About Tim Albert Training

Pompous prose or
just plain nonsense

The author of this column is planning to write a larger report (a book perhaps?) on the poor state of medical writing. So please send us any examples of pompous prose, grammatical errors, gobbledegook - or just plain nonsense.
To start the ball rolling, we are proud to reproduce in full a splendid example of NHS communication, sent to my friend and collaborator Dr Harvey Marcovitch.

Tim Albert
tim@timalbert.co.uk

Have you had a syntactical run-in with Microsoft Word? See Gates and styles.

Gripes and groans

How should we write for journals?
Should we write: 'It was evidenced in the investigation' or, 'The study showed'? 'Recommendations are suggested for improved provision of good palliative care' or, 'We recommend ways of improving palliative care'? 'The majority of published studies in this field' or, 'most studies'?'

I raise the question because recently I was giving feedback to someone who was writing an article aimed at the International Journal of Palliative Medicine. I pointed out, as I have pointed out countless times before, that the writing should have been more simple.

My mentee was horrified: 'This is an academic journal,' she said. 'It has to sound academic. All my tutors have told me to do it this way and I have spent hours getting it like this'.

When she failed to accept my argument that her tutors weren't the editors, and lacking any further evidence one way or another, I decided to ring the editor. We had a useful conversation, and the editor said that she would tend to favour a simpler version.

Which is where the matter would have ended, had I not been foolish enough to look in the journal itself, where I found countless examples of the 'academic' style. For instance: 'observation was attempted' ('we tried to observe'), 'the authors found no literature' ('we found no papers') and a hearty sprinkling of 'consequently' ('so').

I spoke again to the editor. 'Well'; she said, 'We do try. But you know how it is…co-authors...reviewers...They sort of think it's better like this.'

So where does that leave us? The answer is: confused.

Nonsense wanted for publication: Not so confused, I feel, was the group of MIT graduate students who made a random selection of charts, diagrams and verbal nonsense - and found that the result was chosen as a conference presentation.

As reported in the Guardian (16 April 2005), the students were fed up with being bombarded by emails requesting submissions to the World Multiconference on Systematics, Cybernetics and Informatics.

They were somewhat surprised when their fake paper, entitled Rooter: a methodology for the typical unification of access points and redundancy, was accepted. But, one of the authors was reported as saying: 'We kind of suspected they had low standards'.

Which was being rather kind, I feel.

Don't write, strategise: Gone are the days, alas, when papers were simply written. I have just received a promotional email from Pharmaceutical Education Associates giving details of a conference on 'Publication planning and execution excellence'. It promises (complete with misspelling) to 'take your to a new level of planning, strategising and/or writing'.

A slice of foggy bottom
Devotees of our newsletter will be familiar with our feature Foggy Bottom, in which we grab a piece of prose, and analyse it according to the Gunning Fog Test. This test looks at long words and long sentences, and constructs an index out of it.

Tabloid newspapers will have a score of 8, while at the other end of the scale the small print of an insurance policy will come in at 20 or more.

The British Medical Journal generally has a score of 14 (for the newsier items) and 18 (for the articles on such delights as medical audit).

However, I recently received a letter from the BMJ informing me that my hitherto free subscription was being curtailed. It had a fog score of 10.

Funny that.

Philosophical point: Interesting choice of verb and tense in the following sentence: 'The BMA grants editorial freedom to the Editor of the BMJ'. Are they really free? Discuss on one side of the paper only.

A Cochranista writes: Please put into English: 'At present there is little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer-review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs. A large, well funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer-review is needed'.

Shot in the lower extremity
Now here's an interesting piece of writing, from the Instructions to Authors from the Journal of Public Health Medicine: 'The Editors reserve the right to make literary corrections. Please couch terminology so that it will be understood by an international readership'.

Couch terminology? Is that what international readers would understand as, 'Use words'?

Roy Hattersley writes: 'In 2003 I received a message [from the NHS] that I thought necessary to read twice: Three years have passed since your angioplasty. So it is time for your annual check-up' (Guardian column, 14 March 2005).

A haven of quiet and graciousness
Great commendations to the Crown Plaza Hotel in Rochester NY for the sentiment expressed below, and the way in which it is expressed:

'Welcome to the Quiet Zone floor. Please be considerate of other guests.

Our promise to all guests staying on this floor is to extend the following courtesies: No housekeeping or maintenance activities between 9pm and 10 am.
No children, leisure groups, marching bands or circus animals will be assigned to this area.

'We ask in return that you do you part in keeping noise to a minimum.

Keep TV and radio at a low volume
Ensure guest room doors do not slam
No loud singing in the shower.

'Enjoy the sweet sound of silence.'

The fog of war: My thanks to our indefatigable correspondent Liz Wager for telling us of the following, heard on the BBC news: 'vehicle-based improvised explosive devices - or VBIEDs. Car bombs.

22.04.05