Rejected due to non-existent grammatical errors

[macabremagpie]

So I've submitted a case study for review twice. The two main reasons for rejection were 1)grammatical errors and 2)POV writing. I admit the latter was a fault of my own, I missed a line in the conclusion the first time that adds the authors opinion, but I have to disagree with the grammatical errors that caused the rejected both times and I feel I have a strong case.

The only problem that the rejection reported was a confusion in the usage of 'its' and 'it's'. Specifically, it stated the usage in the title - "How has 2000AD maintained its success?" - is the incorrect use of 'its'. Now I know this is wrong for two reasons - one, if I change it to 'it's' then Word (correctly) informs me that this is the wrong usage and it SHOULD be 'its', as I have written it and as it was rejected for grammatical error. But most importantly, the case study I am submitting is an essay that got me a very high mark on my Degree course this year and which received no marks against it for grammatical or spelling errors. To back this up, Word is not reporting any errors in the entirety of the text and I've read and re-read it several times and can confirm that every usage of 'its' and 'it's' is entirely correct, as backed up both by Word and by the marking that my tutor and independent adjudicator gave the work earlier this year.

The system is now telling me that it will not consider the essay again, despite the fact the errors reported are completely erroneous.

Suggestions?

[aprilk10]

I also received an erroneous rejection. It was stated that there were spelling errors and gave the example that I had spelled committing as "comitting." However, upon reviewing the file and the long summary, I found no errors. I simply resubmitted and it was accepted! I did make a couple of changes before submitting, though none of the changes were to spelling.

[michaelsmoker]

Out of nine articles submitted, I have had two rejections. Both were by the same editor, who did not review any of the other seven articles. That's all I can safely say.

Michael

[aprilk10]

I didn't know you could tell which editor reviews your articles? Most of my articles usually go right through. However, since they made the changes, I have noticed that there seems to possibly be an over-zealous editor somewhere that once in awhile gets ahold of one of my articles. The majority of the comments are very helpful and I certainly appreciate the advice. However, there have been at least 2 or 3 times now that spelling mistakes were pointed out. When I went to correct them, they were spelt correctly--no spelling errors! On the other hand, I have had other articles recently go through that I later found spelling mistakes in! Go figure! Oh well, it's all good as long as they go through and sell I guess!

[WordCraft]

What is 2000AD?

Did you mean AD 2000? (I think it might be A.D. 2000 for Americans...?)

[michaelsmoker]

AD = Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of Our Lord." It's how Christians describe a year that occurred after the alleged birth of Jesus. Non-Christians use CE, which = Christian Era. So I would write it as 2000 CE. I find CE offends fewer people than AD does.

Michael

[juliaamos]

CE = Common Era

[michaelsmoker]

Correct, Julia. Thanks.

Michael

[WordCraft]

Personally I think that "CE" comes across as a bit contrived - almost as if people are trying to be PC. Should we stop calling the days of the week after Norse gods as well (unless you are a pagan)?

My pet peeve is that AD should always come *before* the year, not after - nearly everyone writes it with the initialism after the year though (even historians!)

[michaelsmoker]

WordCraft, I don't think it's contrived to exempt Jews, Hindus, Baha'i and others from having to say "in the year of Our Lord" when it ain't _their_ Lord. I fully support the use of CE as inclusive and welcoming to people of all faiths.

Michael