Language bias in peer review can affect how reviewers judge a manuscript and how comfortable researchers feel participating in peer review. English is the dominant working language across much of scientific publishing, but many researchers write and review in English as an additional language. That creates practical costs that academic publishing should recognize without lowering standards for scientific quality.
For reviewers, the key distinction is simple: language quality and scientific quality are related only when the writing makes the research impossible to assess. Non-native English reviewers can still provide expert, rigorous peer review, and authors should not be judged against an ideal of native-speaker fluency.
Are language quality and scientific quality the same?
No. Language quality in peer review should matter only when the writing prevents a reviewer from understanding or evaluating the science. A manuscript with imperfect English can contain rigorous, original, important research. A manuscript written in polished English can still have weak methods, unsupported conclusions, or thin analysis. Treating fluency as a proxy for research quality creates language bias in peer review and can disadvantage authors for reasons unrelated to the strength of their work.
A 2023 PLOS Biology study by Tatsuya Amano and colleagues surveyed 908 environmental scientists from eight countries. It found that some non-native English speakers spent about 51% more time writing papers in English and experienced language-related rejection 2.5 to 2.6 times as often as native English speakers. Those findings show that language can create barriers before the scientific contribution itself is fully considered. For reviewers, that means keeping peer review focused on what the manuscript claims, how the study was conducted, whether the evidence supports the conclusions, and what contribution the research makes.
What does language quality in peer review actually include?
Language quality in peer review becomes relevant when unclear writing limits your ability to assess the research. Peer review is primarily an evaluation of scientific quality, not a copy-editing service. The Committee on Publication Ethics advises reviewers not to rewrite a manuscript into their preferred style when the writing is already clear, while still encouraging specific suggestions that improve clarity and respectful feedback when authors are writing in an additional language.
If a methods section is so unclear that you cannot determine what was done, that affects your assessment of reproducibility. If a conclusion is worded so ambiguously that several scientific interpretations are possible, that affects your ability to judge whether the claims are supported. These are legitimate peer review concerns because the language interferes with scientific evaluation. Minor grammar problems, unfamiliar phrasing, or a style that differs from native-speaker conventions are different. They may affect readability, but they do not automatically make the research weaker.
When you need to flag a language issue, be specific about what is difficult to understand and why it matters. A comment such as “The manuscript would benefit from editing by a native English speaker” is vague and places the burden on the author without identifying the scientific problem. A more useful comment would explain the exact point of confusion: “The methods in paragraphs 2 and 4 were difficult to follow. It was unclear whether the samples described in step 3 were processed sequentially or in parallel.” This tells the authors what needs clarification and helps the editor understand why the issue matters to the peer review.
How should non-native English reviewers approach peer review?
Non-native English reviewers should focus first on the quality of their scientific judgment. Reviewing a manuscript in English does not require native-level fluency if you can understand the research and communicate your assessment clearly. If you are less confident evaluating language quality in peer review, tell the editor where the boundaries of your assessment lie. You can still evaluate methods, data, interpretation, relevance, and research quality with genuine expertise while noting that detailed language editing is outside your review. That kind of transparency is useful in many peer review situations. ReviewerOne’s guide to reviewing when you are the only expert in the room makes a similar point: reviewers can provide valuable specialist assessment while being clear about areas that fall outside their expertise.
Reviewing in an additional language can also take more time. If reviewing a manuscript in English adds significantly to the effort required, account for that when deciding which invitations to accept. Your expertise is what the editor is seeking. The wording of the report matters because it should be understandable and constructive, but polished native-speaker English should not be treated as the measure of a good reviewer.
How can reviewers reduce language bias in peer review?
Reviewers can reduce language bias in peer review by separating communication problems from scientific problems and explaining exactly when the former affects the latter. Before criticizing the writing, ask whether the language genuinely prevents you from assessing the methods, evidence, or interpretation. If you can understand the scientific argument, keep your review centered on the science. If a passage is genuinely unclear, point to the passage and explain what information you cannot determine from it.
This is especially important when reviewing a manuscript in English from authors working across different linguistic contexts. Academic publishing uses many legitimate varieties of English, and peer review should not reward one writing style simply because it feels more familiar to the reviewer. It also helps to avoid assumptions about who wrote the manuscript, the authors’ language background, or what kind of editing support they can access. Focus on what is on the page and what must become clearer for the research to be evaluated fairly. Language bias in peer review is reduced when reviewer comments are precise, evidence-based, and tied to scientific understanding rather than fluency alone.
What should journals do to support non-native English reviewers?
Journals can support non-native English reviewers by making reviewer guidance clearer, more accessible, and less dependent on unspoken assumptions about academic English. Reviewer templates can distinguish scientific assessment from copy editing. Guidance can explain when language problems are relevant to peer review and provide examples of constructive comments. Training can also acknowledge that reviewers work across languages, disciplines, time zones, and levels of experience. Research4Life provides eligible institutions in lower-income countries with free or low-cost access to scholarly resources and offers training modules and webinars for researchers and professionals. The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) also includes diversity, equity, and inclusion within its peer review training, alongside guidance on reviewer feedback and good peer review practice.
These efforts do not solve the wider language imbalance in academic publishing, but they show what useful reviewer support can look like. ReviewerOne’s article on flexible reviewer support in global peer review also explains why reviewers may benefit from guidance, training, tools, and community that reflect different needs and working contexts. For journals, supporting non-native English reviewers is not about lowering expectations. It is about making the expectations of peer review explicit and giving qualified researchers a fair opportunity to participate.
Key takeaways
Language bias in peer review can appear when fluency is treated as a stand-in for scientific quality. Reviewers should distinguish language problems that genuinely prevent scientific assessment from imperfections that do not affect the research itself. Non-native English reviewers can provide strong peer review without needing native-speaker fluency. When reviewing a manuscript in English, be clear about the limits of your assessment, focus on scientific reasoning, and flag language only when it affects understanding. Journals can strengthen academic publishing by giving reviewers clearer guidance on language quality in peer review and by offering support that works across linguistic and professional contexts.
Try ReviewerOne
ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform is designed to support reviewers with structured checks while keeping human judgment at the center. Its AI-assisted tools are intended to reduce the mechanical burden of review so reviewers can focus more attention on intellectual evaluation.
Sign up for ReviewerOne to support your next peer review
