We agree with Clavero that the English language monopolises science dissemination. However, there is no sharp line between being a ‘native English speaker’ (NES) or not (i.e. a ‘non-native English speaker’; NoNES) and we observe a range of intermediate possibilities. Similar to many others, we see the simple polarising dichotomy as counterproductive, especially in the context of globalization. We also disagree with Clavero that ‘linguistic injustice’ against an author's mother tongue has a major role in the probability of having a paper accepted in Anglophone ecological journals. We observe that non-language factors, such as degree of training and experience in scientific writing, geographical location, seniority, or even number and type of collaborators, are more powerful determinants of publication success regardless of linguistic background. It will be easier for those trained in an Anglophone country, which notably includes large numbers of Clavero's NoNES, to write and publish in English compared with those who have not had the opportunity to study abroad. It is also likely to be easier for a Scandinavian scholar to get quality training in scientific writing in English than for most developing-country scientists (even including Clavero's NES) based in their home country. However, this is not to dismiss the challenges that exist.