The parent post to mine was theorizing that the reason the English was so mangled was because it had been translated from English, then back to English. I was replying that, if the researchers didn't use English as a first language, it's ridiculously more likely that they were translating from their native tongue into English. You're misunderstanding where the notion of translating it twice came from.

And sure, there are reasons to translate a phrase from English, to another language, and back to English. This will be familiar to most people who've studied abroad, or done technical conferences on foreign soil, things of that nature. Let's say you're from Bolivia, attending a lecture at an English university, and are planning on referencing some of the content in a paper you're writing, in English. You speak passable English. The lecturer gets into the meat of the topic, and you realize you don't quite understand the context of what they're saying. Some of the conjugations are unfamiliar, so you just write it down as best you can and move on. Later, when writing the paper, you need a way to untangle the phrasing. A simple way is to put it into a translation application, translate to Bolivian, then try to parse it in native tongue. However, you know you have to explain and discuss this section in English; by translating it back, you'll get the English words, but some of the context and grammar structure will be from familiar Bolivian.

So yeah, never say never.