Coates R, Sturgeon B, Bohannan J, Pasini E
Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Feb 1;53(2):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(01)00530-2.
The acceptance rate of non-mother English tongue authors is generally a lot lower than for native English tongue authors. Obviously the scientific quality of an article is the principal reason for publication. However, is editorial rejection purely on scientific grounds? English mother tongue writers publish more than non mother-tongue writers--so are editors discriminating linguistically? We therefore decided to survey language errors in manuscripts submitted for publication to Cardiovascular Research (CVR).
We surveyed language errors in 120 medical articles which had been submitted for publication in 1999 and 2000. The language "error" categories were divided into three principal groups: grammatical, structural and lexical which were then further sub-divided into key areas. The articles were corrected without any knowledge of the author's nationality or the corrections made by other language researchers. After an initial correction, a sample of the papers were cross-checked to verify reliability.
The control groups of US and UK authors had an almost identical acceptance rate and overall "error" rate indicating that the language categories were objective categories also for the other nationalities. Although there was not a direct relationship between the acceptance rate and the amount of language errors, there was a clear indication that badly written articles correlated with a high rejection rate. The US/UK acceptance rate of 30.4% was higher than for all the other countries. The lowest acceptance rate of 9% (Italian) also had the highest error rate.
Many factors could influence the rejection of an article. However, we found clear indications that carelessly written articles could often have either a direct or subliminal influence on whether a paper was accepted or rejected. On equal scientific merit, a badly written article will have less chance of being accepted. This is even if the editor involved in rejecting a paper does not necessarily identify language problems as a motive for rejection. A more detailed look at the types and categories of language errors is needed. Furthermore we suggest the introduction of standardised guidelines in scientific writing.
非英语母语作者的稿件录用率通常远低于英语母语作者。显然，文章的科学质量是发表的主要原因。然而，编辑拒绝稿件纯粹是基于科学理由吗？英语母语作者发表的文章比非英语母语作者多——那么编辑是否存在语言歧视呢？因此，我们决定调查提交给《心血管研究》（CVR）发表的稿件中的语言错误。
我们调查了1999年和2000年提交发表的120篇医学文章中的语言错误。语言“错误”类别分为三个主要组：语法、结构和词汇，然后再进一步细分为关键领域。在不知道作者国籍以及其他语言研究人员所做修改的情况下对文章进行校正。初步校正后，对部分论文样本进行交叉核对以验证可靠性。
美国和英国作者的对照组录用率和总体“错误”率几乎相同，这表明这些语言类别对其他国籍的作者来说也是客观的类别。虽然录用率与语言错误数量之间没有直接关系，但有明确迹象表明，写作糟糕的文章与高拒稿率相关。美国/英国30.4%的录用率高于所有其他国家。最低9%（意大利）的录用率也伴随着最高的错误率。
许多因素可能影响文章被拒。然而，我们发现有明确迹象表明，写作粗心的文章往往会对论文是否被接受产生直接或潜意识的影响。在科学价值相当的情况下，写作糟糕的文章被接受的机会较小。即使参与拒稿的编辑不一定将语言问题视为拒稿的动机。需要更详细地研究语言错误的类型和类别。此外，我们建议在科学写作中引入标准化指南。
