If you can't be bothered to communicate clearly then you have expressed a lack of interest in being understood clearly. If you don't want to publish in English then don't publish in journals that require English.
Whatever. There are ways you can signal that you care about what you're doing, and there are ways you can signal that you don't. Blowing off the grammar of the language you're writing in is one of the latter signals.
In a world where there's always more stuff to read than time available to read it, signals of diligence and competence are important if you want to be taken seriously.
There's a difference between bad grammar/spelling and ambiguity; ambiguity is the worse issue. Some journals have fields in their review report where reviewers can say if the text is unambiguous, but no field about grammar or spelling in general.
It is not unusual (at least on some fields) seeing specific questions about grammar. It must be checked and maybe fixed, and in some extreme cases it can even imply rejection independently of content, but in most cases a revision is enough.
Oh, by field I meant it as a field in a record, not an area of study. For example in some reports I had to check a box for unambiguous text but I had no check box for grammar or spelling. That's some ambiguous text from my part! :)
Your text was fine! I understood what you mean. I have seen the specific box about grammar in some journals. But my field is not computer science or physics, so my experience may be quite different from most people here.
I work for a journal which is in this field. Grammatical errors are OK for a manuscript as long as reviewers can understand what you are reasoning. We will copy edit for grammar or style later if accepted. We won't change the significant findings of a manuscript though, so if the paper is unclear and gets rejected by referees, that is how it stands. Referees will usually ask for revision if something is not particularly clear. But if a manuscript came in that was not comprehensible it runs the risk of being summarily rejected.
