Few rejection comments are more frustrating than this one:
âThe manuscript requires extensive English language editing before it can be considered for publication.â
The instinct is to run the text through a grammar checker, or ask a native-speaking colleague for a quick read. But many authors who do this find themselves facing the same comment on their next submission.
The reason: what reviewers call a âlanguage problemâ is rarely a grammar problem. It is almost always a problem with how scientific arguments are expressed: logic, precision, and coherence at the paragraph and section level. Grammar checkers cannot catch this, because every individual sentence may be grammatically correct.
This guide covers the five most common writing issues in medical and life science manuscripts from non-native English speakers, with specific examples and revision strategies.
1. Overstatement
This is the most common issue, and it cuts across all language backgrounds. Academic culture in many countries emphasizes the importance and novelty of research, but high-impact English-language journals are exceptionally sensitive to claims that go beyond what the data can support.
Typical original:
Our results demonstrate that protein X is the key regulator of pathway Y and will provide a new therapeutic target for disease Z.
Problems:
- âdemonstrateâ implies certainty beyond what a single study can establish; use âsuggestâ or âindicateâ
- âkey regulatorâ is a claim that requires substantially more evidence than one paper
- âwill provideâ is a prediction stated as fact; add conditional framing
Revised:
Our results suggest that protein X plays an important role in regulating pathway Y, which may have implications for the development of therapeutic strategies targeting disease Z.
The rule: Replace âdemonstrate / prove / confirm / revealâ with âsuggest / indicate / support / are consistent withâ wherever your data is making a probabilistic case rather than an absolute one. This is not weakening your paper. Nature and Cell papers routinely use âsuggest.â It is the correct register for scientific English.
2. Passive Voice: Overuse and Misuse
Passive voice is correct and standard in the Methods section. The problem is when it spreads throughout the Results and Discussion, making the writing feel impersonal and making it hard to follow the logical subject of each argument.
Typical original (Discussion):
It was found that the treatment was effective. The results were considered to be significant. It is suggested that further studies should be conducted.
Problems: Every sentence hides who found, considered, and suggested. The reader cannot track whose interpretation this is, or why these conclusions follow from the data.
Revised:
We found that the treatment was effective, with a statistically significant reduction in tumor volume (p < 0.01). These results suggest that targeting this pathway may warrant further investigation in larger cohorts.
The rule: Methods: passive is fine. Results: mix of active and passive, with active preferred when presenting your key findings. Discussion: use active (âWe found,â âOur results suggestâ): it is clearer and more confident.
3. Lack of Cohesion Between Paragraphs
Individual paragraphs may be well-written, but if they do not explicitly connect to each other, the Discussion reads like a list of facts rather than a scientific argument. Reviewers from high-tier journals are particularly sensitive to this.
Typical original:
Our study found that gene A expression was significantly upregulated in tumor tissue. Previous studies have reported that gene A is involved in cell proliferation. The inhibition of gene A reduced tumor growth in our mouse model.
Problems: Three sentences, three disconnected facts. The reader has to infer the logical relationship between them, and in a fast review process, they often will not.
Revised:
Our study found that gene A expression was significantly upregulated in tumor tissue, consistent with its previously reported role in promoting cell proliferation. Importantly, pharmacological inhibition of gene A reduced tumor growth in our mouse model, suggesting that this upregulation is functionally relevant to tumor progression rather than an epiphenomenon.
The rule: Each sentence in a Discussion paragraph should either (a) state the finding, (b) connect it to prior literature, or (c) interpret its significance, and the connective tissue between these moves should be explicit: âconsistent with,â âimportantly,â âin contrast,â âthis suggests that,â âtaken together.â
4. Inconsistent Terminology
A single concept appearing under three different names within one paper is a common problem in manuscripts written by multiple authors or assembled from multiple drafts. For reviewers, it raises a genuine question: are these the same thing?
Common example:
| Location | Term used |
|---|---|
| Abstract | tumor microenvironment |
| Introduction | cancer microenvironment |
| Results | TME |
| Discussion | the microenvironment of the tumor |
Four expressions, one concept.
Revision strategy:
- Choose one primary term per concept and use it consistently throughout
- Define abbreviations on first use: tumor microenvironment (TME): then use TME exclusively
- Check gene names, protein names, and cell line designations for consistent capitalization and formatting (e.g., BRCA1, not BRCA1 or brca1 in alternating sections)
5. Vague Language
Vague adjectives and adverbs are one of the fastest ways to undermine a reviewerâs confidence in a manuscript. Scientific writing demands precision: every evaluative term should be anchored to specific data or an explicit comparison.
Typical original:
The expression level of protein X was relatively high in the treatment group, and the difference was quite significant.
Problems:
- ârelatively highâ: relative to what?
- âquite significantâ: statistically significant? Biologically significant? By what measure?
- No quantification supports either claim
Revised:
Protein X expression was 3.2-fold higher in the treatment group compared to the control (p < 0.01, Studentâs t-test), a difference that remained significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.
The rule: Flag every instance of relatively / quite / somewhat / rather / very / a little / important / significant in your manuscript. For each one, ask: can this be replaced with a specific number, comparison, or defined criterion? If yes, replace it. If not, delete it.
Pre-Submission Checklist
Before submitting, run through these five checks:
- Search for âdemonstrate,â âprove,â âconfirmâ: is each use supported by sufficient data? Replace where needed with âsuggest,â âindicate,â âsupportâ
- Read the first sentence of every Discussion paragraph: does it explicitly connect to the paragraph before it?
- Search for all names used for each key concept: unify terminology and abbreviations
- Find every evaluative adjective: does âhigh / low / significant / importantâ have a specific number or comparison behind it?
- Read your final conclusion: does it stay within what your data can actually support?
If you have worked through this list and are still uncertain whether your manuscriptâs language meets the standard of your target journal, send any section (up to 500 words) to contact@scholarmemory.com. I will provide a free sample edit so you can assess the level of revision the full manuscript may need.