Is it acceptable as a Reviewer to correct basic grammatical and typo-errors identified in a manuscript I am reviewing?

Dear Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman,

You may want to look over info presented below:

The ethics of a reviewer correcting grammar errors and typos in a text depend on the context and purpose of the review. Here are some considerations to help determine whether it is ethical for a reviewer to make such corrections:

Editorial Role: If the reviewer is acting in an editorial or proofreading capacity, it is generally considered ethical to correct grammar errors and typos. This role involves improving the clarity and quality of the writing, and fixing such errors is a standard part of the process.

Peer Review for Content: In academic or professional peer review, the primary focus should be on the content, methodology, and validity of the work rather than grammar and typos. Correcting minor language issues should not be the primary concern of a content review, as it could be seen as distracting from the substantive evaluation of the work.

Author's Consent: If the reviewer decides to make grammar and typo corrections in a content review, it is ethical to do so only if the author has consented or if such corrections are explicitly within the scope of the review process. Some reviewers may provide feedback on language as a secondary aspect, but this should not overshadow the primary content review.

Disclosure: If a reviewer decides to make language corrections, they should disclose this action to the author, especially if the corrections significantly alter the original text. Transparency is important to maintain the integrity of the review process.

Respect for Author's Style: Reviewers should be mindful of the author's writing style and voice. While correcting errors is generally acceptable, it's important not to impose one's own writing style on the author's work.

Objective vs. Subjective Errors: Some grammar and style issues are subjective, and there may be multiple correct ways to address them. In such cases, reviewers should exercise caution and not impose their personal preferences.

Critique vs. Correction: It is important to differentiate between critiquing the writing style and correcting minor language errors. Providing constructive feedback on language issues without directly altering the text can be a more ethical approach in content reviews.

In summary, whether it is ethical for a reviewer to correct grammar errors and typos depends on the review context and the expectations set by the reviewing process. Ethical reviewers prioritize the primary goals of the review, which may be content evaluation, and address language issues only in a way that respects the author's voice and consent.

How can I measure MMP-1 protein activity or protein level from liver tissue?

Binary Logistic Generalized Linear Mixed model in SPSS. Is it doable?

Looking for Materials with high thermal expansion coefficient and high temperature resistance?

Guidelines for survey (question type) analysis?

What are the values needed for gabor filter's parameter for cifar10 data?

Can we block unwanted images during the x-ray prediction?

No title

What techniques can I use to determine the miscibility of polymer blends?

Sample dilution for quantitative analysis using ELISA?

The procedure compute?

Is it possible to remove a preprint posted by a journal which is already rejected?

Timeout error!! Processor in the loop (PIL) using STM32F4 Matlab 2018a?

Is CD44 degraded in lysosome together with hyaluronan after CD44 mediated endocytosis of hyaluronic acid?

No title

How Can I clain a removal of a co-author?

How much cell pressure and back pressure should I apply to start for triaxial test for different types of soil?

How does the injection volume impact LLOQ and ULOQ in regression analysis (LC-MSMS)?

Difficulty in debugging code to correct error - TypeError: '<' not supported ?

How to perform Haldane correction on SPSS?

Rearranging abbreviation list in LaTeX ?