Sir

The system of refereeing original articles in science is based on what is called “peer judgement”. The term “peer” means “equal in rank and abilities”, but this is far from reality. Journal referees are usually experts in their fields, meaning that most of us are refereed by our superiors. Their criticism is usually very constructive.

There is, however, a point on which the peer-review system is discriminatory: language. Almost all the referees' comments mention style. They usually say that the manuscript must be revised by a native English speaker. For many researchers, English is a second language learned in adulthood. This prevents us having the same command as an English speaker.

I write my articles in English, then I pay a native English speaker (British or American, usually with a university science degree) to correct the spelling, grammar and style. On one occasion, I asked an English friend to correct one of my papers. He is a professor at Oxford University, a well known expert in his field with more than 250 papers published, and is editor-in-chief of a reputed journal. He did an intense revision of the manuscript. In spite of this, one of the referees said the manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker, without any specific criticism about the style.

What can I say? I guess for this referee, any style different from his own is inadequate. That kind of comment makes editors send a paper back to the author for revision. That is a waste of money, time and morale, especially when there is nothing to correct. I recommend referees to be more aware of this fact when judging manuscripts from non-English-speaking countries.

I have thought of a possible solution: the creation of what I have tentatively called an Institute for Correct English Style (ICES). Through this, qualified people would ensure that the paper is written correctly and the institute would issue a certificate of competence in English. A paper corrected by an ICES member would not need referees' judgements on style. Reviewers would then focus on their real expertise: science. The peer-review system would again be equal.

Under the present system, if Romeo and Juliet had been written by González instead of Shakespeare, this great work would have been rejected.