How Language Quality Affects Peer Review Outcomes

Peer reviewers are asked to evaluate scientific quality, not English proficiency. In practice, however, unclear language can interfere with how research is understood and assessed.

Manuscripts with grammatical errors, inconsistent terminology, or awkward phrasing require extra effort to read. This can slow the review process and increase the likelihood of comments requesting language revision, even when the underlying science is sound.

Poor language clarity may also lead reviewers to misinterpret methods, results, or limitations. Ambiguity in key sections such as the abstract, methods, or discussion can raise concerns about rigour or reproducibility that are, in reality, linguistic rather than scientific.

Professional scientific proofreading reduces these risks by improving clarity, flow, and consistency before submission. Clear language allows reviewers to focus on the scientific contribution instead of the presentation.

Improving language quality does not guarantee acceptance, but it removes an avoidable barrier to fair and efficient peer review.