Style in medical journals.

A study of medical journals from 1962 showed a constant preoccupation with style. Editors and contributors on both sides of the Atlantic revile unnecessary obscurity and complexity and the use of jargon, barbarisms, vogue words, and weak impersonal constructions. They bewail the pompous use of verbiage and the "medspeak" typified by acronyms and neologisms created by affixation. Suggestions for possible causes of poor medical style range from editorial demands for compression and a general ignorance of the principles of good writing to faulty logic and the subordination of communication to status seeking. The consequences of bad writing may include the fragmentation of knowledge, an increase in the importance of abstracting services, a trend towards free glossy medical newspapers, and, as remedial measures, workshops and courses in medical writing. Some implications for English language teachers working with foreign medical graduates and preclinical students are discussed.     

Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers.

Newspapers are important sources of information about medical advances for many lay people and can influence those working in the health service. Medical journalists on newspapers routinely use general medical journals to obtain information on research. The Lancet and BMJ are both examined carefully by broadsheet journalists in Britain each week. These papers published an average of 1.25 stories from these journals every Friday. The stories focused on serious diseases, topical health problems, and new treatments rather than social problems. The newspaper stories were based on the full research article and not the journals'' press releases, although the press releases were valued as early information. Journalists relied heavily on the peer review processes of the journals in ensuring accuracy.     

Against Anonymity

In ‘New Threats to Academic Freedom’ 1 1 Minerva, F. . New Threats to Academic Freedom . Bioethics 2013 ; DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12066 .
Francesca Minerva argues that anonymity for the authors of controversial articles is a prerequisite for academic freedom in the Internet age. This argument draws its intellectual and emotional power from the author's account of the reaction to the on‐line publication of ‘ After‐birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ 2 2 Giubilini, A. & Minerva, F. . After‐birth Abortion. Why Should the Baby Live? J Med Ethics 2013 ; 39 : 261 – 263 .
– an article that provoked cascades of hostile postings and e‐mails. Reflecting on these events, Minerva proposes that publishers should offer the authors of controversial articles the option of publishing their articles anonymously. This response reviews the history of anonymous publication and concludes that its reintroduction in the Internet era would recreate problems similar to those that led print journals to abandon the practice: corruption of scholarly discourse by invective and hate speech, masked conflicts of interest, and a diminution of editorial accountability. It also contends that Minerva misreads the intent of the hostile e‐mails provoked by ‘After‐birth abortion,’ and that ethicists who publish controversial articles should take responsibility by dialoguing with their critics – even those whose critiques are emotionally charged and hostile.