Academic Research Article Proofreading: 11 Brutal Truths Every Researcher Needs in 2025

Welcome to the world of academic research article proofreading in 2025, where every misplaced comma, awkward phrase, or unchecked reference can detonate your chance at publication in an instant. For many, the peer-review gauntlet isn’t just a test of ideas—it’s a high-stakes language maze, policed by invisible gatekeepers and merciless algorithms. The modern academic landscape is ruthless: funding is scarce, competition is cutthroat, and the margin for error is vanishingly thin. As research becomes more global, interdisciplinary, and digitally mediated, the demand for flawless, articulate writing is at an all-time high. But here’s the kicker—most researchers still underestimate the power (and danger) of the final proofreading sweep. If you think spellcheck is enough to survive, think again. This is your wake-up call: 11 brutal, unvarnished truths about academic proofreading that editors never tell you. Read on to unmask myths, decode hidden politics, and discover the strategies that can make or break your next journal submission.

Why academic proofreading is more than spellcheck

The real cost of language errors in research

It’s one of academia’s most persistent ironies: a breakthrough idea can be buried forever under the rubble of minor linguistic slip-ups. Whether it's a rogue preposition, mangled tense, or inconsistent reference, editors and reviewers have little patience for language errors—no matter how brilliant your research. According to Nature, 2024, rejection due to “poor language quality” remains a top reason manuscripts never see the light of day. The problem is magnified by the pressures of “publish or perish” culture, where repeated rejections don’t just sap morale—they drain funding and damage professional reputations.

Table 1: Top reasons for rejection in academic journals (2024). Source: Nature, 2024

The financial and reputational toll of repeated rejections is staggering. Each round of revision costs time you could have spent on new research or grant applications. Every “language concerns” comment chips away at your confidence, and for early-career researchers, this can be the difference between a funded position and an academic dead end. As one journal editor confessed, “I’ve seen brilliant ideas buried under sloppy writing.” — Jamie, journal editor (Nature, 2024).

Proofreading vs. editing: Drawing the line

In academic circles, it’s tempting to use “proofreading” and “editing” interchangeably. But this confusion can be costly. Proofreading is the last pass: hunting for typos, punctuation errors, missed words, and formatting slips that escaped previous rounds. Editing, by contrast, comes in several layers—each with its own depth and function.

Definition list:

While substantive editing might transform a draft, proofreading is your last line of defense before submission. According to JHMes.com, 2024, “Proofreading is the final sweep, the last line of defense against errors.” Overlooking the difference can lead to paying for a service that doesn’t meet your real needs—or worse, submitting work that’s not submission-ready.

Knowing this distinction matters: journals rarely provide detailed feedback on language after the first rejection. If you send in a draft that needs more than proofreading, you risk burning your shot with that publication altogether.

How journals scrutinize language quality

Peer reviewers and editors aren’t just looking for scientific merit. They expect clarity, precision, and seamless academic English. The scrutiny is relentless, especially in the current climate where submissions are surging and the bar for acceptance keeps rising.

Unordered list: 7 hidden scrutiny points journals use:

• Sentence structure variety: Overuse of passive voice or repetitive syntax is flagged as “tedious” or “unclear.”
• Technical term overload: Excessive jargon without explanation alienates interdisciplinary reviewers.
• Citation accuracy: Inconsistent or incorrect referencing style signals a lack of professionalism.
• Logical flow: Abrupt transitions and non-sequitur paragraphs are red flags for coherence.
• Data presentation: Ambiguous descriptions of figures or tables lead to requests for clarification.
• Formatting compliance: Even minor deviations from style guides can trigger a desk rejection.
• English idiom misuse: Non-native phrasing or literal translations are often caught instantly.

Since 2020, standards have shifted dramatically. With open access and preprint culture accelerating, editors are inundated and less forgiving. According to Global Research Inflection, 2025, the post-pandemic flood of submissions means every flaw is magnified. And, while there’s a professed tolerance for non-native English, the reality is harsh: submissions from less prestigious institutions or regions get much less leeway. The unspoken double standard means that, for many, language quality is the first—and sometimes only—hurdle considered.

The hidden politics of academic English

Gatekeeping and the language barrier

At its core, academic publishing remains a battleground for ideas—but it’s also a linguistic minefield. Linguistic gatekeeping, where reviewers and editors unconsciously (or very consciously) prioritize native-like English, is an open secret. The impact on acceptance rates is profound: according to Scijournal.org, 2025, articles from non-native speakers face up to 40% higher rejection rates based on language alone.

Language bias often lurks beneath polite rejections, masked as “needs substantial revision” or “clarity issues.”

Table 2: Acceptance rates by region/language background (2023-2024). Source: Original analysis based on Scijournal.org, 2025, Nature, 2024

As Maria, a senior researcher, bluntly put it: “It’s not just what you say. It’s how you say it.” (Scijournal.org, 2025)

Cultural bias in peer review

The politics of academic English don’t end with language. Cultural norms—implicit assumptions about what constitutes “good writing” or “logical argument”—shape peer review in ways most researchers never see coming. Take for example the use of indirectness (valued in some Asian academic cultures), narrative structure (favored in Latin American writing), or the preference for hedging versus assertiveness.

Three real-world misfires:

• A Brazilian researcher’s manuscript is dismissed as “meandering” because it opens with a broad narrative instead of a concise abstract.
• A Chinese scholar is told their arguments are “unsubstantiated,” failing to recognize that indirect references and rhetorical humility are culturally normative.
• A US-based author’s direct and assertive tone is described as “arrogant” in a European journal context.

Native speakers, too, can fall into these traps—using colloquialisms, idioms, or culturally loaded references that reviewers in other settings find confusing or inappropriate. To counteract these biases, researchers should:

• Seek peer feedback from international colleagues before submission.
• Use universal scientific structures (IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion).
• Explicitly define cultural or context-dependent terms.
• Employ plain English wherever possible.

Proofreading as academic self-defense

Proofreading in 2025 isn’t a luxury—it’s survival. In the global academic arena, it’s your shield against the silent assassins of misunderstanding, bias, and bureaucratic “desk rejection.”

7 steps to use proofreading strategically:

1. Print your manuscript—typos leap off the page in hard copy.
2. Read aloud to catch awkward phrasing and run-on sentences.
3. Verify every reference, figure, and table for consistency.
4. Use a checklist (not just memory) for common error types.
5. Solicit feedback from a peer in a different discipline.
6. Run both human and AI proofreading tools in tandem.
7. Double-check the submission guidelines for formatting minefields.

Beyond error correction, strategic proofreading boosts your confidence. It makes your work accessible to a broader audience, increases citation potential, and, crucially, levels the playing field for researchers from underrepresented backgrounds. As the barriers to entry get higher, effective proofreading is increasingly the great academic equalizer.

DIY, peer, or professional? The ultimate showdown

What DIY proofreading really catches (and misses)

Let’s be blunt: no one cares about your manuscript as much as you. DIY proofreading is the first—and sometimes only—line of defense for most researchers. The standard methods: rereading after a break, reading aloud, using document “track changes,” or running built-in spellchecks. But the harsh reality is that self-review can only take you so far.

8 DIY proofreading pitfalls:

• Blindness to your own repeated phrasing or pet errors
• Overlooking missing or misnumbered references
• Failing to spot formatting inconsistencies (especially in tables/figures)
• Missing discipline-specific terminology errors
• Skimming over ambiguous sentences because you “know what you meant”
• Allowing unchecked autocorrects to slip in technical terms
• Ignoring non-English abbreviations or acronyms
• Underestimating the impact of last-minute edits

Three examples underscore the risks:

• An author misses a duplicated paragraph—spotted instantly by a reviewer.
• A complex figure is labeled incorrectly, causing confusion in the results.
• A misspelled gene name passes unnoticed, undermining credibility.

To maximize your DIY proofing, use color-coded highlighting for different error categories, keep a running list of your most common mistakes, and always leave a 24-hour “cooling off” period before your final pass.

Peer proofreading: Blessing or bias?

Peer proofreading is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it brings fresh eyes, context-specific knowledge, and a collegial safety net. On the other, it’s vulnerable to bias, time constraints, and unspoken groupthink.

Consider these real anecdotes:

• A junior researcher’s manuscript gets an enthusiastic but uncritical pass from a friend—only for an external reviewer to spot multiple errors missed by both.
• A senior collaborator “proofs” a paper but rewrites sections in their own voice, introducing new inconsistencies.

Bias creeps in when peers are reluctant to criticize or lack the time for a detailed review. Groupthink can blind even the sharpest teams to shared blind spots.

Guidelines for objective peer feedback:

• Select peers outside your co-author circle for fresh perspective.
• Use structured feedback forms or checklists.
• Encourage critical, actionable comments—not just “looks good.”
• Rotate proofreaders to avoid complacency.
• Make “blind” reviewing a norm within your lab or team.

Professional services: Worth the investment?

Professional proofreaders are not just glorified spellcheckers. They’re highly trained experts—often with advanced degrees and subject-matter knowledge—who scrutinize context, academic tone, citation style, and even figure legends. They catch what you and your peers miss: field-specific nomenclature errors, subtle logical inconsistencies, and the nuanced shifts required for different journals.

Table 3: Comparison of proofreading types. Source: Original analysis based on Scijournal.org, 2025, JHMes.com, 2024

When vetting a professional service, check for:

• Credentials and field expertise of editors
• Transparent pricing and turnaround times
• Clear ethical guidelines (no ghostwriting or data manipulation)
• Sample edits or references from previous clients

As Alex, an academic editor, quips: “Good proofreading is invisible—bad proofreading is unforgettable.” (JHMes.com, 2024)

Myth-busting academic proofreading: What nobody tells you

Myth #1: Proofreading guarantees publication

Here’s a painful truth: perfect English does not earn you a golden ticket to acceptance. Journals care about novelty, methodological rigor, and the contribution to the field far more than a flawless semicolon. Proofreading is necessary but not sufficient.

Take the case of a technically perfect manuscript from a top university—immaculate grammar, pristine formatting. It was still rejected because the methodology was not sufficiently innovative, and the findings were deemed incremental. Reviewers commented: “Impeccably written, but does not meet the journal’s originality threshold.”

Proofreading’s real impact is to remove preventable obstacles—so your science stands or falls on its own merits. Set realistic expectations: it will not rescue weak research, but it will save strong research from death by linguistic crossfire.

Myth #2: Only non-native speakers need proofreading

Native English speakers are far from immune to language pitfalls. In fact, familiarity breeds error: overused idioms, region-specific slang, and “writing by ear” can introduce subtle mistakes that non-native speakers are trained to avoid.

Examples abound:

• Over-reliance on contraction (“it’s”, “doesn’t”) in formal writing.
• Misuse of discipline-specific terms (“data is” instead of “data are”).
• Failure to spot subject-verb agreement in complex sentences.

6 language traps for native English researchers:

• Homonym confusion (e.g., “effect” vs. “affect”)
• Unconscious repetition of favorite phrases
• Inconsistent tense usage
• Unchecked autocorrect substitutions
• Comma splices in long, technical sentences
• Native speaker overconfidence (“I know this sounds right”)

Recent data from Global Research Inflection, 2025 show rejection rates for native speakers due to language errors are rising, as journals adopt stricter standards to manage overwhelming submission volumes. In short: everyone benefits from a second (or third) set of eyes.

Myth #3: Automated tools are all you need

AI proofreading is everywhere—from Grammarly to embedded Word checkers to specialized academic services. They’re fast, scalable, and, frankly, better than nothing. But algorithms have blind spots. They miss context, discipline nuance, and subtle logic errors.

Consider this step-by-step miss: An AI tool flags “their” as correct, missing that the sentence needed “there” in a technical context. It fails to check figure references against the main text, ignores subtle shifts in passive/active voice, and cannot distinguish between “significant” in colloquial vs. statistical sense.

Comparisons reveal that AI tools catch 70-80% of surface errors, but only 40-50% of context-driven mistakes. Hybrid approaches—pairing AI with human review—consistently outperform either alone. Trust algorithms for the mechanical, but doubt them on nuance. Always verify their “suggestions” against your field’s conventions and your journal’s requirements.

Behind the scenes: What editors and reviewers wish you knew

Red flags that get your manuscript sidelined

Editors have a sixth sense for language-based dealbreakers. They can spot a “desk reject” within the first paragraph—sometimes the first sentence. The most common red flags include:

10 red flags editors notice instantly:

• Misspelled or misused technical terms
• Inconsistent tense or person
• Incorrect or inconsistent referencing style
• Poor figure/table labeling
• Overlong sentences (run-ons)
• Repetitive phrasing
• Ambiguous pronouns
• Lack of transitions between sections
• Unexplained abbreviations
• Excessive passive voice

Reviewer comments frequently cite “language quality” or “clarity” as reasons for rejection or major revision. Targeted proofreading—checking for these red flags—can preempt disaster and keep your submission out of editorial purgatory.

How reviewers really read your manuscript

Time is the reviewer’s most precious resource. With a stack of papers and looming deadlines, most reviewers skim—focusing on abstracts, figures, and the first line of each paragraph.

Skimming means first impressions count: glaring errors, convoluted sentences, or off-format citations will stick in a reviewer’s mind long after your main argument is forgotten. To make your work reviewer-friendly:

• Use clear, descriptive headings
• Break up dense paragraphs
• Front-load key findings and arguments
• Label all figures and tables clearly
• Summarize each section in a single, punchy sentence

The unspoken hierarchy: Who gets scrutinized hardest

Bias isn’t just about language—it’s about where you work, where you come from, and even your co-author network. Manuscripts from elite institutions, or written by well-known authors, are more likely to get the “benefit of the doubt.” Others face extra scrutiny, sometimes bordering on suspicion.

Anecdotes abound:

• A Middle Eastern researcher’s flawless English manuscript is flagged for “possible plagiarism” due to unfamiliar phrasing.
• A team from a top-ten US university submits an error-riddled draft and receives only mild language revision requests.

Table 4: Scrutiny levels by author profile (2024 survey). Source: Original analysis based on Nature, 2024

For underdog researchers, strategic proofreading is a way to fight back—leaving reviewers no choice but to engage with your ideas, not your accent or institutional address.

Proofreading in the age of AI: Revolution or risk?

What AI proofreading tools get right—and wrong

AI proofreading is here to stay, and the landscape is evolving rapidly. Tools like Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, and field-specific platforms (e.g., Trinka, SciFlow) have changed the game: they catch grammar snafus, flag repetition, and help with basic style. But they don’t understand academic argument, field-specific conventions, or the nuanced logic of research writing.

A detailed example: Grammarly successfully flags “an data” as an error but misses the misuse of “significant” in the context of statistical reporting—a mistake that could undermine the credibility of an entire results section. Word’s Editor may prompt for passive-to-active conversions that actually disrupt scientific tone.

Error rate comparisons (based on Scijournal.org, 2025): Grammarly (78% catch rate), Word Editor (65%), Trinka (76%), Human editors (90-95% with field expertise). The best approach: use AI tools for the basics, then follow up with human review—either peer or professional.

The ethics of algorithmic editing

With AI, new ethical questions emerge: what happens to your data when you upload a confidential manuscript? Can an algorithm “edit” your voice out of your own work?

Scenarios where AI crosses the line:

• Uploading unpublished data to a cloud-based AI, risking confidentiality breaches.
• Automated “suggestions” that rewrite key arguments, reducing authorial intent.
• Submitting AI-proofed work without transparency, raising questions about academic integrity.

Best practices for responsible AI use:

• Always check the privacy policy of your proofreading tool.
• Avoid uploading sensitive or embargoed content to cloud-based services.
• Disclose the use of AI tools in your submission cover letter when required.
• Combine AI edits with human review to maintain your unique academic voice.

Hybrid workflows: The future of academic proofreading?

Hybrid proofreading workflows—combining AI speed and human expertise—are gaining traction. This approach leverages the strengths of both, minimizes blind spots, and improves efficiency.

8 steps for an effective hybrid proofreading workflow:

1. Run an initial AI scan for surface errors.
2. Accept or reject AI suggestions based on context.
3. Print or digitally annotate the document for a manual pass.
4. Use a checklist to cover discipline-specific conventions.
5. Solicit peer review for logic and argument structure.
6. Apply professional editing selectively (e.g., for the abstract).
7. Re-run AI to catch post-edit typos.
8. Final manual review before submission.

The pros: higher accuracy, faster turnaround, and more confidence in the final product. The cons: potential cost, privacy concerns, and the need for critical oversight. Trends for 2025 point to further integration—AI as a first filter, humans for high-level judgment.

Proofreading checklists, hacks, and real-world case studies

Your ultimate academic proofreading checklist

Every researcher needs a robust, actionable checklist—proofreading without one is like walking a tightrope blindfolded.

12-step proofreading checklist:

1. Review journal submission guidelines for formatting.
2. Check all figures and tables for correct labeling and referencing.
3. Scan for subject-verb agreement and tense consistency.
4. Verify the accuracy and style of citations.
5. Read each section aloud for flow.
6. Search for overused technical terms or jargon.
7. Confirm logical transitions between paragraphs and sections.
8. Inspect number and unit formatting.
9. Run both AI and manual spellcheck.
10. Double-check all abbreviations and acronyms.
11. Confirm author affiliations and contact details.
12. Ensure compliance with ethical and open access statements.

Most-missed items: inconsistent figure references, incorrect citation styles, and logic jumps in the discussion. Spotting these requires focused, methodical review—don’t trust your brain alone.

Insider hacks for last-minute proofreading

Time’s running out—and your submission deadline looms. Here are practical, research-backed hacks for catching errors on the fly:

• Print to PDF and review on a tablet for a “fresh eyes” effect.
• Read backward, sentence by sentence, to catch typos.
• Use voice-to-text to “hear” awkward phrasing.
• Highlight all verbs to check tense consistency.
• Search for “this” and “it”—replace with specific nouns.
• Use “find and replace” to check for double spaces and common typos.
• Set a one-hour timer: focused sprints catch more than endless reviews.

Triaging what matters: prioritize title, abstract, figures, and references. Last-minute changes can introduce new errors—so double-check every tweak.

Case studies: Proofreading failures and fixes

Three real-world cases illuminate the stakes:

• Case 1: A multi-author paper is desk-rejected for inconsistent citation style. A professional proofreader standardizes references and the paper is accepted on resubmission.
• Case 2: A clinical trial report contains contradictory data in the abstract versus results. Peer and AI review miss it, but a subject-matter editor flags the error, saving the publication.
• Case 3: An early-career researcher’s first submission is riddled with ambiguous pronouns. After a collaborative group review, clarity jumps—and the paper is accepted after minor revision.

Table 5: Before vs. After Proofreading: Key Metrics. Source: Original analysis based on Scijournal.org, 2025

Lesson: proofing at every stage translates to measurable gains in acceptance and credibility.

Beyond the basics: Advanced strategies for publication success

Technical jargon: When to cut, when to clarify

Jargon is a double-edged sword—essential for precision, deadly for accessibility. Use it when necessary, but always clarify for interdisciplinary audiences.

Definition list:

Examples of successful jargon use: Top-tier journals often include a glossary or define terms at first use, tailoring to their audience’s expertise level. Always ask: can a non-specialist reviewer follow this argument? If not, clarify.

Visuals, tables, and data: Proofreading beyond text

Proofreading isn’t just about text—sloppy tables, mislabeled graphs, or contradictory figure legends can tank your credibility.

Real-world errors:

• Figure 2 labeled as Table 1 in the text.
• Axis units missing or incorrect in a key graph.
• Figure legends copied from an earlier draft, now outdated.

For consistency:

• Crosscheck every reference to visuals in text.
• Ensure units and abbreviations match throughout.
• Keep legends concise and accurate.

Quick-reference for non-textual elements:

1. Check for consistent numbering.
2. Match all figure/table captions to references in the text.
3. Confirm data agrees across visuals and description.
4. Ensure image resolution and format meet journal requirements.

Collaborative proofreading: Harnessing group intelligence

The best manuscripts are often team efforts—but collaborative proofreading brings its own risks: version chaos, conflicting feedback, or diluted authorial voice.

6 rules for effective collaborative proofreading:

1. Assign a primary “proof captain” to manage versions.
2. Use tracked changes and comments for transparency.
3. Schedule live review sessions for high-stakes sections.
4. Agree on style and terminology before final proof.
5. Limit the number of final editors to avoid “too many cooks.”
6. Archive each version to roll back if needed.

A case study: A multi-author physics paper cycles through four rounds of collaborative proofing. By assigning roles and using a central checklist, the team cuts errors by 75%—and the lead author credits this for a first-round acceptance.

Best practice: combine collective intelligence with clear leadership, defined roles, and a unified checklist.

The future of academic publishing and proofreading

Open access, preprints, and new submission realities

Open access and preprint servers have thrown old submission models out the window. Now, manuscripts are public before peer review—exposing every error to the world.

New demands:

• DOIs assigned at submission, requiring precise metadata.
• Formatting for both print and digital presentation.
• Lay summaries and graphical abstracts becoming standard.

Rapid turnaround means less time for review, but public scrutiny is fierce: errors go viral, harming reputations. The imperative: proofread for both peer and public audiences.

Trends: journals are increasing language and formatting requirements to maintain standards despite greater volume and diversity of submissions.

Equity, accessibility, and the next wave of language inclusion

Movements for language inclusion are gaining traction. Journals experiment with multilingual abstracts, plain-English summaries, and diverse reviewer pools.

Examples:

• Some publishers accept manuscripts in multiple languages, providing in-house translation.
• Leading journals offer language editing vouchers for researchers from underrepresented backgrounds.

AI tools, when used ethically, can bridge gaps—providing translation and clarity without erasing authorial voice.

Continuous learning: Staying ahead of the curve

Proofreading conventions and style guides evolve every year. Staying current is your responsibility—and a competitive advantage.

Ongoing skill development:

• Subscribe to journal newsletters for style updates.
• Attend writing and editing workshops offered by universities or online platforms.
• Use resources like your.phd for expert-level analysis and insights on the latest academic writing trends.

To future-proof your writing: maintain a personal reference archive, seek continual feedback, and approach every submission as a new learning opportunity.

Related topics every academic should care about

Academic writing anxiety: Causes and cures

The psychological toll of academic writing is real. Pressure to publish, fear of rejection, and the endless scrutiny of every word fuel anxiety—often leading to procrastination or burnout.

Strategies to manage anxiety:

• Break the writing and proofreading process into small, manageable chunks.
• Use peer support groups for accountability.
• Practice mindfulness or brief meditation before major editing sessions.

6 resources for mental health support:

• University counseling centers with tailored academic writing programs
• Online communities focused on academic mental health
• National associations for graduate student support
• Writing groups and bootcamps
• Mindfulness apps for researchers
• Confidential hotlines for academic stress

Peer and professional support networks are invaluable—not just for technical review, but for psychological resilience.

Ethics and boundaries in academic editing

Proofreaders walk a fine line: improving clarity while preserving authorial intent. Ethical boundaries are critical—no fabricating data, rewriting arguments, or ghostwriting results.

Gray areas:

• Suggesting alternative interpretations vs. “fixing” results
• Editing for language vs. restructuring argument flow
• Ghostwriting sections for non-native speakers

Tips for integrity:

• Always clarify the scope of proofing/editing in advance.
• Disclose all external editing in submission cover letters.
• Use institutional guidelines as a baseline for ethical practice.

A decision guide: seek outside help when language or formatting exceeds your expertise—but keep core analysis and argumentation your own.

From rejection to resilience: Learning from feedback

Rejection is part of the academic journey. The best researchers treat it as a data point—not a verdict.

5 steps to turn harsh feedback into improvement:

1. Set the rejection aside for 24 hours—let emotions cool.
2. Distill feedback into actionable points (not just complaints).
3. Seek clarification on ambiguous reviewer comments.
4. Revise strategically, focusing on the most critical issues first.
5. Celebrate progress—every revision is a step closer to acceptance.

Real story: A molecular biologist submits to three journals, rejected twice for “language quality.” With targeted proofreading, resubmission, and resilience, the third attempt succeeds.

Resilience isn’t just about thick skin—it’s about learning, adapting, and ultimately, thriving.

Conclusion

Academic research article proofreading in 2025 is no longer a box-ticking exercise—it’s a survival skill, a strategic asset, and, for many, the dividing line between obscurity and impact. The brutal truths laid bare in this article aren’t meant to discourage—they’re a roadmap out of the rejection trap. Whether you’re battling linguistic gatekeepers, wrangling with AI tools, or bracing for the reviewer’s red pen, remember: excellence in research demands excellence in every word, figure, and reference. Harness DIY diligence, peer perspective, and professional expertise—use hybrid workflows and robust checklists. Embrace equity, transparency, and continual learning as your compass. And when in doubt, seek out trusted resources like your.phd for expert guidance. The stakes are high, but so are the rewards. Master the art of academic proofing, and let your ideas blaze through the noise—unmistakable, undeniable, and unmissable.