EDITORIAL

“Good Enough” is not Good Enough

You write with ease to show your breeding. But easy writing’s curst hard reading.

R. B. Sheridan And easv reading’s curst hard writing.

Editors, Journal of General Microbiology’

According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, jargon is confused, unintelligible language or gibberish, which leads to its definition as the technical or secret vocabulary of a science, art, trade, sect, profession, or other special group. It has been said, perhaps facetiously, that jargon serves two purposes: it facilitates communication within a group, and it excludes outsiders. In daily conversation, jargon can be a con- venient verbal shorthand, but in scientific publications it can hinder understanding. Expressions, ab- breviations, and acronyms that some consider universally known may be obscure to others, leading to misinterpretation and potential harm. Translation of thousands of abstracts of scientific articles each year into several languages provides considerable potential for inaccuracy and confusion.

Formal writing, which includes the use of correct anatomic and medical terms as well as proper grammar, facilitates understanding. An author who believes that scientific data are more important than syntax misses the point that a poorly understood message is no message at all. Such a position is analogous to the claim that parliamentary procedure interferes with the efficiency of a business meeting when, in fact, it does exactly the opposite. If we are to transmit information clearly and efficiently, we must “use definite, specific, concrete language,” and “omit needless words.”’ According to the Council of Biology Editors in Scientific Writing for Graduate Students, scientific writing is an extension of the experimental method, with some of the same qualities:

“rational construction of sentence and paragraph (logic); absolute accuracy of expression (precision); ready comprehensibility (clarity); directness; and brevity. ”

A reviewer’s first question about any paper should be, “Is it good science?’ If it is, editing and rewriting to put the manuscript in the best possible form become a cooperative effort of the author, reviewers, and editor. One source of misunderstanding is an author’s presumption that he or she is submitting a finished work, whereas the editor’s presumption is that it is only the most recent revision. No matter how well written an article is, another revision can always improve it. As Mawyer put it,3

“To an editor, no paper is finished until it appears in print. The author’s last draft is the editor’s first draft.

“Only passive editors see their role simply as evaluating and then accepting or rejecting papers. An editor worthy of his hire should have bigger goals than that. A good editor is going to be concerned with raising the level of discourse in his journal, with spumng authors to improve their work, and with presenting the papers he publishes in the best possible form. It is unrealistic to expect authors to share these concerns, but authors should know that editors think that way.”

The review system should be an educational rather than an adversarial process. Authors are asked to respond to reviews by accepting the suggestions or explaining why they disagree, and they may add or subtract material. It requires detailed effort to prepare a manuscript that can withstand the scrutiny of one’s peers, and authors should participate as actively in the revision process as they did in the original writing. Nothing is gained if an author turns from improving the paper to arguing with the reviews.

279

EDITORIAL

Our common objective for Veterinary Surgery should be a journal in which the quality of writing reflects the high levels of knowledge and professional skill of the authors. Veterinary Surgery is a visible and important part of the educational outreach of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists. Only by maintaining the high levels of conscien- tious effort shown by past authors, reviewers, editors, and our publisher can Velerinary Surgery continue to succeed in the pursuit of excellence.

References

1. Quoted by Gray JP. In: Gray JP, ed. A Group of Papers on Medical Writing. Detroit: Parke, Davis & Co., 1957:2. 2. Strunk W Jr, White EB. The Elernenfs qfSIyle. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan, 1979:21-25. 3. Mawyer GD. Investigative grammar. J Urol 1986;136:184.

GHERY D. PETTIT, DVM Editor