Timeline for Should I recommend accepting a manuscript with major revisions because of a strong topic, but quite poor content?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 12, 2017 at 12:46 | history | bounty ended | C26 | ||
| S Oct 12, 2017 at 12:46 | history | notice removed | C26 | ||
| Oct 12, 2017 at 12:46 | vote | accept | C26 | ||
| Oct 12, 2017 at 10:26 | vote | accept | C26 | ||
| Oct 12, 2017 at 10:26 | |||||
| Oct 11, 2017 at 16:16 | comment | added | Mark | @Dilworth Yes, basic corrections that can be added to a review. However, not rewriting a paper in order to be able to review it at all. | |
| Oct 11, 2017 at 14:07 | comment | added | Dilworth | As reviewer, you are not responsible for language editing---Actually, almost all competent reviewers do include basic language corrections in their reviews. This is from experience. | |
| Oct 11, 2017 at 14:00 | answer | added | Louic | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 11, 2017 at 13:51 | answer | added | Shati | timeline score: -1 | |
| Oct 11, 2017 at 13:29 | answer | added | VonBeche | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 | history | bounty started | C26 | ||
| S Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 | history | notice added | C26 | Draw attention | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 21:07 | comment | added | Mark | As reviewer, you are not responsible for language editing. It is always nice to point out a few spelling/word selection mistakes, next to a proper, content-oriented review. However, if there is a need to improve the language in order to understand the paper, something as simple as "The paper needs editing by a native English speaker (or someone at comparable level)" should be enough. if you can, add some comments regarding content, but refrain from correcting sentence by sentence. It's not part of reviewing, in the sense of, it's not worth your time. There are people getting paid for that. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | JeffE | While I can agree in principle with @JeffE that bad English (on its own) is no reason to reject a paper — Sorry I wasn't clear. I think bad English (on its own) is definitely sufficient reason to reject a paper. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | Alexander Woo | Bad(ly written) papers can inhibit research in an area, because people wanting to go into that area feel like they need to read the paper but are turned off by what they see. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 17:56 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/917448719234105344 | ||
| Oct 9, 2017 at 16:15 | comment | added | Carol | Are you distinguishing between whether the between whether the topic is exciting to you, and whether the paper is a well-reasoned and good research paper on the topic? From the OP's comments, I get impression that it is both the language and organization that make it difficult to tell (OP can't follow arguments, etc). While I can agree in principle with @JeffE that bad English (on its own) is no reason to reject a paper, when one can't figure out the arguments/validity/etc, because of language, it is a reason to reject. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 14:32 | comment | added | C26 | @lighthousekeeper I think it's called "provisionally accept with major revisions". | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 14:23 | comment | added | lighthouse keeper | BTW, is the major revision option in your case actually called "Accept with major revision" or just "Major revision"? The second would be more common and leaves more uncertainty as to whether the paper can eventually be accepted, depending on possible insights from the revision. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 13:58 | comment | added | C26 | @JeffE it was a highly-rated answer here on ASE, I can't locate it presently. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 13:50 | answer | added | lighthouse keeper | timeline score: 40 | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 13:37 | history | edited | JeffE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Referees can't accept or reject papers.
|
| Oct 9, 2017 at 13:34 | comment | added | JeffE | bad English is no reason to reject a paper — [citation needed] | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 12:15 | comment | added | PsySp | In that case write your brutally honest opinion to the editor. Nothing wrong with that! Will be up to the editor on how to interpret this and what to decide next (based on the other reports). | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 12:13 | comment | added | C26 | @PsySp Indeed, I am aware of that, but thanks for the clarification. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 12:12 | comment | added | PsySp | You cannot "accept" or "reject" it, you can only recommend to the editor and the editor can decide. You can write the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and your personal opinion that it could go through if the lnguage is dramatically improved and that's it. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 12:10 | comment | added | Ian | I faced a similar problem in the first article I reviewed. I did not consult anyone with more experience in reviewing. In the first round I pointed out a few mistakes and then said that language and grammar should be revised in general. After they haven't fixed anything, in the second round, I said that this paper will only get accepted after major language editing. Haven't heard of it since... | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 12:08 | history | asked | C26 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |