve the style of the manuscript regardless its origin, developing or developed countries.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
My answer is a mixture of (a) and (b): I do take into consideration the fact that they are from developing countries. I do not worry about style and language because this is not a criterion for good research.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I try to deal with these submissions according to b) in general. However, sometimes I have to consider hopeless the submission when both language and scientific content are poor, in such cases I reject the manuscript. It happens often that in spite of the feedback on language, style and content given the author is not able to revise satisfactorily the manuscript. In some cases I am suggesting substantial edits to the authors, but this is time consuming and helps only exceptionally.
Unfortunately I am not informed on the possibility of c).
April 5th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I try to set the same technical standard for all papers. Because J. Env. Radioactivity is an environmental journal, there is some validitiy to the argument that data from regions not yet represented in the literature have value. However, I insist that the study present and test hypotheses of value to international readers. Data of regional relevance only are not published. I do work with authors on language, and I will accept less than ideal English if necessary and if the technical message is clear.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I treat them like any other paper I receive. I don’t see any reason to discriminate . Quite often (too often) I have to referee awful papers from super-developed countries.
The real difficulty comes from the style and english and I don’t hear any practical suggestion from the Editor. Sometimes one does not understand what they are writing. My attitude is to send the paper back to the authors informing them that the paper is OK, but the style and english should we revised by an expert in english. The funny and embarassing situation is that even my way of writing english may turn out to be wrong or poor. I am generally indulgent with the style and language up to a reasonable threshod.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Statement C. I think language should not be the selection factor, but the science must be good.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
As several others, I go with a) for scientific content, but am willing to give some latitude/help as to language use. If it is too bad one simply can not send a manuscript out to reviewers - not their job to interpret unintelligible language. In my field (Marine Micropaleontology) many authors have asked Elsevier for help at my suggestion (option C), and it is important to give such help. In my field authors from South America are copmmonly very reluctant to submit to english language journals although there is a very active scientific community in my field of research; I recently started to push option C in the hope to get more input from these countries.
My field might be somewhat unusual in that marine expeditions in some regions (and some countries national waters) are run only or dominantly by non-native English speakers, and the scientific information is of major importance for the field of research. This important information would not become available to the english-speaking scientific world without language help. A major problem, however, is (as mentioned by others) the case that cleaning up the language only makes clear that the authors have indeed not had access to (recent) scientific literature and are not in touch with international standards of work. There clearly is no hope for such papers to be published in the international literature, but I do recommend authors in some cases) to try and team up with ‘western’ scientists. This is generally rather successfull with authors in east asian countries, less so in countries that were part of the former USSR.
In rare cases I have actually done full language editing of a manuscript in person (no time to do this more than rarely) when I think a paper is of particular interest, the data were collected in a location where ships rarely go and the authors clearly have no way (no money) to get this done.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
None of these…. I first evaluate the science in the manuscript - if there is something of value in the work, then I will send it out for review and see what is the recommendation of the reviewers… if it is judged worth publishing, then I will help the authors to get it in shape for publication…
April 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Statement B
I try to be understanding on language and also availability of equipment, but the article has to be valid scientifically.
I would like to have available the service mentioned in statement C but that is currently not available despite requests from myself and my co-editors.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
My appraoch is a modified version of (a). If the paper is so poor then I woudl reject it - if it is good material I would encourage the authros to get help - however I woudl not go as far as (b) do my UTMOST to get the paper published. There are in fact a lot of lazy scientists around and if a paper has inconsitencies even in simple things like irregular spacing, abbreviations used in different forms throughout the paper, poorly present references - then I am not of a mind to do all that donkey work for them.
However, in conclusion, no potentially good paper gets rejected outright bu the authors must do all they can rather than hoping that ediotrs will re-write the paper for them.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
My answer is B, and I do this for any nonenglish speaking author. I believe the editors job is to promote research not extinguish it. The bar from a methodological point is judged the same but not the quality of presentation. There have been cases where I have reedited a paper 3 or 4 times to get it to the right standard if the findings are sound.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I definitely prefer statement A. That is to say, I try to treat all papers equally, independently of whom they come from. I feel that the journal should try above all to maintain a certain scientific standard, and that other (e.g. social or political) considerations are secondary.
Regarding statement B, I do tend to provide more presumably helpful comments in papers from developing countries, but I wouldn’t say that I otherwise go out of my way to get them published. This seems more than reasonable, in the the European Journal of Cancer is at least to a major extent a forum for European research.
Regarding statement C, I was not aware that this was an option.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Statement B
I think it is our social and professional responsibility. People om these countries are an important part of the future scientific infrastructures of the planet.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I’d rather be on the A side. I believe it is the responsibility of the authors to have an understandable paper. English not being my first languaje, I have found that I have to spend longer time and effort to write a manucript with a more or less proper English, sometimes having to pay for a thorough revision. I believe it is not an obligation of the editors, less so of the reviewers, to imporve the languaje of a paper.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I agree with point A. It seems to me that one of the primary responsibilities
of an Associate Editor is to uphold the standards of the journal. There are undoubtedly discrepancies between the resources available to scientists from developing countires and those available to scientists in developed countries, however, it seems to me that it is not the responsibility of Editorial Board members to address these discrepancies. Again, our primary function is to maintain the scientific integrity and standards of the journal.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
A. My reviewers always judge by scientific quality, first and foremost. If the content is OK but there are problems with the way the paper is written, or with the English, no matter how bad, I will then tell the authors that this is a problem and ask them to get help from a native speaker. This happens no matter where the authors come from. Even native speakers can have awful grammar, and actually - as one might expect, given the discrepancies in language structure - severe English problems are much more common from authors in Japan or China than from - for example - sub-Saharan Africa.
Some papers need truly drastic re-writing and shortening on the first revision. I do not think it is my job to do that. A typical problem is writing every detail as in a PhD thesis. It is the authors job to do the shortening. After that, however, it would definitely be good if authors who truly do not have access to an english editing service of adequate quality could send the paper to a (free) editing service before the revision was resubmitted. I just yesterday had to send a revised version back for a 2nd revision without review because the English was so bad, and it was NOT from a developing country.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
a) but with some effort at support. The major issues I have with developing country papers are not so much with the English, but rather with the obvious lack of recent literature and appropriate statistical skills. Those deficiencies mean that such papers are often dated compared to those from more developed countries and often are “reinventing the wheel”. To me that means they cannot be published, but I try to get reference updates on the topic to the author(s) and to suggest ways that they could improve and upgrade their research. Where the paper is of high scientific quality but has problems in English usage, I will sometimes edit for language, but the frequency with which one can do that while fully engaged in other activities is limited. A more common approach is to ask the author(s) to revise their paper, then have it reviewed by a native English speaker
April 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I basically treat them as (A) initially but if it is a good paper that is only lacking in grammar, I work with the authors to get it published (i.e. Option B). I first encourage them to get an English-speaking colleague to review their paper and edit it. If that doesn’t significantly improve it, I direct them to the services that Elsevier offers for improving language in the papers. I do take into account the fact that, in the end, there still may be some awkward English phrases in the manuscript that reflect the nature of the mother tongue of the authors. I feel that as long as the scientific meaning is clear, there can be leeway for a little inelegant grammar in the text in a scientific publication.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
(a) definitely: there can be no such a thing as “third-world” science. As for the presentation issue, any competent referee can point out good quality research/ideas even if the English is poor. Language editing is an issue for publishers, not for scientists.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I treat them like any other paper I receive. If they do not meet the standards of my journal, I reject them.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
As with the other responders, I agree that it is a combination of A and B. While I applaud anyone who can write in a second language (I certainly cannot), there are standards that must be met for publication in international, top-tier journals. I have the papers reviewed for content and if the science is strong I work with the authors to get the material into an acceptable version. That being said, I am being inundated with manuscripts from authors whose first language is not English and I believe that it is the authors’ responsibility and in their best interests to have their papers edited by someone who speaks fluent English prior to submission.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Between A and B. I am prepared to assist authors who are struggling with language problems and perhaps need some advice on presentation of data. However, none of this is very much use unless the underlying science is sound.
In fact, I apply much the same principles to papers of any origin: sometimes native English speakers are not very good at putting their ideas down on paper and need some advice.
However, conversion of broken English to good English can be very time consuming. I do this regularly for the venous section of EJVES (vascular surgery).
April 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
It is A for me, since my primary consideration is always the maintenance of high standards. At the same time, if there are problems with a manuscript that can be resolved, eg quality of written English, then I always make an effort to help, as do many reviewers.
I am European Editor of Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, so this issue is mainly relevant in principle to papers from Eastern Europe. In fact most of the papers that I receive with indifferent science and poor-quality English are from Western Europe!
April 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
B for presentation, A for technical content. The paper must meet a certain standard to be published in the Journal, but if English is not the author’s first language, it is only appropriate to help them. Like James Kinder, I do a final edit on papers for grammar and spelling. These authors are much better in English than I am in their language so it seems only fair. There can also be an issue of lack of availability of reference materials in some countries that should be addressed on a case by case basis. All that being said, the definition of a developing country is a moving target–countries that we might have labeled developing ten years ago have now arrived and it shows or should show in the quality of their submissions.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
B, as the journal Prevention and Control - official journal of the World Heart Federation - focuses on developing countries and one of our objectives is to promote readership and authorship in low and middle income countries. As others point out, this is very time consuming and assistance can not mean a complete re-write. The character of the original submission should be preserved as much as possible.
We have also begun to offer writers workshops.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
It’s close to A, but if I see potential, then I am willing to go the extra distance to help the authors because I suspect they might have had less resources in developing/polishing the idea and the analysis in the paper. The hope is that, regardless of the publication otcome with my journal, the authors and the paper benefit from the review process.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I choose somewhere between B and C — that is I try to get them help as well as occasionally help them myself by editing the papers or suggesting edits to the authors. I feel that this is important. One problem I have identified, however is that many individuals in developing countries, who speak a little English, often do not see the need for further English editing. This is especially true of those who did part of their studies in an English-speaking country. I would say that most of the developing world writers have this problem as opposed to simply not having the ability to get a proper English paper completed. It remains a problem with no easy fix.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I take into consideration the fact that these papers are from developing countries and do my utmost to ge the papers published. I ask the authors to make their best effort in getting the paper in a form that the English is correct. I then edit all papers myself and return these to the autors for their final assessment before transmitting these to Elsevier recommending acceptance. This process appears to be working well but is time consuming in the editorial process. The authors do seem to be very appreciative of the efforts in this regard and this is certainly rewarding from my perspective.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:50 am
It should be “A” (there shouldn’t be any bias in evaluating a paper and only the best should be published), but usually there is some “B” (we consider the difficulties the Authors may have being not native speakers), and I wasn’t aware of the possibility of support given by the publishers: in the future I shall try “C” for the best submissions from poor countries.
Dendrochronologia
March 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Option B is what I choose alkready for a long time. Being ‘western’ myself (Dutch) but having had - and still having - intensive contacts with less developed countries (I hold now a professorship in Poland, and I am involved in fieldwork in India) I am very much aware how difficult it can be for authors of such countries to present a manuscript in a way that is according to western standards.
I am also aware that some aspects of scientific research (in particular detailed observations and a helicopter overview of a discipline) are commonly much better in less developed countries than in the West. That is in itself already a good reason to spend much time on contributions from those countries. But editors have also an educational role, and should try to teach authors from less developed countries how to improve their presentations.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I would favour (b) but would add that the informtion in the paper would need to be worthwhile - it would not be appropriate to ‘do one’s utmost’ otherwise.
My input would be on the assistance with the language side and on the presentation and analysis of results. I do not believe that independent language experts provide the best route here as what is also needed is a very thorough knowledge of the subject being described, including the jargon used.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
One journal for which I am an editor has a policy of encouraging and assisting authors from developing countries to achieve a manuscript of publishable standard. My answer is somewhere between a and b, because ultimately the manuscript must achieve a minimum standard. Assistance ranges from allowing an extra round of review and revision (only in agreement with reviewers), to providing very precise guidance for revision, and even to putting authors in contact with others in their field so that they might receive the necessary, often detailed guidance needed to sort out a potentially interesting manuscript.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Somewhere between a and b. I try to be more lenient to papers from developing countries, recognising that they are often produced under very difficult conditions and that their publication may be much more important to the author that it would be to an author in Europe or the US. Where I reject then I try to be as helpful as possible in suggesting improvements. However, in the end the quality of the Journal has to be paramount and I won’t accept unless it is good enough science.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Poorly written papers that have sufficient, interesting data or findings get (sometimes extensive) feedback on their language, irrespective if they are native or non-native speakers. I cannot help that my opinion sometimes is apparent when I meet another native speaker with poor English, grammar, syntax or structure, and I am aware of the fact that I stretch my understanidng more rapidly when this is from a colleague from a developing country. Often her or his findings are quite new and relevant to my field, Aquatic Botany, so I see reason to give them a fair chance and constructive feedback.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
In the journal “Differential Geometry and its Applications”
we use basically the variant A. But we also encourage Editors
or referee’s to give substantial and useful hints to the
authors - not only from developping countries but also
to fresh PhD’s from any country.
March 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Usually, I use both A and B, depending on the quality. of the manuscript, no matter where it comes from.
Option C looks new to me. Could you provide details?
February 28th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
My answer is a mixture of a and b:
Scientifically I treat them as any other submission, i.e., it will only be accepted if the scientific contents meets the standards of quality of our journal.
However, I try my best to bring the manuscript into a form which is acceptable. In particular, I help them with the style requirements, even re-formatting their text myself; and I give advice as for proper language-editing. But this goes for contributions from other countries as well.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:02 am
First line response - A. However, some elements of B are common in our (Int. Dairy J.) approach to all potentially suitable papers, whether from a developing country or not - advice on technical as well as linguistic deficiencies is provided to the authors, in many cases with a hard annotated copy mailed to them to assist in improving the submission, in other cases by extensive emails. This pre-evaluation saves the editors and reviewers a lot of grief caused by plodding through an interesting but poorly prepared paper, and weeds out papers where the authors are not able to fix the easily identified technical problems (no replication, questionable methodology, lack of statistical treatments etc).
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
A good proportion of the papers that Experimental Parasitology receives and publishes are from non English speaking countries and a fair proportion of those are developing countries. For most of the time I follow B providing the science is good, methods are sound and the paper is providing something new (i.e. they have the potential and therefore A is excluded). This means that in some circumstances a potentially good paper has to go through at least one revision before it goes out for peer review. This is preferable to receiving peer reviews saying that the science appears to be good by is clouded by poor language. Authors from developing countries know that they have problems in dealing with language and appreciate all the help they can get. I have not used approach C as yet, as I have my own language experts on hand.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I am currently looking at the reviews of a paper from Bangladesh, so this is timely.
“A” is the most important criteria. I always try to give positive feedback, even in the case of rejections, so there is something of “B” in my philosophy.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
A) then C). Papers should have good science meeting the standards of the journal, but it is reasonable that the journal assist those writing in a second language. We should not reject good science because of the language we require.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Answer B
This does not need to mean reducing standards. It seems to me as editor that I should attempt - as far as is possible - to guide and coach authors whose initial submissions fall below acceptable standards, but which contain the potential to reach that level. In a number of instances a combination of the original authors, together with reviewers and myself, have rescued material that might otherwise have been rejected because of poor English, initially inadequate data searches, or lack of awareness of existing relevant sources of pertinent data.
I was unaware of option C and will endeavour to find out more about it.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
(A), but forums should exist for those researchers to publish their results.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Editor of Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling
I would say (A). Scientific standards are crucial for the integrity of the journal. Of course, for good science which is poorly written, I would encourage the author(s) to seek help in improving the quality of the presentation. Regarding option (C) - I wasn’t aware that authors could be sponsored by the publisher.