ACCOUNTS OF CHENICAL RESEARCH" Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office:Copyright 1985 by the American Chemical Society
V O L U M E 18
NUMBER 1
JANUARY, 1985
EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT
Manuscripts in Broken English ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Charles R. Cantor Marshall Fixman Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Keith U. Ingold Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Josef Michl George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Jacob F. Schaefer Richard C. Schoonmaker Anthony M. Trozzolo
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director
Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager; Anne C. O'Melia, Assistant Editor Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Lorrin R. Garson, Head
The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Registered names and trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Some folks say that the international language of science is broken English. We grant some truth to the comment, but we think it to be severe. At international scientific meetings English is indeed the language of discourse, but most speakers of whatever nation use it effectively. Curiously, though, some of those who have most successfully mastered English as a second spoken language mangle it in subtle ways when they compose manuscripts for publication in American journals. Here a t the ranch, we receive many manuscripts from countries where English is not the native tongue. The occasional crippled phrase or mischosen word doesn't cause us a lot of trouble. Indeed, some manuscripts from British or American authors require similar attention from the editor's pencil. What intrigues and occasionally dismays us is the harsh reaction of some manuscript reviewers to manuscripts in which the English is frankly broken, so much so that one must almost translate it sentence by sentence in order to grasp its message. We in the United States are inclined to regard inability to write good English as an indication of poor education and by inference of low intellectual quality. What surprises us is that an occasional reviewer carries the same standard into his judgment of a manuscript originating abroad. Our hope would be, and remains, that an American reviewer would understand that an author whose first language is, say, German or Italian or Japanese may be very well educated in chemistry and be accustomed to logical thinking but not very proficient in English. The converse certainly is true. We know of Americans who are good scientists but whose command of, say, French is poor. Our hope is that an American reviewer will recognize good intellectual content even though it may be expressed in language difficult to grasp. Another facet of the problem is that now and then a chemist who describes good chemistry in broken English has not actually organized his presentation very well. Editors like to see an intellectual theme defined early in the manuscript and the various components of background information, experimental fact, interpretive argument, and practical application related clearly to that theme with an easy and natural intellectual flow throughout. All but two of us have the capacity sometimes to write a piece that is poorly organized. When a manuscript in broken English also has that characteristic, the capacity of a reviewer to distinguish defective organization from the rather superficial feature of awkward language is surely challenged. To our prospective authors in lands where English is not the language of everyday speech, we call attention to the tendency of many Americans to take good command of English as a hallmark of quality. One way to avoid unappreciative reviewer comments which really stem from language problems is to present manuscripts which are virtually free of language flaws. Finally, special thanks are due to a few reviewers who, when sent a manuscript with many irregularities of English, have taken the trouble to edit the whole manuscript in order to perfect the phraseology. Such magnificent service goes way beyond the call of duty. Even your faithful editors won't do that; if a manuscript is good in its chemistry and its intellectual approach but poor in its English, we insist that it be brought to a good standard as to language before we will undertake final polishing to make it superbly readable. Joseph F. Bunnett
