Quality of scientific writing considered in peer review?
Martin Fenner
Monday, 01 October 2007 05:53 UTC
I was wondering how much, if at all, the quality of the writing of a submitted paper is considered in the peer review process? I mean not the quality of the data or the arguments in the discussions but the writing style itself (language, grammar, etc.). In other words, will a nicely written paper with the same data be more likely be accepted?
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I agree completely with Maxine in writing the scientific paper clearly and concisely. NATURE is at least maintain its publication written in simple english by taking no extra charge for copyediting (am I right Maxine?), I would appreciate if all those journals charging (e.g. NAR) heavily for publication will also include the english writing cost. I am not sure/aware, if some of them are doing it?
-
Thank you, Rajneesh. As you say, the Nature journals provide copyediting (subediting) free as part of our author services. The editor handing the manuscript before acceptance for publication will also help with writing style at a broader level, for example how best to present the argument, and whether some of the more technical material would be better as Supplementary Information. Often we find that peer-reviewers provide helpful advice on presentation. Some even annotate the manuscript for the authors. We also have some writing advice here. From there you can click to find some free editing services.
I’m not aware of the cost breakdown for journals that charge authors, I’m afraid, I can speak only for the Nature journals. -
Anonymous
More important than the quality of writing is who is on the author list. The screening by the editorial board deciding which manuscripts make it to peer review is the major source of attrition, not the peer review process itself. Even if you submit a great paper in the Queens English, if you dont have the “right” authors on the editorial list, your paper will be triaged before peer review. I just wish that the journals would post a list of the “right” authors so I could make sure they are on my papers
-
Dear Anonymous,
Please have a look at this discussion thread in this same forum. The topic of whether “famous” authors on a paper increase the chances of that paper being sent for review is dealt with there. The short answer is ‘no’. -
Writing as a Nature editor, I can confirm that the answer to “anonymous” is indeed “no”, as Corie writes.
When a journal rejects a manuscript, the journal keeps the details confidential. Hence, people not on the journal staff can make comments like those of “anonymous”, and the journal cannot respond by saying “Look at this list of rejected manuscripts by Nobel prize winners.” Nor would we want to. We think that the papers published in Nature journals speak for themselves, and if “anonymous” would like to perform an analysis of the authors’ names on Nature journal papers in a certain time period, it would be interesting to see how many of those authors publish repeat papers, compared with those who publish only one. Then he or she would have some data on which to base his or her assumption. -
I think Ian’s comment that “the papers that were harder to read were often the ones that took longer to come back from the reviewing process” is quite interesting. If the science in the paper is sound and reviewers can understand it, even major language flaws can be fixed by the authors, OK. However, what I commonly see is that for non-native English speakers, time is an issue when it comes to fixing language problems. Even if we consider that language editing services can help solve such problems, somebody (at least one of the co-authors) is expected to have a good command of English to write the first draft of the manuscript before sending it to language editors…And in this case it’s not only time that matters, but also money/funding. In Brazil, for example, it is already scarce for scientific projects, let alone for this (important) kind of support. I wonder how faster publication by non-native English speakers by developing countries could be if formal language instruction and funding were provided for researchers from all scientific fields…This an issue that intrigues me, guys!
-
Agreed, Sonia, that writing papers in a language not native to the author(s) is an issue.
At the Nature journals (topic of this forum) our editors and sub (copy) editors provide a lot of assistance and guidance as part of our author service — and peer-review feedback helps a lot in this regard, too. So yes, you are right that this process might make the paper a little slower, but the end result is one that will have more impact by the language collaboration between editors and authors (and often, peer reviewers). Other journals, not Nature journals, may not provide these services, however, but will suggest some commercial ones for authors to consider.However, you make good points that authors sometimes need advice before submission. I’ve linked alread on this forum to the Nature journal and Sicdev.net pages advising on writing and submission.
Many institutions provide courses and advice for their scientists and students. Not everyone has access to such services, as you say.
Our advice in our guides to authors for Nature journals is that authors find a native English language speaker to help them finalise their papers before submission to a journal, if none of the authors is a native English speaker. In my experience, many scientists in a field are very happy to help colleagues in this way, especially those from developing countries, especially if the work is presented at a conference so that everyone hears how interesting it is! -
In my experience, the best-written submissions to Nature come from people whose first language is not English – and who have therefore been taught English, properly, as it no longer is in England (I can’t speak for the USA or other anglophone countries).I had a paper recently that was written in a most peculiar way, so much so that I had to turn to the author list – and found that both authors were English, working in England. In general, though, Nature editors aren’t looking for English that is beautiful (though it’s nice when it happens) but English that is comprehensible and clear, and whose meaning is unambiguous. If you are attempting to write in clear English, I find it’s best to adopt a few simple rules: the same rules that journalists use to improve the clarity of their prose.
1. Look at the lengths of your sentences. If you can split them into shorter sentences, do so.
2. Don’t use words or phrases in print that you wouldn’t use in conversation: write as you would speak. I find that if you’ve written something and you think it doesn’t make sense, speak it out loud. If it still seems like it doesn’t make sense, then it probably doesn’t.
3. Use simple sentence constructions that start at the beginning and progress in a stately and linear way to the end.
4. Avoid relative clauses.
5. Avoid the use of double negatives (cell biologists absolutely adore double negatives).
6. Avoid compound nouns (ditto).
7. Avoid neologisms (very popular in the USA).
8. Avoid creative-writing classes.
9. Audit English Literature classes. When looking for models of good writing, study writers who could really write. If you are English, read Jane Austen (and I’ve met at least one non-anglophone who learned English from Dickens). If in America, read Hemingway.
I am sure I could think of more…
-
A comment to Henry (though you may have already noticed)… authors write their own manuscripts but do not necessary finalize them. At least in Japan there exists a revising/rewriting services industry where English native speakers with science background (well, I hope so) revise/rewrite manuscripts for profit. I personally know an example where a company charged about 400 USD and spent a week to revise a 3000-word manuscript. They do not improve the quality of science; they simply improve the language. Please be aware of the extra time and money that authors tend to spend for their manuscripts written in the foreign language, and in particular, of the fact that the manuscript you read could have experienced such “improvement” by someone else.
-
This is a very interesting thread. I have a few thoughts to contribute.
1) Clear thinking results in clear writing (and vice versa). This is quite independent of formal skill at grammar and whether the writer’s first language is English.
2) Incomprehensible papers frustrate reviewers (I know this as a reviewer). In this sense, bad writing will certainly hurt a paper’s chances of being accepted.
3) Jargon has its uses. You cannot write for Nature, or any other journal with space constraints, if you have to spell out the basic science behind everything you mention. Furthermore, many key concepts really are unknown to those outside the field, and rightly so. Science is vast.
Results
-
