Here, I do not agree with Brian Bloch's conclusion that "writing academic English is a major challenge for all non-native speakers....". Instead, I argue that there are some key gatekeepers (e.g. journal editors, publishing houses, etc) who make academic writing a challenge for non-native academics. I believe and have observed that many non-native academics write much better than native English speaking academics. As Bloch rightly puts, "the demands of academic English are rather different". I cannot help but totally agree with him on this matter; however, the demands of academic English apply to native English academics as much as they do to non-native academics. Academic English is a different mode of writing, and it demands a large amount of instruction and training on the part of the academics regardless of whether they are native or non-native English speakers. But, it is true that native English academics are linguistically advantaged as they work with a language they acquired, yet that does not mean or ensure that their academic writing would be perfect, and they would not need any help. In academia, it is almost impossible not to get involved in editing, revising, or modifying what researchers have written on their earlier drafts. This is yet shown and conveyed as if it was a unique problem that only non-native academics face and have to cope with. This is far from the reality, though. I would ask what is meant by academic English, and whose English is alluded to, and counted as the right model while voicing the term' academic English'. There seems to be a lack of statement regarding the kind of English required in academic English, but academic practices indicate that academics particularly non-native ones feel obliged to resort to some ways like getting help from online editing services, proofread their papers by native people, and so on. These practices speak for themselves implying that the English they struggle to conform to is that of native speakers. At this juncture, I cannot help but ask what should be the criteria for good academic writing. Should be a kind of English which can be understood by a large international audience, or should it be one in a manner that conforms to academic English of native speakers, which is free from 'real English errors'. What about creativity? What about non-native researchers' own linguistic resources, and their creatively generated non-native expressions, which are intelligible? As far as I am concerned, academic writing should be the kind of writing that can be understood internationally not only by native academic researchers but all researchers. The main responsibility in this regard falls to the journals and publishing houses. I would like to end this comment by exemplifying how a journal clearly states its language guidelines for the authors in line with the intelligibility focus: Scholarly articles published in JELF will usually be about 8,000 words long, including references. Authors should follow theDe Gruyter Mouton style sheet but with one change: While the standard style sheet stipulates, under 'Special attention', that authors should have their "contribution carefully checked by a native speaker", the editors of JELF simply expect authors to submit manuscripts written in an English which is intelligible to a wide international academic audience, but it need not conform to native English norms. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (Submission of manuscripts, Instructions for authors).