The response to our recent article on journal submission guidelines (McKinley & Rose, 2018) facilitates an opportunity to engage in further discussion on English language standards in published academic writing. We are grateful to Paul Stapleton for his response, and to the editors of the Journal of Second Language Writing for this further occasion to clarify our position. The main concerns raised by Stapleton (2019) are as follows: 1. That we fail to fully consider the importance of a standard for conveying scientific findings; 2. Disagreement with our suggestion that terms such ‘good’ and ‘error-free’ should be avoided in author guidelines, as it risks eroding academic standards that have been painstakingly established over time; 3. A belief that the introduction of non-standard, but globally-used, forms of language are a ‘slippery slope’ to the degradation of academic writing.

中文翻译：

---

学术写作中的英语标准：作者回应

对我们最近关于期刊提交指南（McKinley & Rose，2018 年）的文章的回应为进一步讨论已发表学术写作中的英语语言标准提供了机会。我们感谢 Paul Stapleton 的回应，并感谢 Journal of Second Language Writing 的编辑再次澄清我们的立场。Stapleton (2019) 提出的主要担忧如下： 1. 我们没有充分考虑传达科学发现的标准的重要性；2. 不同意我们的建议，即作者指南中应避免使用“良好”和“无错误”这样的术语，因为这可能会侵蚀经过长时间精心建立的学术标准；3. 相信引入非标准但在全球范围内使用，