American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on August 24, 2005
American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 162(7):706-707; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi281
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
RE: "PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PAPER AND WRITE THIS WAY!"
Radiation Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon Cedex 08, F-69372 France
May I submit an amendment to the welcome editorial, "Please Read the Following Paper and Write This Way!" (1
)? While succinctness of expression is desirable, we must be careful not to confuse short with succinct in our attempts to achieve clear communication. The current emphasis on "short, short, short" may not always be the most beneficial strategy for our discipline.
The deservedly praised article by Lewis et al. (2) addressed a set of relatively straightforward questions with a relatively simple study design and analytical methods. Had the study attempted a refined assessment of exposure to address the risk of childhood cancer in relation to exposure to magnetic fields, perhaps the authors would have struggled to describe their study methods and results in 2,164 words. A report that attempts to unravel multifaceted questions related to the etiology of disease may be considered by editors to be long-winded and boring merely by virtue of its length. The increasing reluctance of journals to publish articles containing descriptions of complex methods may contribute to the diminishing number of researchers willing to tackle the thorny issues inherent in much of environmental epidemiology and exposure assessment.
A perusal of old issues of journals such as The Lancet will reveal many delightful articles, written in a clear and lucid style, without shorthand jargon to describe study methods, as well as personal musings and reflections that would be quite unacceptable in any mainstream journal today. This is a great loss. So, yes, let us pursue an improved, succinct writing style, as long as we do not confuse short with succinct.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Conflict of interest: none declared.
|
NOTES |
|---|
Editor's note: I thank Mrs. Richardson for supplementing my plea to avoid unnecessary wordiness and repetition with a plea for writing that is lucid but not simplistic. I completely agree.
Gary D. Friedman, Editor
|
References |
|---|
 TOP References |
|---|
- Friedman GD. Please read the following paper and write this way! (Editorial). Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:405.
[Free Full Text] - Lewis SA, Antoniak M, Venn AJ, et al. Secondhand smoke, dietary fruit intake, road traffic exposures, and the prevalence of asthma: a cross-sectional study in young children. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:406–11.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||