Recently, a postgraduate student of our team sent me an article by E-mail, with this comment: ‘‘If you want a good laugh, read the Spanish abstract of the article attached.’’ She was referring to a comprehensive and interesting article published a couple years ago in Wildlife Monographs, which was authored by 20 researchers, 15 from several United States government agencies, 4 from universities (including one in Florida, USA, which receives a lot of Latin American students, a fact that is relevant as the reader will see later), and one from a well-known international, nongovernmental organization. Most of the grammar in the Spanish version was laughable. I was concerned about how such a badly written abstract could have been published in such a prestigious scientific journal. So, I asked another postgraduate student of our team to analyze the French version of the same abstract. Her comments about its grammar were that it was even worse than the Spanish abstract. A rapid reading of the Spanish abstracts in 2 additional Wildlife Monographs revealed similar deficiencies in the second and many grammatical errors in the third, but compared to the first 2, its Spanish could be considered acceptable. I am far from being a language teacher, but as a biologist who has regularly published articles in well-known journals, I think I can say that both abstracts were flawed and wordy. In addition, verb tenses were improper, words were misused, and some ideas were not well connected. Because the abstracts were difficult to read and some parts of them were not very clear, I immediately suspected that they might have been made by a free translator available online and later submitted (and published), as produced by that translator, with only minor revision, if any at all. To validate this hypothesis, I copied and pasted the first English abstract I referred to above into 2 free, online, machine language–translation tools: Yahoo! Babel Fish (,http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_ txt.; accessed 1 Aug 2009) and WorldLingo (,http://www. worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translator. html.; accessed 1 Aug 2009). The 2 Spanish versions I obtained were nearly identical to those published and had practically the same mistakes. It seems that non–English-speaking researchers must be more than precise in our English grammar and wording in manuscripts we submit for publication, but that rule does not apply equally to foreign abstracts in journals that publish papers primarily in English. It is not clear to me whether those abstracts were made by the authors and were then not revised by the reviewers or the editorial committee of the journal or whether those translations were made directly at some point during the editing process by the editorial staff. However, the resulting products were, in either case, disappointing. To give a better idea of what I mean here (for the non– Spanish-speaking reader), I tried to construct an example using the reverse situation. For this purpose, I translated (correctly) into Spanish the original English abstract of an article of which I am coauthor, which was published years ago in the Journal of Wildlife Management. Then, I copied and pasted my Spanish version into an online machine translator, mentioned above, to obtain an automatic English version that could easily be compared with the original. To my surprise, the machine-made English version closely resembled the original and had only a couple of unimportant errors and acceptably good grammar. I then machinetranslated into Spanish the text of our English abstract, and voila!!—the automatic Spanish version I obtained was as bad and had similar errors to those I detected in the abovementioned Monographs. Therefore, it seems that the machine translators work much better when turning Spanish text into English than vice versa. The conclusion is that English-speaking people should be particularly conscious that, as most automatic translators warn, a machine translation can be used only as a guide to understanding the general meaning of a text. However, it is not a substitute for a human translator, especially in an English-to-Spanish conversion. Undoubtedly, everyone applauds the policy of some journals to include foreign-language abstracts because they allow a wider spectrum of readers to access scientific information. As a consequence, it may increase citation of the articles published in the journal (and its ISI Impact Factor) and evaluation metrics of the specific article (and the author’s Scopus h-index). But if those abstracts are poorly written, they could produce the opposite effect, discouraging people that might otherwise be interested in the topic. Indeed, publishing foreign-language abstracts that are produced by automatic translators seems not to be a wise 1 E-mail: navarroj@efn.uncor.edu Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5):915–916; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2009-391