[perching_aix]

Why?

I don't have academic paper publishing peers with bad language skills, but I do have colleagues with bad language skills, and the misunderstandings and petty catfights they get themselves into over poorly worded sentences, missing linguistic cues, and misinterpretations, is utterly bonkers.

All otherwise perfectly smart capable people, they just happen to have this as a gap in their skillset. And no, they don't notice if transformative details get added in or left out.

[leakycap]

> I do have colleagues with bad language skills, and the misunderstandings and petty catfights they get themselves into over poorly worded sentences, missing linguistic cues, and misinterpretations, is utterly bonkers.

Is this a widespread systemic issue within the organization, or do you work somewhere large enough that it is easy to find examples like this due to the number of people involved?

If it is the former, I would not want to work somewhere that people get into petty catfights over editing and have no abiity to write a sentence or understand linguistic cues. I don't remember working anywhere I would describe in the way you do in your second paragraph.

> And no, they don't notice if transformative details get added in or left out.

I guess I don't have to tell you not to select them as the people to review your work output?

Again, all the examples I'm reading make me think it would be beneficial for folks to include competent team members or external support for projects that will be published in a language you don't speak natively.

[perching_aix]

> Is this a widespread systemic issue within the organization, or do you work somewhere large enough that it is easy to find examples like this due to the number of people involved?

Can't tell you for sure (would require me to have comprehensive knowledge of the language skills around the company). I do know a few folks with proper language skills, but they're a rarity (and I treasure them greatly). Could definitely be just my neck of the woods in the company being like this.

> If it is the former, I would not want to work somewhere [like that where] (...)

Yeah, it's not great. The way I solved this was by simply not caring and just talking to them in proper English, hammering them until they provide me (and each other) with enough cross-verifiable information that thus definitely cannot be wrong (or will be wrong in a very defendable way), with an additional serving of double-triple checking everything. Some are annoyed by this, others appreciate it. Such is life I suppose.

> I guess I don't have to tell you not to select them as the people to review your work output?

I don't really have a choice. I think you might misunderstand what it is that I deliver though. I work with cloud technologies, so while I do sometimes deliver technical writing, most of my output is configuration changes and code. When I speak of language barrier issues, that's about chat, email, and ticket communications. I think that's plenty bad enough to have these kinds of troubles in though, especially when it's managers who are having difficulties.

[leakycap]

> I don't really have a choice.

When does your employment contract end?

[perching_aix]

Not a fixed contract, so when either side terminates it (I understand the question was rhetorical). Where I live, opportunities are not so plentiful, though I am working on polishing up my CV to compensate. Benefits are decent though, can WFH all the time, so that's also a consideration. Most everywhere they're doing the silly hybrid presence thing now, which would suck (back and joint issues don't mesh too well with having to move around in the office and travel back and forth every (other) day) - maybe moreso than the linguistic landscape that at this point I'm fairly used to.

This hesitance to switch is definitely put to the test a lot these days though :)