proofread please

[azkad]

Dear moderators,
Please proofread the following summary. I do appreciate any of your comments. Thanks in advance.

Summary

1. After the copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi was introduced into scientific circulation, a wide range of research works have been carried out; even a brief bibliography represents a reliable copy. However, a newly detected Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi makes significant corrections in the previous concepts and necessitates further investigations, especially in terms of old commentaries and linguistic observations. This conclusion not only excludes, but also proposes to carry out the required comparative study of all three most ancient copies (now including the Tashkent copy).
2. The Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi can presently be considered as the closest to the original work, both from the standpoint of the lexical structure of a language, and its phonetic peculiarities.
3. The difference with respect to grammar, phonetics and syntax in the existing copies of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi emerges owing to the fact that the copiers made an attempt to adjust it to linguistic context dominating a certain area. Whereas the above-mentioned preliminary studies demonstrate that changes also referred to the contents with the composition of the work. In turn, these conditions require researchers to conduct extensive investigations on the most ancient copy and only on that basis they should carry out comparative analysis.
4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi to publication provided a comparison with other copies is achieved.

[azkad]

Dear moderators,
Please proofread the following summary. I do appreciate any of your comments. Thanks in advance.

Summary

1. After the copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi was introduced into scientific circulation, a wide range of research works have been carried out; even a brief bibliography represents a reliable copy. However, a newly detected Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi makes significant corrections in the previous concepts and necessitates further investigations, especially in terms of old commentaries and linguistic observations. This conclusion not only excludes, but also proposes to carry out the required comparative study of all three most ancient copies (now including the Tashkent copy).
2. The Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi can presently be considered as the closest to the original work, both from the standpoint of the lexical structure of a language, and its phonetic peculiarities.
3. The difference with respect to grammar, phonetics and syntax in the existing copies of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi emerges owing to the fact that the copiers made an attempt to adjust it to linguistic context dominating a certain area. Whereas the above-mentioned preliminary studies demonstrate that changes also referred to the contents with the composition of the work. In turn, these conditions require researchers to conduct extensive investigations on the most ancient copy and only on that basis they should carry out comparative analysis.
4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi to publication provided a comparison with other copies is achieved.

Please, help with the grammar and vocabulary.

[ScotsMaggie]

Summary

1. After the copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi was introduced into scientific circulation, a wide range of research works was carried out; even a brief bibliography represents a reliable copy. However, a newly detected Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi makes significant corrections in the previous concepts and necessitates further investigation, especially in terms of old commentaries and linguistic observations. This conclusion not only excludes comma not required here but also proposes to carry out the required comparative study of all three most ancient copies (now including the Tashkent copy).
2. The Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi can presently be considered as the closest to the original work, both from the standpoint of the lexical structure of a language, and its phonetic peculiarities.
3. The difference with respect to grammar, phonetics and syntax in the existing copies of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi emerges owing to the fact that the copiers made an attempt to adjust it to linguistic context dominating a certain area, whereas the above-mentioned preliminary studies demonstrate that changes also referred to the contents with the composition of the work. In turn, these conditions requireresearchers to conduct extensive investigations on the most ancient copy, and only on that basis should they carry out comparative analysis.
4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi to publication provided a comparison with other copies is achieved.

Explanation:
1.A wide range of research works WAS carried out--because the word controlling the verb is "range". It is singular, so the verb must also be singular.
2. Investigation should be singular
3. The use of "not only . . . but also" : does not need a comma after the clause following not only. This is because the words following "but also" are a clause and not a sentence.
4. "whereas" in this context does not start a new sentence. It is a conjunction and requires a comma before it.
5. "Copy," comma required to separate two complete sentences.
6. "Should they . . . " The sentence structure requires the verb and its subject to be in the reverse order.

I hope this is helpful.

[azkad]

Summary

1. After the copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi was introduced into scientific circulation, a wide range of research works was carried out; even a brief bibliography represents a reliable copy. However, a newly detected Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi makes significant corrections in the previous concepts and necessitates further investigation, especially in terms of old commentaries and linguistic observations. This conclusion not only excludes comma not required here but also proposes to carry out the required comparative study of all three most ancient copies (now including the Tashkent copy).
2. The Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi can presently be considered as the closest to the original work, both from the standpoint of the lexical structure of a language, and its phonetic peculiarities.
3. The difference with respect to grammar, phonetics and syntax in the existing copies of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi emerges owing to the fact that the copiers made an attempt to adjust it to linguistic context dominating a certain area, whereas the above-mentioned preliminary studies demonstrate that changes also referred to the contents with the composition of the work. In turn, these conditions requireresearchers to conduct extensive investigations on the most ancient copy, and only on that basis should they carry out comparative analysis.
4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi to publication provided a comparison with other copies is achieved.

Explanation:
1.A wide range of research works WAS carried out--because the word controlling the verb is "range". It is singular, so the verb must also be singular.
2. Investigation should be singular
3. The use of "not only . . . but also" : does not need a comma after the clause following not only. This is because the words following "but also" are a clause and not a sentence.
4. "whereas" in this context does not start a new sentence. It is a conjunction and requires a comma before it.
5. "Copy," comma required to separate two complete sentences.
6. "Should they . . . " The sentence structure requires the verb and its subject to be in the reverse order.

I hope this is helpful.

Thank you very much ScotsMaggie,
You did me a great job, now I see where I should concentrate on in the English grammar.
However, I cannot figure out the last structure you mentioned above: SHOULD THEY in the reverse order. Could you please shed more light on it so that I can understand? hanks.

[Anglika]

4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi for publication and enable a comparison with other versions.

[azkad]

4. And, finally, more profound conclusions would prepare the Tashkent copy of Qisas ar-Rabghuzi for publication and enable a comparison with other versions.

Thank you for reviewing the passage, Anglika. I have got a question:
What is the difference between to publication and for publication? As a second language learner I am still unable to solve this matter. Thanks.

[Anglika]

It is a collocation - to prepare something for publication OR to prepare something to be published. In your sentence, the first is the better.