有意思。作者出来解释说是英语不好，但马上被人指出是狡辩

引用：

We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.
We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and write up. I hope this paper will not be discriminated only because of this misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper before making a decision.

There are some points to be considered:

1) Firstly, the misconception on the concept of evolution (causality vs intentionality). There is another sentence, in the introduction, with the same misconception about evolution: "Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator?s invention."

2) Based on what is written above and the use of uppercase to the letter "c" in the word "Creator": Was it really just a question of "English"?

3) The biggest problem: Why reviewers and the editor did not check all of these misconception?

RE: RE: RE: Notification from PLOS Staff
DanMadularu replied to Mingjin on 03 Mar 2016 at 15:54 GMT

Be that as it may, the rest of the paper is written in "good" English. The mere fact capital "C" is used in the word "Creator" suggests that the term was used as intended. The fault is not with you as an author per se, it is with the editorial staff, starting with Renzhi Han, the editor responsible for this paper. This publication should not only damage the reputation (what is left of it) of this journal, but that of the editor himself. In an nutshell, the publication of such a paper in this journal speaks to the laziness and incopetency of its staff.