Editing the college magazine without shaming the writer

(a) Must correct in edited prose: 'Each of the students have' → has (each is singular); 'discussed about the topic' → discussed the topic (discuss is transitive); 'She is senior than me' → senior to me; 'One of my friend' → one of my friends; 'The scenery were beautiful' → was (scenery is uncountable); 'I look forward to meet you' → to meeting you (preposition + gerund); 'The staffs are busy' → the staff are busy or members of staff are busy. 'Being a rainy day, the class was cancelled' is a dangling modifier: the class was not being a rainy day, so it must be recast, e.g. As it was a rainy day, the class was cancelled.

(b) Optional or stylistic: 'The data is clear.' Singular 'data' is standard in many registers and is not an error to be stamped out; I would leave the writer's choice unless the article uses 'data' as a plural elsewhere.

(c) Leave unchanged: none of the remaining items is clearly acceptable in formal written English.

Reviewer B's claim that four are acceptable is too generous. 'Discussed about' and 'staffs' are common in Indian English but are still marked in formal edited writing and in teacher-eligibility tests. The defensible borderline calls are 'data is' (genuinely standard) and 'being a rainy day' (common in speech but a dangling modifier in print). I would explain both rather than issue a blanket verdict.

Draft response: 'I hear that this feels like a judgement on you, and I am sorry the markings came across that way. The magazine is edited prose that will be read outside our college, so I have to make it consistent with the standard written English that examiners and employers expect. That is not a comment on your identity or on Indian English, which has its own legitimate vocabulary and rhythms. I will show you every change with the reason, and I will keep your voice wherever the meaning is clear. If you prefer one or two of your original phrasings for style, tell me and we will decide together.'

The line I would draw: Indian English is a real variety with accepted features - 'prepone', 'cousin sister', local institutional vocabulary, distinctive rhythm. Those are not errors. But subject–verb agreement, countable/uncountable marking, preposition choice after verbs such as discuss, and modifier attachment are shared conventions of standard written English; getting them wrong is a grammar issue, not an identity issue. The test is whether a change improves clarity or merely imposes a accent. I would also avoid 'corrections' that flatten the writer's meaning, such as replacing a vivid Indian phrase with a bland one. Naming the distinction explicitly usually lowers the temperature, because the writer can see that the objection is to specific forms, not to her.

Style note for contributors

1. Write in clear standard English; keep Indian words and expressions where they name something specific or carry meaning that an English word would lose.
2. The editor will correct grammar, punctuation and consistency, and will send every change with a short reason before the final proof.
3. Disputed choices go to the editor, who will decide with the writer present; the aim is clarity for readers, not uniformity of accent or voice.

Why this works: it tells contributors in advance what will and will not be touched, so corrections do not arrive as a surprise or as a judgement. It protects legitimate Indian English usage by making it a positive category rather than a concession. It also gives the editor a transparent procedure, which matters when the principal wants a professional magazine and the writer needs to feel heard. The 48-hour deadline is still met, because the note can be circulated with the proofs and the meeting remains a conversation about specific lines, not a defence of identity.