UKC

For a scientific publication... The journal uses British English so I've ended everything, as I would anyway, in 'ise'.

However I have been heavily scrutinised by one reviewer (whom I am aware has spent a lot of time in the US) for doing so, to the point where they have corrected all of these spellings and actually stopped reading half way through.

I know 'ize' is technically British (moreso than it is American) but ending with 'ise' is the only way I have been taught and know how to spell.

But the trouble is 'ize' is still technically correct and we generally only use 'ise' to avoid complication with verbs that *must* end this way. Some of these verbs are in my text, so do I bite the bullet and convert everything else to 'ize', be inconsistent but appease a reviewer? Or stick with what I know and be both correct in spelling and consistent throughout my text.

In reply to GrendeI:

A peer reviewer is only useful to you if they understand the subject matter; if they can barely spell or - at best - fail to grasp the differences between British and American English, then they're not useful as a proof reader. The two roles are very different. Are they useful in terms of judging actual content?

Most of the (veterinary medicine) journal articles I read are appallingly badly written, but often still extremely useful. I think you need a reviewer to scrutinise content before polishing your grammar for you (particularly if they're cr*p at it ).

Martin

Ps What's the subject matter?

In reply to GrendeI:

As far as I know 'ize' or 'ise' are acceptable in British English but in American English only 'ize' is correct. Therefore, if you are writing for a publication that uses British English, either is acceptable as long as you are consistent, and your reviewer is being a dick either out of ignorance or inclination.

In reply to GrendeI:

Im an ise Kind of guy, but would just use Whichever gave me an easier Life.

In reply to maisie:

It's geology, for the Norwegian Journal of Geology.

The main issue for me being that no really constructive review comments were given... Only an edit of my English, leaving me rather frustrated and wondering if there is some fundamental error in my work!

In fairness the reviewer is Norwegian, so I cant expect them to have a complete grasp of our lingo!

And although he's 'anonymous' I was also surprised to have such a harsh review!

In reply to GrendeI:

I would regard the issue as one of style, and is therefore up to the journal. Does it specify a house style? In practice, does it vary across publications in that journal? Do you need to respond directly to the reviewer or to the editor? If the latter, can you just note in your covering letter your rationale for spellings and why you have not made the requested changes?

That being said, if the one barrier to getting my paper published was changing all my 'ise' spellings to 'ize'... How important is it to you, really, when compared to the content of your research?

In reply to GrendeI:

I prefer 'ise' personally - however for publication purposes I usually use 'ize' purely because it prevents this kind of problem. As said above, both are valid in British English and ultimately I don't really care as long as people read and understand the paper.

If it's going to help get it published, I would just go with 'ize'.

In reply to Quiddity:


This is also true - do you have a contact at the journal you could ask about this?

In reply to GrendeI:

Ask the journal editors or look through past papers and see what everyone else has done

In reply to GrendeI:
According to Fowler (revised Gowers), either -ise or -ize is ok, with the latter the accepted form of OUP, CUP, The Times and the USA. Slightly surprised about OUP and CUP, but when I had a CUP chapter all my -ises did get -ized in proof.

Fowler says it's because a lot of the verbs come from Greek (ending -izo), but not all, some verbs *should* end -ise because they don't have a Greek stem. He has a list.

Anyway, the upshot is that he reckons -ise is easier because you can then be consistent.

But ultimately you'd probably need to go with whatever the publisher prefers. Whichever, your reviewer shouldn't have been so silly.

Can you tell I'm in the middle of exam marking?!

In reply to GrendeI:

It's not for a reviewer to determine spellings - this is for the publisher to determine. They'll have a house style. If you've submitted the paper to the publisher (which I presume you have done if it's been reviewed), you should ask them which they want. You might also want to tell them, if they don't already know, that the reviewer hasn't been looking at matters of science but has only been doing the job of a copy-editor. They'll want to know whether their reviewers are any good.

In reply to GrendeI:

1. It's the journal's call - they'll have a house style.
2. I'd question your reviewer's usefulness if they stopped reading because of this

In reply to GrendeI:

I would do the relevant comments, but in your reply to the reviewer I would query the reviewer's comments to the editor. It will be up to him and journal style as to whether this should be taken into account. Worth calling the journal and ask about this particular comment.

We had one reivwer who was incredibly rude, calling into question the ethics of the paper we were involved with recently; completely at odds with everyone else. In the end, it turns out that he/she completely missed the point about the study.

If you aren't getting comments on the actual work, then the reviewers either don't understand it or they are happy with the science.

In reply to GrendeI:


Yowza. As an English-language article for a journal which is probably going to have an even higher proportion of English-as-a-second-language readers, it makes your reviewer's actions even more illogical (but then, a German climbing mate's parents used to correct our English grammar whenever they could. Apparently, British people speak English poorly).


I suspect 'anonymous' and 'harsh' are intertwined; this is largely a good thing, though - a pretty robust peer reviewer improves your paper.

Personally, I'd resubmit to the same reviewer with a fairly blunt outline of the parameters for their involvement - 'you stick to the science and let me worry about the grammar'. I suspect most people would just look for a different reviewer.

I'm working on the assumption that this is all pre-publication....

Martin

I had a similar problem with a reviewer, but when we looked at articles in the journal it was clear that both alternatives had been used in recent issues - we pointed this out to the editor who accepted our argument.

But if this was all that was stopping the paper being accepted ...

In reply to GrendeI:

As others have said, it is a crap review. Suggest you change whatever they ask and return the revised paper with a note to the editor pointing out the limitations of the review. If you are lucky copy/proof editing will sort everything to the journal style. If you are less lucky, it will introduce a whole load of errors and possibly miss the odd line for good measure.

In reply to GrendeI:

I've just looked at** 2 articles from the NJG online. One uses "ise", the other "ize". Go figure ...

** I hesitate to say "read" - the writing was as dense as the material being discussed!

In reply to telemark:

This one is as dense too, annoyingly so as I am limited by the number of figures :P

Thanks all, I'm continuing in my 'normal' way with the intent or making a note to the reviewers.