| Homepage |
| Search |
The January issue of The Write Stuff (the official publication of the European Medical Writers Associations, www.emwa.org) is dedicated to the topic Learning and Teaching Medical Writing and considers it from different points of view. Medical writers rarely have a specific qualification in medical writing and often need to learn. Scientists can benefit from courses on medical writing that also increase the chances of publication for non-native speakers. Teaching medical writing is now a good opportunity for medical writers. Some useful tips from teachers are included. Hartley J. There’s more to the title than meets the eye: exploring the possibilities. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication. 2007;37(2):95–101. The author distinguishes between 12 types of title for academic articles, and suggests that these should be discussed with student writers. Before and after examples are provided to show how titles can be improved. Joshi Y. A systematic approach to improving writing skills. Current Science 2007;92:1343–1344 Suggests an action plan for ESL (English as second language) researchers who wish to improve their writing skills. In the manner of an old-fashioned general practice in medicine, the suggested prescription is a “mixture” comprising (a) extensive reading, (b) a modest amount of progressively difficult writing assignments, (c) revising one’s writing, and (d) developing a concern for readers. It is possible, simply through massive exposure, to absorb typical patterns of English sentences and to string words together in those patterns without any formal study of grammar. Sand-Jensen K. How to write consistently boring scientific literature. Oikos 2007;116 (5),723–727. Scientists typically insist that their research is very exciting when they talk to laymen and prospective students, but the allure of this enthusiasm is too often lost in the predictable, stilted structure and language of their scientific publications. A top-10 list of recommendations for how to write consistently boring scientific publications is presented and suggestions given to make these contributions more accessible and exciting. (doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15674.x) Stevens M. Subtleties of scientific style. Science Scape Editing. 2007. (http://www.zeta.org.au/~mls/subtleties.html) The author says: “This book is aimed at hands-on scientific editors, those who work with the nuts and bolts of the text—from spelling, punctuation and grammar (copyediting) to meaning and logic (substantive editing). Copyeditors (subeditors) and journal editors will also find something of interest in it. I decided to write this book when I recognized that the assortment of books on my shelves either don’t mention some faults of scientific writing that I regularly encounter, or mention them only in passing. The book collects together many subtle, recurring errors that I’ve come to recognize in my more than 20 years of editing. It also incorporates a few essays I’ve written or lectures I’ve given on things that annoy me about scientific writing.” The full text is free online. Tompson A. How to write an English medical manuscript that will be published and have impact. Surgery Today 2006; 36:407–409. English has become the international language in science. Yet to write a medical manuscript in a second language is a challenge for many scientists whose native language is not English. The authors explains how it need not be such a challenge if you follow a few simple rules based on the concept of “simplicity = clarity = effective communication”. Any paper will have impact only if the readers can understand it easily. © Copyright 2008 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|