1. An International Open Access and Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Sponsored by the “Brazilian Diabetes Society” ✤ Poor language as a barrier for authors from emergent countries A case report

2. The context ✤ Science carried out in emergent countries has been significantly growing in quantity and quality over the last decade. ✤ Because of fast growth of research output from the BRICKS nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Korea, and South Africa; a number of journals are now keen to publish research originated in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

3. Thomson Reuters Building Bricks - exploring the global research and innovation impact of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea (Feb ’13) Annual research output from BRICKS countries

4. Thomson Reuters Building Bricks - exploring the global research and innovation impact of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea (Feb ’13) Citation impact of the BRICKS countries

5. BRICKS countries: rapid growth in research output ✤ Traditionally most scientific research has been performed in Europe and North America – in 1973 approximately 2/3 of articles in WoK were co- authored by an author from a G7 country. ✤ Over the past 40 yrs. the number of publications with at least one G7 author has gone 3x while the number of publications with no G7 authors has gone up 6x.

6. The purpose of this presentation ✤ Nonetheless, language is still a barrier for these authors. ✤ The case report to be presented exemplifies how poor English can prevent scientists from these countries from publishing excellent research in international, high-quality journals.

7. The case ✤ In July 2009, just before Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome Journal (D&MS) was launched on August, an original article was submitted by authors based in Egypt. ✤ As the Editor-in-Chief quickly noticed, the manuscript required extensive, major language revision.

8. The case ✤ Poor English is a common issue for many manuscripts that D&MS receives, as well as it is for a number of international journals these days. This manuscript in particular, however, was barely readable.

9. The case ✤ The Editor-in-Chief would have immediately rejected it and asked the authors to re-submit a fully revised version. ✤ However, the data presented in the article - as tables and graphs - attracted his attention and he realized they were looking pretty good. So he decided to invite reviewers and ask their opinion on the manuscript.

10. The case ✤ Reviewer 1 said that this was probably the worst paper he has tried to read. ✤ “The science is questionable, and after spending half the day just trying to read it, I have come to the conclusion that it should be rejected“

11. The case ✤ Reviewer 2 admitted that the manuscript needed to be “completely re-cast”. ✤ “I'm sending you the revision by e-mail because I have gone through the entire manuscript (except for the references) and made extensive amendments to the text. It is rife with misspelled words, incorrect usages, and the usual lack of the definite article that is associated with Arabic-speakers who are writing in English”.

12. The case ✤ Reviewer 3 provided the following report: ✤ “The present article describes an interesting comparative study between (…). The methodology is consistent with the proposal goals and results might be interesting. However, the poorly comprehensive ideas had led to reject this article.”

13. The case ✤ The revised manuscript provided by reviewer 2 was submitted to a second round of reviews and was accepted in September 2009. It was the journal’s highest viewed and cited article in 2010 and is currently the third highest accessed article published in D&MS since the journal launched.

14. The case ✤ The revised manuscript provided by reviewer 2 was then submitted to a second round of reviews and was finally accepted in September 2009.

15. The case ✤ It was the journal’s highest viewed and cited article in 2010 and is currently the 3 rd highest accessed article published in D&MS since the journal launched.

16. Points for discussion ✤ We are not advocating that reviewers should re- write papers as authors have to take responsibility for ensuring language is adequate. But how we can raise awareness among authors that their papers have been rejected or published in low-quality journals just because language is poor?

17. Points for discussion ✤ The previous experience of reviewer 2 with Egyptian authors was key for the happy end here. In similar cases, how could the assistance of editors, editorial board members and reviewers based in emergent countries help decrease the likelihood of rejecting this kind of manuscript?