“Convenience Editing” in action: Comparing English teachers’ and medical professionals’ revisions of a medical abstract

Native English-speaking (NES) English teachers at universities in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts are sometimes asked to edit English manuscripts written by non-native English-speaking (NNES) colleagues in scientific fields. However, professional peers may differ from English teachers in their approach towards editing scientific manuscripts (Benfield & Howard, 2000). This study examined (1) editing strategies used by NES English teachers at Japanese universities with different amounts of medical editing experience, compared to those used by NES healthcare professionals in editing an abstract written by a Japanese medical researcher; (2) points where participants felt the need to consult with the abstract’s author; (3) revisions affecting definite articles; and (4) editors’ attitudes towards editing. Results reveal that disciplinary knowledge and medical editing experience did not significantly impact editing strategies, but did impact the number of points where consultation was considered necessary, as well as revisions affecting definite articles. English teachers’ ambivalence towards editing was also revealed. We argue that greater collaboration between English teachers and researchers in scientific fields is needed, and that consultation and clarity should become themes in courses designed for graduate and undergraduate EFL students.

► We compared English teachers’ revisions to those made by healthcare professionals.
► English teachers made more revisions affecting definite articles.
► Inexperienced English-teaching editors required more consultation with the author.
► English teachers expressed ambivalence towards editing.
► Consultation and clarity should be key themes in ESP writing courses.