Be-Comm Media ビコム・メディア

24/03/2021

EDITING QUIPS - "comprise"

"Comprise" is one of the most misused words in scientific writing. Comprise means "to include or contain" or "to consist of or be composed of" (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language). Writers often confuse "comprise" with "constitute", the latter meaning "to compose or form" or "to create or be tantamount to".

Consider the following statement from a recent article by Socol and others in the "International Journal of Radiation Biology" [2020; 96(11):1394]: "considerable dispersion of the transported SNF [spent nuclear fuel] may comprise a major radiological emergency." What is "comprised"? There are no sub-parts of elements of a transportation emergency leading to dispersion of SNF; hence "comprise" does not make sense in this context. A key example of the proper use of comprise is that given by Strunk and White in "The Elements of Style": "a zoo comprises animals". A dispersion does not comprise anything (although the dispersed material might comprise [or better, contain] certain types of radioisotopes).

A better word here might be constitute. As scientific editors we would probably suggest rewriting this sentence as: "considerable dispersion of the transported SNF may constitute [lead to, be tantamount to] a major radiological emergency".

02/10/2020

EDITING QUIPS - "P values and 'statistically significant'"

Anyone who has followed the statistical literature over the past decade or so knows that many journals and researchers are moving away from publishing statements about statistical significance and relying more heavily on parameter estimates per se and estimates of precision (such as confidence intervals). In my editing, I frequently come across naive uses of statistical tests and conclusions based on traditional P value cut-offs (typically P < 0.05) that are simply inappropriate. It is difficult, though, to convince clients to change their use and presentation of statistical tests when -- like most biomedical researchers -- they were trained in the traditional methods and they still see them appearing in published articles. I fault the failure of institutions and societies to keep up with the changing biostatistics environment for the former, and the lack of good journal editing for the latter.

So you might understand why I was elated to see a recent article in BMC Medical Research Methodology that focuses on a new way of addressing this problem. I recommend it to any researcher who is using statistics and writing up statistical results in their manuscripts.

The paper is open access, so you can freely download and read it. You can find it at:
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-020-01105-9

Chances are that if you are one of my clients and you take this paper to heart, it will make my editing job easier and I might reduce my fee as a result!

23/03/2020

EDITING QUIPS - "complicated complexity"

I came across the phrase "Analyzing the association ... is complex" in a recently published scientific paper. Because the association itself was complex, this led me to contemplate the difference between the two adjectives "complex" and "complicated", which have similar (but not identical meanings).

When writing scientific papers in English we don’t need to use two words for the same thing. It is common in literary prose to avoid repeating the same word, but in scientific writing precision requires using the same word repeatedly if necessary; otherwise, readers can become confused trying to figure out what is different that led the author to use a different word for what seems to be the same thing. Many English words with similar meaning have subtle distinctions that help clarify a writer's meaning. Careless use of such words leads to reduced clarity as these subtle distinctions are muddled over time by repeated thoughtless choice of words by many writers. The distinction becomes even more muddled as people merely copy what they see in others' writings rather than strive to achieve clarity through careful word selection.

The primary definition of the adjective 'complex' is consisting of several or many parts, often assembled in an intricate way. A secondary meaning is difficult or complicated. The noun 'complex' refers to a system with mutliple parts, such as a protein complex. 'Complicated' is the participial adjective of the verb 'complicate', which generally means to make difficult or hard to understand or to make complex. In scientific writing, it seems best to reserve 'complex' for systems or models having multiple components and use 'complicated' for something that is inherently difficult or troublesome to deal with, such as an analysis.

In the published phrase mentioned above, it would therefore seem appropriate (and perhaps most clear) to say that the analysis is complicated, not that it is complex.

Analysis of a complex (adj) complex (noun) is complicated by the complexity!

12/01/2020

EDITING QUIPS - "post-edit changes"

Scientific editors can get frustrated when authors make last-minute changes to drafts and submit the altered drafts without consulting us. Those of us who are also researchers and authors know that last-minute changes are sometimes unavoidable, and we try to make such changes sparingly and within the context and style recommended by the editor. However, when authors are persons whose native language is not English, English editing is an even more important part of the process of scientific editing and it is recommended that authors not attempt to make changes themselves without consulting their scientific editor. Just a few confusing or poorly written sentences can prompt publishers and reviewers to tell an author that English editing is needed, even though the author had already obtained scientific editing that included English editing. To avoid having such mistakes spoil the impact of a scientific document, the services of a scientific editor should be engaged all the way until final publication -- including revisions and proofs -- and authors should not attempt to make changes themselves at any stage of the publication process without seeking the advice of the scientific editor.

17/09/2019

EDITING QUIPS - "i.e."

This comes from the Latin term "id est". It means literally "that is", and is used to mean "in other words" or "that is to say". The term "i.e." does not mean "for example", which is conveyed by "e.g." (exempli gratia).

We often see "i.e." at the start of lists. For example, one paper stated (we have paraphrased it for brevity and anonymity), "Regression analyses revealed that four factors (i.e., alcohol drinking, duration, intermediate disease, and age at entry) were associated with outcome." Although one might be tempted to argue that "in other words" applies in this situation, the list is not really a way of restating what precedes it; it is rather a means of providing further details. Thus, "i.e." is not appropriate in this situation. Indeed, placing the list in commas alone is sufficient. Lists are also frequently introuced by a colon ":". For example, "Regression analyses revealed that four factors were associated with outcome: alcohol drinking, duration, intermediate disease, and age at entry."

It is common in medical and scientific writing to mimic English usage or style used by other published authors. However, English editing at many journals (even some top journals!) is not perfect and is sometimes poor or perhaps even absent altogether. Thus, writers should not assume that a certain style or usage is correct merely because it appears in a top journal (the instance that prompted this post appeared in the journal "Cancer" of the American Cancer Society, albeit from back in 2002). “With ... mass-communication ‘linguistic events’ or ‘speech acts’ ... people not surprisingly come to view [misusages] as normal. And their own usage soon reflects that view.” (Garner BA. “Garner’s Modern English Usage”. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016, p. xlvii.)

Whether you are a native English speaker or not, it is strongly advised that you engage the services of a certified scientific editor to have your manuscript reviewed and corrected before you submit it to a journal. The same applies to abstracts and presentation slides; i.e., all scientific presentations!

03/07/2019

EDITING QUIPS - "misplaced modifiers"

This is a topic we often mention in our EDITING QUIPS. It occurs quite often, so it is worth repeating.

In a 2017 Biometrical Journal paper (Binder et al, Biometrical Journal 2017; 59:251-269) it is said, "... censoring individuals that died at their time of death." It is probably obvious to most readers that the authors refer to censoring at the time of death. However, readers who are not familiar with follow-up studies and censoring might wonder why it is necessary to mention that study participants died at the time of their death; at what other time would they die?!

This is a misplaced modifier: the prepositional phrase (at their time of death) is separated from the term it modifies (censoring). In fact, in this case the modifier is separated by an element (individuals that died) that can cause confusion or distraction, forcing the reader to stop and think. Writing should be clear, without assuming that readers have knowledge or expertise beyond what is absolutely necessary. A more appropriate rendition here would be "censoring at their time of death any individuals that died".

19/03/2019

One of us at be-comm media just published a paper in the JAMA Network Open journal:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2728007

We don’t just do English editing. With experience in research, public relations, and publishing, we can provide full scientific and medical editing of research papers, presentations, and other documents.

be-comm is a member of the American Medical Writers Association and the Council of Science Editors, and has a certification from the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences.

This cohort study of Japanese adults who survived the atomic bomb assesses whether extreme body weight variation is associated with mortality after controlling for nonlinear weight changes.

06/03/2019

EDITING QUIPS - "misplaced modifiers"

We have written before about misplaced modifiers, but we recently came across a good example, so we couldn't resist the urge to again remind our followers of this common problem in scientific English writing.

In a bioinfomatics paper from 16 years ago, we find the clause, "it is important to remove sources of variation beween arrays of non-biological origin." (Bolstad BM et al, Bioinformatics 2003; 19[2]:185-193.) Even if you are not a laboratory scientist or medical researcher, you probably have a strong inclination that all microarrays are of biological origin, so you are probably wondering what are arrays "of non-biological origin"? Of course, we understand what the authors want to say (as you did too, probably). However, to persons outside the field the clumsiness of this sentence might not be obvious. Furthemore, even readers who understand the meaning might have to re-read this passage and waste time trying to make sense of it. That is because "of non-biological origin" is a misplaced (or poorly placed) modifier. Obviously (after wasting time figuring it out, something a reader should not have to do), it is meant to modify the noun "variance". The authors are referring to technical variation, which could lead to bias.

While considering how best to improve this clause, we recognized that simple rearrangment is not likely to help. Two prepositional phrases modify "variation", and whichever order they appear in will probably cause confusion. Part of the problem stems from redundant use of terms: "source" and "origin" mean the same thing, so it is not necessary to add "origin" to "non-biological". By recognizing that, we can simplify the clause as follows: "it is important to remove non-biological sources of variation beween arrays."

Actually, this clause is still less than ideal. According to the paper, sources of variation are not removed; instead, variation is conrolled for after the data have been collected. Thus, an even clearer and simpler revision would be, "it is important to control for non-biological variation between arrays." Note that this also helps if one is trying to reduce the absract word count!

One reason why poorly placed modifiers often arise in scientific writing is that authors are accustomed to using technical phrases, and lengthy technical phrases often get worked into writing without thought as to whether their use is appropriate given the grammatical context of the written sentence.

03/03/2019

EDITING QUIPS - “major”

This is frequently noted to be one of the worst cases of poor English usage in the scientific literature (e.g., Schwager E. “Medical English Usage And Abusage.” The Oryx Press, Phoenix; p. 152). Major is a comparative adjectival form signifying “larger” or “greater”. It means the larger or greater of two things. However, it has come (through lazy or sloppy writing) to be used to signify the greatest or largest of many, or (even more abusive) the most significant or most important aspect among potentially many aspects.

Here’s a proper usage: “I spent the major part of an hour writing this quip.” In other words, I spent the greater part of an hour (more than half of an hour) writing this. Notice that I didn’t say anything about dividing an hour into only two parts, but that is precisely implied by the comparative nature of the word major (greater).

The superlative form (largest or greatest among three or more things) requires a different word. Compare:
This research comprises two parts. The major part is an examination of the mechanism of ... . The other part is a methodological study of ... . (OK, but see below.)
The major goal of our research was to ... . Lesser goals included ... and ... . (Wrong!)
The first usage would be technically correct if the first part involved a greater amount of time or larger consumption of resources. However, if the writer means to say that the first part is more important, then major is not the correct word!

I will wrap up with an exercise. I fear that this quip will come as a major [sic] setback to many authors! (Can you recognize the error in my use of “major” here? How could you make this sentence better?)

16/10/2018

EDITING QUIPS - "detecting the obvious"

One role of an editor - though not glamorous - is to proofread and catch obvious errors. Errors occur frequently because authors read and revise their writing so many times it can become easy to overlook subtle errors that are obvious to a fresh reader.

This is illustrated in a recent article in the journal Statistics in Medicine, in which two panels of a figure had the same ordinate (Y-axis) label. The correct information was conveyed in the figure legend, but nevertheless it requires the reader to expend a bit of extra effort, upon seeing the identical labels, to find out which is correct and what the correct label of the incorrect one is. In the meantime, the reader can lose her or his train of thought and have to go back and read the passage that was being read before encountering the figure error.

The editor clearly failed his or her responsibility in this case. It does not require technical knowledge or expertise to detect that both labels are the same, and if the editor does not understand what the correct label should be, a query to the author can get the mistake corrected.

Unfortunately, sometimes when such mistakes are made there is no backup information, such as the figure legend in the above example, to aid the reader. In that case, the only recourse is for the reader to contact the authors, which is a clearly inefficient solution given that the problem should not have occurred at all.

Another good practice is for authors to ask colleagues to read through their manuscripts to help detect errors. This also is not a glamorous task, and many colleagues are probably inclined to go over the draft in a cursory fashion that doesn't help find errors such as in the above example.

Ultimately it is up to the authors and editor to ensure that a published document is free from errors, at least errors that are obvious.

25/09/2018

EDITING QUIPS - “dangling participles”

Dangling participles occur frequently in scientific writing. A dangling participle is a modifying participial phrase that has nothing to modify in the sentence in which it exists. Hence, it "dangles" (is not stabilized by being tied to a noun in the sentence). Dangling participles are grammatically incorrect and potentially confusing to readers, hence they should be avoided.

Here is an example: "After assessing the missing data and deciding that MI [multiple imputation] would be an appropriate method of analysis, the next step is to develop the imputation model that will be used to generate imputed values." (Source: Nguyen CD, Carlin JB, Lee KJ. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2017;14:8, p. 3.) The dangling participial phrase is "after assessing the missing data and deciding that MI would be an appropriate method of analysis". Who assessed and decided? The subject of the sentence is "next step", in a sentence with the verb "to be" and a subject complement (alternative description of the subject) following the verb. The next step does not assess or decide. The researcher or analyst does the assessing deciding, but the researcher or analyst is nowhere mentioned in the sentence! Thus, the opening participial phrase dangles: it has nothing to modify.

Why does this occur so often? Possibly because it is used so frequently that it has become copied by many inexperienced or non-native writers. Furthermore, with the plethora of scientific journals appearing recently, many journals have either poor editing or no editing, so dangling participles are able to slip through and make it to publication with no editing intervention.

What is the remedy? Usually, the remedy is to rewrite the sentence to provide the appropriate subject. For example, "After the analyst assesses ... and decides ..., the next step is for him or her to develop ... ." If the journal requires writing in the third person, then the remedy would be to rewrite the phrase in the third person also: "After the missing data is assessed and it is decided that ...".

A related phenomenon: the term "dangling modifier" is sometimes used to describe what might better be called a "misplaced modifier". This is a situation where the subject of the modifier exists in the sentence, but the placement of the modifier is far from the noun it modifies, so that the connection is not clear to the reader. Usually in this case the remedy is to reposition the modifying phrase closer to the noun it modifies.

Anything in writing that is not clear to the reader requires that the reader waste time re-reading and trying to understand it. This degrades the quality and impact of the writing.

15/08/2018

Another new publication from be-comm professionals:
https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20170226
You can rely on editors who publish in the scientific literature to provide quality editing for your journal submissions, academic meeting presentations, and other scientific communications.
And we have BELS ( https://www.bels.org/ ) accreditation too - another plus for your scientific editing needs.
Contact us through Facebook or by email at
[email protected]
to inquire about scientific, business, and technical English translation and editing, website translation, and other media-related language services.

Japan's largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies