-3

Who needs a native english speaker to proofread?

It is certain that this editor didn't read the manuscript, he's just on a rush to write a rejection letter probably because he's bias toward the origin or affiliation of the author. I came to this conclusion with the last statement he made: "Your manuscript meets few of the guidelines and this suggests that you are not entirely familiar with the standards and expectations of Journal".

Please leave a comment to share your experiences with similar editor.

  • 3
    This site isn't supposed to be a discussion board. You need to actually ask an answerable question that does not simply call for opinions. I don't see the evidence of bias here, so maybe you should compare your submission to the objections here and see how you really did. Calling this biased because it is primarily focused on your use of English shows little respect for the journal process. This desk rejection by the editor is a strong indictment of your use of English in the submission. I think it best to take that under advisement and see where it leads. Have a native English user read it. – Bill Barth Jun 4 '16 at 16:29
  • 10
    "he's just on a rush to write a rejection letter" - my experience may be irrelevant by the standards of your possibly quite different field, but the above letter seems to me like one of the most elaborate, constructive and concrete rejection letters I have ever seen and definitely not like it was written in a rush. – O. R. Mapper Jun 4 '16 at 16:31
  • 4
    Welcome to Academia SE. Unfortunately, there are several problems with your question: 1) Your titular question does not match the question body. 2) Poll-like questions (“Please leave a comment to share your experiences with similar editor.”) are not suited for this format. 3) You seem to be looking for confirmation that somebody else mistreated you, which nobody who is not familiar with your work can give you. – Wrzlprmft Jun 4 '16 at 16:33
  • 3
    No, he didn't mistreat you. While his letter of rejection is badly written. His level of English is still much higher than yours. As to following existing standards, note that you made the same mistake here. You posted your question without really being familiar with the guidelines of this community, which also suggests that you're probably not very familiar with this online community at least. – Stephan Branczyk Jun 4 '16 at 16:52
  • 3
    he's just on a rush to write a rejection letter probably because he's bias toward the origin or affiliation of the author. That's a very serious accusation, and you've provided no evidence to support it. My advice is to try to assume that the editor has actually provided you with honest feedback to the best of his/her professional abilities, and try to use that feedback to improve your paper and its chances to get published, instead of whining that you're being discriminated against, which is completely counterproductive and will not do anything to help your career prospects. Good luck! – Dan Romik Jun 4 '16 at 19:46
3

To directly answer your titular question:

The letter suggests the author needs a native English speaker to proofread.

While I am not a native English speaker myself, the text in the rejection letter does not strike me as being in urgent need of further proofreading by a native English speaker. (EDIT: I do see some issues, whih could well be copy-and-paste mistakes, though.) Hence, assuming this reflects the typical writing skills of the editor, it is unlikely they need any additional proofreading.

As an additional note: It is unclear to me why so many paragraphs are marked with red lines in the screenshot. Only the paragraph comprising three lines actually refers to language issues as such.

  • The point here is that, using the word "get a native speaker to proofread" shouldn't be a valid argument for rejecting a manuscript. The words that are highlighted are poorly worded but typically correct as to writing skill which is peculiar to the writer. To support that please check here academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68628/… – Holu Jun 4 '16 at 16:41
  • 2
    @Holu: "shouldn't be a valid argument for rejecting a manuscript" - the linked question doesn't support that claim. In fact, it refers to a very specific case where one of the authors is a native English speaker who did proofread, none of which is stated to be the case in this question. As for the rest, I am not sure what you mean by "typically correct"; would you care to rephrase? – O. R. Mapper Jun 4 '16 at 17:54
  • the provided ref. link is self explanatory and coupled with the letter provided in the post, i disagree with the statement to "get or hire a native speaker" to proofread a manuscript. The focus should be the correctness of the grammar and the way it was structured. The way an English person writes differs from the way an American writes and so does it differ from the way an Australian and Kiwis writes. Moreover, the editor himself/herself might have a different way of writing as exemplified in this case. – Holu Jun 5 '16 at 5:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.