The Difference Between Language Editing and Scientific Editing — And Why Your Manuscript Needs Both

If English isn't your first language and you're preparing to submit a manuscript to an international journal, you've probably thought about getting your paper edited before you hit submit. But before you spend money on an editing service, it’s worth asking yourself: what kind of editing does your manuscript actually need?

When you think about “editing”, you probably think about having someone review your grammar, sentence structure, word choice, and academic style. This is definitely an important aspect of manuscript preparation. But if you’re having papers rejected even with language editing, you should consider scientific editing, which is a different kind of review entirely. And if you're a non-native English speaker working to publish in English-language journals, you likely need both kinds.

What's the Difference? And Why Non-Native English Speakers Need Both

Language editing addresses the quality of your written English. A language editor will correct grammatical errors, improve sentence clarity, adjust your vocabulary to meet academic conventions, and make sure your writing flows well. This is genuinely valuable, and poor English can absolutely contribute to rejection, but language editing doesn't evaluate whether your science is sound.

Scientific editing addresses the quality of your research argument. A scientific editor asks different questions: Is your literature review accurate and balanced? Does your methodology match your research question? Do your conclusions actually follow from your results? These are different from language problems and, I would argue, are more important factors for successful publication.

These two types of editing require different expertise. A language editor needs strong English skills and familiarity with academic writing conventions. A scientific editor needs subject matter knowledge; they have to understand your field well enough to evaluate your claims. Finding someone who can do both well can be a challenge. Spoiler alert: if you’re publishing in a health sciences field, we can help!

The Most Common Scientific Problems I See

As a journal editor and peer reviewer, I see the same categories of scientific problems repeatedly. Here's what they look like in practice.

An unbalanced or inaccurate literature review. This is probably the most common issue I encounter. A strong introduction explains why your study was needed by accurately representing the state of the field, including findings that complicate or contradict your argument. I've provided feedback on manuscripts where the authors stated that a topic was not well studied, when in fact there were a number of relevant studies available. In other cases, authors presented a clear rationale for their study but cited only literature that supported their position, leaving out evidence that pointed in a different direction. Reviewers know the literature, and they'll notice if your review is superficial.

Methodology that doesn't fit the research question or population. The tools and measures you choose need to be appropriate for what you're studying and for the population you're studying it in. Using a single question from a validated survey, for example, doesn't give you the reliability of the full instrument. Using a dietary assessment tool that was developed and validated for one population and applying it to a different one raises legitimate questions about whether your findings are meaningful. These are more than language problems; they're scientific problems that require a reviewer with subject matter expertise to identify.

Conclusions that go beyond what the data support. Conclusions need to be grounded in your results, and your statistical analysis needs to support the claims you're making. I've reviewed manuscripts where the authors concluded that one group had higher values than another, but the statistical test comparing the two groups hadn't been conducted. The numbers looked different, but "looking different" isn't the same as a statistically significant difference. Be careful not to imply causality if your study is cross-sectional. These are things that you probably already know very well, but you might be misrepresenting them in English. A good scientific editor will catch that.

Incomplete reporting of results. A manuscript should report all of your findings, including the ones that didn't go as expected. Ignoring results that don't support your hypothesis can be misleading. If your data produced unexpected findings, those findings belong in your results section, and your discussion should address them. Reviewers and editors will notice when the data in your tables don't match the story in your text.

What Comprehensive Editing Actually Looks Like

If you're a non-native English speaker preparing a manuscript for submission to an international journal, comprehensive editing means having someone evaluate your paper at both levels. Your English needs to be clear and accurate. But your literature review also needs to be balanced and current, your methodology needs to be appropriate for your research question and population, your conclusions need to be supported by your analysis, and your results need to be fully reported and discussed.

Getting the language right is necessary, but it’s not sufficient on its own.

If you'd like to discuss what your manuscript needs before submission, I offer comprehensive manuscript editing that covers both language and scientific review, including a live video session to walk through the feedback together. Feel free to book a consultation at www.absolutelyenglish.com/book-online.

You might also find our post about Five Academic English Mistakes That Prevent Publication useful. You can find it here.

Back to the Blog