Best Practices for Rebuttal: Translators replying to Reviewers
Replying to reviewers’ comments is essential to more accurately assess the applicability and validity of the issues raised during LQE or IR. It is important translators have this opportunity to back-up their choices and provide arguments for issues that are not visible to the reviewer. It is a chance for translators to improve possible Fail scores. For this, translators will receive the feedback provided by reviewers in the LQE form - please note the LQE form template may vary accross customers.
This is the process that translators have to follow:
Get familiar with the instructions, and the Category and Severity descriptions to adhere to, which are described in the Review section.
Work on the ARBITRATION tab/columns in the LQE form.
Have a look at the issues reported (Source, Target, Category, Severity, and comment).
Based on this fill in the following columns - or the columns specifically requested in the HO.
Standard LQE form. This may vary across customers.
Customized LQE form from a specific customer.
Column definitions
Change implemented? Please check the instructions from the PS/PM whether implementation is necessary or not.
Valid error & categorization?
Select YES if you agree not only with the issue reported, but with the issue category and severity as well
Select NO if you disagree with either the issues reported, and the category/severity, or both.
Note: If you selected YES, you don’t need to fill in the rest of the columns. This means that this error will be counted in the penalization and will be considered for the final result.
If no, why?
Select OVERPENALIZED if you think that the severity should be lower
Select UNDERPENALIZED if you think that the severity should be higher
Select MISCATEGORIZED if you think that the categorization should be different
Select OTHER
Recategorisation. If you had disagreed with the category, please select the one you think should be correct.
Revised severity. If you had disagreed with the severity, please select the one you think should be correct.
Arbitration comment. This field is mandatory. Here, you have to explain why you disagree with the reviewer's change or categorization. For writing comments correctly, adhere to the Adding Comments section above.
For writing these comments, keep in mind the KEY FOCUS AREAS mentioned above.
Examples of arbitration comments
Do | Don’t |
|---|---|
According to the reviewer’s comment/translation, the meaning of the translation is shifted, but these are just two different ways of saying the same. There is no change in meaning, and the original translation sounds more natural. | I think the suggested translations are wrong. |
The original translation “XYZ”, which means “ABC” in English, is back translated as “ABC”. The suggested translation “XYZ” is also translated as “ABC”. Please consider this as a preferential change since the original translation conveys just the same… | Can you tell me how XXX is wrong? |
The original translation adheres to the glossary/termbase available in LILT. The reviewer translation is using a different translation for the term “XXXX”. | The reviewer is wrong |