Dear authors,

This study is a very important contribution to the language barrier research and it was delightful to read it. I provided some minor comments and suggestions that I hope you will find useful.

“Use of IA”- You answered that you did not use any IAs to write this paper. However, you used DeepL for translating the paper. Because this is fundamental for the coherence of your work, I was wondering if you could mention that you used IAs for that purpose.

Line 71 - Great suggestion! I like the emphasis on deeper structural actions that will move the multilingual agenda in a deeper sense.

Line 87- I am not sure if the fault comes only from the publishing culture. I think the monolingual publishing culture and the publishing culture in general is the result of an exclusionary culture in science that repeats Western values and ideas. What I am trying to say is that the scientific monoculture -Western values- (e.g.: ideas that the language is a barrier, an obstacle in science) created a monolingual publishing system. Not backward.

Line 94- Great! Local and global have both the same importance. I love it!

Line 112 - I think it would be interesting to remember that “Standard English” also excludes several of the English manners of Native-English speakers that are perceived as Non-Standard.

Line 113 - I love this idea.

Line 165- I do not understand why you said: “either positively or negatively”. Please explain.

Line 168 - Could you cite the journals and business models? I am sure there are good citations for people to follow the conversation.

Line 172- I do not understand why you used the connector “despite this”, I would not use it or use “Furthermore”. After “despite this” I was expecting a positive phrase about higher impact factor journal, not a negative one.

Line 175 - Great! Maybe you want to add “.. target English-proficient readership and publish scientists who can afford to pay for editing or translating services” (these are very expensive for global south scientists. In Ramirez-Castañeda, 2020 there is an estimation according to the local salary for a PhD student.

Lines 159 to 175- I would highlight in a phrase, first, the fact that we are being forced to abandon multilingual efforts when publishing in an additional language is prohibited. Second, the models reduce the participation of low/middle social income scientists or research institutions.

Line 176 - Several papers have explored open access to increase diversity (and also the difficulties of the higher fees). Please add some citations for people who want to find more information about it.

Line 183 - I would change “contribution of Open Access models” to “the contribution of the standing/current Open Access models”. Just to clarify open access could contribute but not within the current circumstances.

Line 186 - I suggest changing the order of the phrases like this: “The linguistic diversity of editorial boards may also be viewed as a driver of inclusivity in journals, since editors who have faced language barriers in their career may be more aware of the impacts of such barriers. However, journals with linguistically diverse editors were less likely to publish abstracts in non-English languages, offer English editing services, and implement machine translation on their websites. Only one exception was found, linguistically diverse editorial boards were positively associated with the provision of author guidelines in multiple languages. This apparent paradox might reflect a lack of power of editorial boards to shape a journal’s linguistic policies.

Line 188 - “In contrast” suggests an opposite idea from the previous phrase but it is not. See the previous suggestion for the paragraph.

Line 194- Great!

Line 206 - Can you add information about the range or exact percentage of society journals implementing these policies compared to other society journals (not with the complete dataset)? In the general dataset, the percentages are so low that it could be also a low number of society journals that are implementing these policies but still be better in comparison with the whole dataset. If the percentage of implementation of society journals is low, I suggest adding a phrase about the relative contribution of society journals but highlighting that it is still a low number.

Line 208 - Please add a phrase to guide the reader interested in additional information to the extended results in the supplementary information.

Line 220 - Wow! I did not know that. That is great!

Line 235 - I would suggest adding a paragraph highlighting that there are additional recommendations to reduce language barriers and that this is not the first time that scientists have requested accountability and involvement from journals. I include this suggestion because every paper about this topic is asked to include suggestions and I think it is important to start building a sense of “we have been repeating this in every paper and you (journals) just do not want to hear”.

Line 262 - What about English as a second language in former British colonies? (e.g.: India, Nigeria). Could you clarify this point in the methods?

Figure 1. Add in the legend the explanations for the abbreviations: AL=Additional Languages.

Figure 1. It has been difficult for me to interpret the p-value. I would add in the legend a correct example of how to read it. For example, if I am reading the figure right then “Higher manuscripts in a second language is negatively correlated with the impact factor”?

Figure 1. Guide the reader to the “Boilerplate linguistically inclusive policies” text in the supplementary information to find the description of each of the policies.