- Email: [email protected]
ON WRITING TO BE READ
320 ON WRITING TO BE READ
J. W. HOWIE M.D. Aberd. HEAD
OF
THE
DIVISION, ROWETT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BUCKSBURN, ABERDEENSHIRE PATHOLOGY
PAPERS prepared for publication in scientific periodicals sometimes cause avoidable pain to authors, readers, and editors. Technical advice about the presentation of papers has been admirably given (see bibliography) and need not be repeated here. But it may be worth discussing some points that seem to show mistaken attitudes among authors, which inevitably bring their manuscripts into conflict with the needs of readers and the duties of editors. ATTITUDES AMONG AUTHORS
Doctors and scientists usually seem to dislike writing about their work : "I hate the writing-up," they often say. Perhaps it is the " up " that does the harm. If authors were content to write instead of writing-up, many mistakes might be avoided. Writing-up suggests that the author feels the need to do something beyond communicating his facts and thoughts. Often it seems as if authors work hard to introduce much that a good editor will remove, because of his duty to see that readers are not bored or bewildered. Authors engaged in writing-up often seem to think that they must make a powerful impression. Some of this may arise from deliberate or unconscious imitation of works which are justly regarded as classics. Such works are classics because they contain valuable new facts and ideas, not because they may have been written in the grand manner, or perhaps directed- with particular energy against someone whose views the author wished to contradict. Incidental attributes of this kind do not prevent papers with new and good information from becoming classics, but they are not the things that confer lasting value. The only incidental which has a truly classic quality is simplicity. The author’s job is to- convey something from himself to his reader so well that the message conveyed will be gladly received and recognised for what it is. This is not a simple task ; and it is not true that any set of words will do it, for there are no indifferent words. Every word of an article does good or ill: sections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, words, or even parts of a word are evil if they can be done without. They make an article longer than it need be and the potential reader may decide that it is too long to attempt ; they raise issues not connected with the main theme and so lessen the reader’s enthusiasm and concentration ; they irritate the fastidious and critical, the very people whose judgment and comments the author should particularly wish to enlist ; and, worst of all, they may obscure the meaning. Editors who shorten articles often plead lack of space, but their real justification is the harm done by everything that can be done without. The Thesis Style For good reasons the presentation of a thesis is still highly regarded as useful training for a research-worker. For bad reasons many who write a thesis make the thing ponderous. It is as if the author calculates that the examiner will be compelled to accept a thesis because it is too heavy to be carried, home for quiet reading. Thesis regulations usually emphasise that the literature of a subject must be studied exhaustively by the candidate ; but they do not say that the result must be exhausting to the reader. Yet this wrong belief seems to be widely accepted. Critical assessment is the necessary sequel to an exhaustive survey. The ill effects of overelaborating a thesis concern only the writer and his examiner, but most writers wish to publish all or part of the thesis. Unfortunately, a thesis is seldom suitable for
editors who might gladly accept the the extras.. The writer of a thesis must therefore prepare a new account of his work for publication, discarding the usual thesis style. For this purpose he should know that articles with only a brief list of well-chosen and strictly relevant references are perfectly acceptable to readers and editors of scientific periodicals. If a subject has been long neglected or greatly confused, a critical review of published work may be necessary to show the point of the author’s own contribution. This is legitimate and acceptable; but wanton inflation of a reference list deceives nobody and irritates readers who recognise it for what it is. selection " The essence of art is selection." This truth is sometimes regarded as inapplicable to the art of scientific communication. True, scientific articles must present the whole truth ; to suppress inconvenient evidence is But if there is a great deal of inconvenient fraud. evidence, it is probably because the time has not yet come to present anything. More work and thought are required. But when observations can be regularly repeated and the worker is clear about his interpretation, it is not necessary for him to unload every figure from his records into the article written for publication. The false scents, the contradictory observations, the tentative experiments which precede the fruitful work can be briefly and honestly presented in a single paragraph if they are relevant. They should be omitted if they prove irrelevant, as they often do. Every repetition, even of a successful experiment, need not be presented in detail. The results of a series of confirmatory observations can often be quoted as means with statistical treatment of the data ; and a few illustrative experiments or case-summaries may suffice to show the kind of detail from which the work as a whole has been made. Properly understood and honestly practised, therefore, selection is as important and valuable in scientific literature as in imaginative writing. A scientific paper should be as precise as a legal docu. ment, but it should also be as readable as a good short story. This means that the writer must learn to make unambiguous, simple, logical, and brief accounts of his work. Communications which require more than the space allowed in any of the scientific periodicals may be published as monographs. These are written by specialists for other specialists and their style is not suitable for the general reader. The author must convince a publisher that his monograph is of such value that its publication should be undertaken almost as a civic duty since scientific monographs can only rarely be regarded as likely sources of profit.
general reading, and essentials will reject
NEEDS OF READERS
Scientific writers have much to learn from professional about the needs of readers. Discussing an article which he had prepared for an evening paper, a friend of mine, an experiencedjournalist, explained the situation as he saw it. The article, my friend assumed, would possibly come to the reader’s notice as he sat by the fireside, taking off his boots with oneand, balancing the paper against the side of his chair with the other, and all the time increasingly interested in the odours from the cooking of his evening meal. A severe test for the article ! My friend stressed how important the title became under these conditions : it might have to compete with bacon and egg. The title alone would be in big enough type to catch the wandering eye ; therefore it must" establish interest. " Why tall men marry short girls would therefore be a better title than " Disparity of vertical dimension as a contributory factor in matrimonial inclination." Although readers of scientific periodicals are - not surrounded by the same competing interests as readers of evening papers, their attention must be
journalists
321 and their interest held by similar, if perhaps less The title of a scientific article deserves the author’s careful thought ; it should be freed of dull, inoperative words and should accurately indicate what interesting news the reader may expect. The first paragraph is equally important. My journalist friend assured me that having written an arresting title and a bright opening paragraph he felt sure of holding his reader. It is an excellent thing if the first paragraph of a scientific article tells what was done and why, and what the results were. This has long been recognised as essential in a summary, and it perhaps explains why some journals publish the summary at the head of the article. This may offend some as inelegant and too frankly utilitarian ; but it is realistic. Readers of scientific articles, however conscientious, have difficulty in reading all that they wish. However hard they try they will have to skim some articles very lightly, and this is one reason why the summary, tables, and illustrations must be clear and completely intelligible without the text. Writers who wish to have their work carefully read will do well to learn as much as they can both of the trade and the tricks of popular journalism. Naturally, opinions differ about the value of some of the articles offered in popular newspapers, but the men who publish these articles have much to teach scientists about methods of presentation and clear statement. If their keen awareness of the reader at his reading guided the work of scientific writers, articles like this one would have little purpose.
caught
fixed conventions.
obvious, methods.
publish in a different journal. Having chosen their journal they must study and- accept its conventions before writing their articles. This apparently simple truth is widely disregarded, with much resulting irritation and
DUTIES OF EDITORS
The readers of a what is too trivial
journal expect their editor to reject or too hackneyed to deserve their attention. Likewise they expect him to be on good terms with authors whose work they wish to read. Fulfilment of these two essential functions is not as a rule the most difficult part of an editor’s duties. Difficulty arises with articles containing good information badly presented. What can the editor do‘ His simplest and in some ways his least painful action is to reject such articles without explanation. Or he may send the article back to the author offering suggestions for amendment. This is not a welcome task and newspaper editors seldom undertake it ; it involves a good deal of time and thought and is not always well received. Editors of scientific journals, however, accept it as their duty. Sometimes editors of scientific journals risk making amendments and deletions of their own. They do this partly to save time and correspondence, partly because they judge that they may make a better job of it than the author. For efforts of this kind editors surprisingly often receive gracious thanks ; occasionally, however, they find unwilling acceptance or a refusal of the amendment. One doctrine is that papers should be published with all their faults upon them so that the reader may judge the author for himself. If a paper has many faults, this argument runs, it should be rejected ; otherwise it should go to press as it is. There is much to be said for this view, and little against it. The results of its application, however, would surprise many who warmly advocate it. It also denies that editors have souls of their own. Editors must care for the reputation of their journals, and this care can be exercised with courtesy, reason, and discretion without any danger of suppression of individuality. The extreme, and possibly controversial, statement that editors have souls will have prepared readers for the view that editors are human. This is a severely practical point. Being human, editors gladly publish articles written exactly in - the style of their jjournal. These articles require no editing and they prove that the author has given care to their preparation. For practical reasons of typesetting, a journal must adopt certain
Authors who
dislike these must
unnecessary labour. The story is told of a young free-lance who telephoned the editor of a popular daily to ask if he published short stories and of what length. He was correctly told that for half the cost of his telephone call he could have bought a copy of the paper and discovered the answer for himself. Editors do not like to be offered an article written by someone who has apparently not read the journal, or thinks that his article should be printed with an entirely different setting-of the references, for example-from all other articles in the journal. Moreover, many editors have references checked and their humanity is not increased towards an author whosemanuscript contains many inaccuracies. A list without a single error should not be impossible ; it could not fail to make a profound impression. SUMMARY
Many doctors and scientists dislike preparing an account of their work for publication. This painful task could be eased, however, if they would content themselves with clear, brief statements-of well-chosen facts and opinions, remembering that readers are not lightly won or easily held, and realising that editors have a human affection for the qualities and appearance of their
journals. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allbutt, T. C. (1925) Notes
on the Composition of Scientific Papers. London. Fowler, H. W. (1926) Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford. Gowers, E. (1948) Plain Words. H.M. Stationery Office. Lancet (1937) On Writing for THE LANCET (Supplement to issue dated Jan. 2, 1937; at present out of print). Royal Society (1950) General Notes On The Preparation of Scientific Papers. London.
THE PHYSICIAN AND HIS ART*
CHARLES CAMERON Glasg., F.R.C.P.E., F.R.F.P.S.
M.A., M.D.
PROFESSOR OF TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
MEDICINE is a calling whose fame depends on the of all who practise it. The sponsio which you have made publicly today incorporates much of the spirit and substance of the Hippocratic oath, and in making it you have accepted responsibility for maintaining the good name of our profession. The ideals of medicine were never higher than in the heyday of the Hippocratic physicians, but they perished with Greek medicine in the destruction of the Western civilisations. Since its emergence from the darkness of the ages of ignorance medicine has struggled painfully upwards, and when you receive today that respected status which society accords to you, you will, I know, see in it a recognition of the principles which we accept as implicit in the practice of our art. A calling which brings us the intimate confidence of our patients, based on faith in our sincerity, exposes us to critical assessment which it is well that we should remember. We do well also to bear in mind that integrity was not always the hallmark of our profession, and that the trust which we enjoy today carries with it moral and spiritual obligations. The place which medicine has held in the eyes of men is mirrored in the literature of epochs, and the physician throughout the ages-and the surgeon too-has appeared in many guises. In many ways the physician in folklore and notion portrays
integrity
*
From the promotor’s address delivered to the graduands in medicine of the University of Edinburgh on July 18, 1951.
.
J. W. HOWIE M.D. Aberd. HEAD
OF
THE
DIVISION, ROWETT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BUCKSBURN, ABERDEENSHIRE PATHOLOGY
PAPERS prepared for publication in scientific periodicals sometimes cause avoidable pain to authors, readers, and editors. Technical advice about the presentation of papers has been admirably given (see bibliography) and need not be repeated here. But it may be worth discussing some points that seem to show mistaken attitudes among authors, which inevitably bring their manuscripts into conflict with the needs of readers and the duties of editors. ATTITUDES AMONG AUTHORS
Doctors and scientists usually seem to dislike writing about their work : "I hate the writing-up," they often say. Perhaps it is the " up " that does the harm. If authors were content to write instead of writing-up, many mistakes might be avoided. Writing-up suggests that the author feels the need to do something beyond communicating his facts and thoughts. Often it seems as if authors work hard to introduce much that a good editor will remove, because of his duty to see that readers are not bored or bewildered. Authors engaged in writing-up often seem to think that they must make a powerful impression. Some of this may arise from deliberate or unconscious imitation of works which are justly regarded as classics. Such works are classics because they contain valuable new facts and ideas, not because they may have been written in the grand manner, or perhaps directed- with particular energy against someone whose views the author wished to contradict. Incidental attributes of this kind do not prevent papers with new and good information from becoming classics, but they are not the things that confer lasting value. The only incidental which has a truly classic quality is simplicity. The author’s job is to- convey something from himself to his reader so well that the message conveyed will be gladly received and recognised for what it is. This is not a simple task ; and it is not true that any set of words will do it, for there are no indifferent words. Every word of an article does good or ill: sections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, words, or even parts of a word are evil if they can be done without. They make an article longer than it need be and the potential reader may decide that it is too long to attempt ; they raise issues not connected with the main theme and so lessen the reader’s enthusiasm and concentration ; they irritate the fastidious and critical, the very people whose judgment and comments the author should particularly wish to enlist ; and, worst of all, they may obscure the meaning. Editors who shorten articles often plead lack of space, but their real justification is the harm done by everything that can be done without. The Thesis Style For good reasons the presentation of a thesis is still highly regarded as useful training for a research-worker. For bad reasons many who write a thesis make the thing ponderous. It is as if the author calculates that the examiner will be compelled to accept a thesis because it is too heavy to be carried, home for quiet reading. Thesis regulations usually emphasise that the literature of a subject must be studied exhaustively by the candidate ; but they do not say that the result must be exhausting to the reader. Yet this wrong belief seems to be widely accepted. Critical assessment is the necessary sequel to an exhaustive survey. The ill effects of overelaborating a thesis concern only the writer and his examiner, but most writers wish to publish all or part of the thesis. Unfortunately, a thesis is seldom suitable for
editors who might gladly accept the the extras.. The writer of a thesis must therefore prepare a new account of his work for publication, discarding the usual thesis style. For this purpose he should know that articles with only a brief list of well-chosen and strictly relevant references are perfectly acceptable to readers and editors of scientific periodicals. If a subject has been long neglected or greatly confused, a critical review of published work may be necessary to show the point of the author’s own contribution. This is legitimate and acceptable; but wanton inflation of a reference list deceives nobody and irritates readers who recognise it for what it is. selection " The essence of art is selection." This truth is sometimes regarded as inapplicable to the art of scientific communication. True, scientific articles must present the whole truth ; to suppress inconvenient evidence is But if there is a great deal of inconvenient fraud. evidence, it is probably because the time has not yet come to present anything. More work and thought are required. But when observations can be regularly repeated and the worker is clear about his interpretation, it is not necessary for him to unload every figure from his records into the article written for publication. The false scents, the contradictory observations, the tentative experiments which precede the fruitful work can be briefly and honestly presented in a single paragraph if they are relevant. They should be omitted if they prove irrelevant, as they often do. Every repetition, even of a successful experiment, need not be presented in detail. The results of a series of confirmatory observations can often be quoted as means with statistical treatment of the data ; and a few illustrative experiments or case-summaries may suffice to show the kind of detail from which the work as a whole has been made. Properly understood and honestly practised, therefore, selection is as important and valuable in scientific literature as in imaginative writing. A scientific paper should be as precise as a legal docu. ment, but it should also be as readable as a good short story. This means that the writer must learn to make unambiguous, simple, logical, and brief accounts of his work. Communications which require more than the space allowed in any of the scientific periodicals may be published as monographs. These are written by specialists for other specialists and their style is not suitable for the general reader. The author must convince a publisher that his monograph is of such value that its publication should be undertaken almost as a civic duty since scientific monographs can only rarely be regarded as likely sources of profit.
general reading, and essentials will reject
NEEDS OF READERS
Scientific writers have much to learn from professional about the needs of readers. Discussing an article which he had prepared for an evening paper, a friend of mine, an experiencedjournalist, explained the situation as he saw it. The article, my friend assumed, would possibly come to the reader’s notice as he sat by the fireside, taking off his boots with oneand, balancing the paper against the side of his chair with the other, and all the time increasingly interested in the odours from the cooking of his evening meal. A severe test for the article ! My friend stressed how important the title became under these conditions : it might have to compete with bacon and egg. The title alone would be in big enough type to catch the wandering eye ; therefore it must" establish interest. " Why tall men marry short girls would therefore be a better title than " Disparity of vertical dimension as a contributory factor in matrimonial inclination." Although readers of scientific periodicals are - not surrounded by the same competing interests as readers of evening papers, their attention must be
journalists
321 and their interest held by similar, if perhaps less The title of a scientific article deserves the author’s careful thought ; it should be freed of dull, inoperative words and should accurately indicate what interesting news the reader may expect. The first paragraph is equally important. My journalist friend assured me that having written an arresting title and a bright opening paragraph he felt sure of holding his reader. It is an excellent thing if the first paragraph of a scientific article tells what was done and why, and what the results were. This has long been recognised as essential in a summary, and it perhaps explains why some journals publish the summary at the head of the article. This may offend some as inelegant and too frankly utilitarian ; but it is realistic. Readers of scientific articles, however conscientious, have difficulty in reading all that they wish. However hard they try they will have to skim some articles very lightly, and this is one reason why the summary, tables, and illustrations must be clear and completely intelligible without the text. Writers who wish to have their work carefully read will do well to learn as much as they can both of the trade and the tricks of popular journalism. Naturally, opinions differ about the value of some of the articles offered in popular newspapers, but the men who publish these articles have much to teach scientists about methods of presentation and clear statement. If their keen awareness of the reader at his reading guided the work of scientific writers, articles like this one would have little purpose.
caught
fixed conventions.
obvious, methods.
publish in a different journal. Having chosen their journal they must study and- accept its conventions before writing their articles. This apparently simple truth is widely disregarded, with much resulting irritation and
DUTIES OF EDITORS
The readers of a what is too trivial
journal expect their editor to reject or too hackneyed to deserve their attention. Likewise they expect him to be on good terms with authors whose work they wish to read. Fulfilment of these two essential functions is not as a rule the most difficult part of an editor’s duties. Difficulty arises with articles containing good information badly presented. What can the editor do‘ His simplest and in some ways his least painful action is to reject such articles without explanation. Or he may send the article back to the author offering suggestions for amendment. This is not a welcome task and newspaper editors seldom undertake it ; it involves a good deal of time and thought and is not always well received. Editors of scientific journals, however, accept it as their duty. Sometimes editors of scientific journals risk making amendments and deletions of their own. They do this partly to save time and correspondence, partly because they judge that they may make a better job of it than the author. For efforts of this kind editors surprisingly often receive gracious thanks ; occasionally, however, they find unwilling acceptance or a refusal of the amendment. One doctrine is that papers should be published with all their faults upon them so that the reader may judge the author for himself. If a paper has many faults, this argument runs, it should be rejected ; otherwise it should go to press as it is. There is much to be said for this view, and little against it. The results of its application, however, would surprise many who warmly advocate it. It also denies that editors have souls of their own. Editors must care for the reputation of their journals, and this care can be exercised with courtesy, reason, and discretion without any danger of suppression of individuality. The extreme, and possibly controversial, statement that editors have souls will have prepared readers for the view that editors are human. This is a severely practical point. Being human, editors gladly publish articles written exactly in - the style of their jjournal. These articles require no editing and they prove that the author has given care to their preparation. For practical reasons of typesetting, a journal must adopt certain
Authors who
dislike these must
unnecessary labour. The story is told of a young free-lance who telephoned the editor of a popular daily to ask if he published short stories and of what length. He was correctly told that for half the cost of his telephone call he could have bought a copy of the paper and discovered the answer for himself. Editors do not like to be offered an article written by someone who has apparently not read the journal, or thinks that his article should be printed with an entirely different setting-of the references, for example-from all other articles in the journal. Moreover, many editors have references checked and their humanity is not increased towards an author whosemanuscript contains many inaccuracies. A list without a single error should not be impossible ; it could not fail to make a profound impression. SUMMARY
Many doctors and scientists dislike preparing an account of their work for publication. This painful task could be eased, however, if they would content themselves with clear, brief statements-of well-chosen facts and opinions, remembering that readers are not lightly won or easily held, and realising that editors have a human affection for the qualities and appearance of their
journals. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allbutt, T. C. (1925) Notes
on the Composition of Scientific Papers. London. Fowler, H. W. (1926) Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford. Gowers, E. (1948) Plain Words. H.M. Stationery Office. Lancet (1937) On Writing for THE LANCET (Supplement to issue dated Jan. 2, 1937; at present out of print). Royal Society (1950) General Notes On The Preparation of Scientific Papers. London.
THE PHYSICIAN AND HIS ART*
CHARLES CAMERON Glasg., F.R.C.P.E., F.R.F.P.S.
M.A., M.D.
PROFESSOR OF TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
MEDICINE is a calling whose fame depends on the of all who practise it. The sponsio which you have made publicly today incorporates much of the spirit and substance of the Hippocratic oath, and in making it you have accepted responsibility for maintaining the good name of our profession. The ideals of medicine were never higher than in the heyday of the Hippocratic physicians, but they perished with Greek medicine in the destruction of the Western civilisations. Since its emergence from the darkness of the ages of ignorance medicine has struggled painfully upwards, and when you receive today that respected status which society accords to you, you will, I know, see in it a recognition of the principles which we accept as implicit in the practice of our art. A calling which brings us the intimate confidence of our patients, based on faith in our sincerity, exposes us to critical assessment which it is well that we should remember. We do well also to bear in mind that integrity was not always the hallmark of our profession, and that the trust which we enjoy today carries with it moral and spiritual obligations. The place which medicine has held in the eyes of men is mirrored in the literature of epochs, and the physician throughout the ages-and the surgeon too-has appeared in many guises. In many ways the physician in folklore and notion portrays
integrity
*
From the promotor’s address delivered to the graduands in medicine of the University of Edinburgh on July 18, 1951.
.