" / would have everie man write what he knowes and no

more"—MONTAIGNE

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA OCTOBER 1977

VOLUME 49, No. 10

EDITORIAL

Although there is no record of the event, it is likely that when the wheel was invented, the techniques of the development and the more obvious applications of the end-product were apparent immediately. In our sophisticated modern world, developments in science and technology are often complex and difficult to understand, so that the obligation on the research worker or innovator to communicate clearly is paramount. In medicine, there can be no complaint of a lack of media for publicity; the proliferation of scientific societies and symposia and the mushroomlike expansion of the medical publications industry seems almost terrifying. In spite of this (or perhaps because of it), the gap between those at the spearhead of development and the rest of us is widening. Although there is no single explanation for this, a large part of the problem results from poor quality communication. Of immediate importance to those concerned with the British Journal of Anaesthesia is the fact that a significant proportion of the manuscripts which are acceptable in respect of the scientific and technical content are delayed in publication because of a need to revise the presentation to conform to standards which should be known widely to medical authors. Sadly, these problems relate particularly to the tyro who may feel demoralized at having to negotiate an unexpected hurdle at this late stage in a research project. We know that these problems are not peculiar to this journal, or even to the specialty of anaesthesia. Indeed, it is to the credit of anaesthetists that the quality of the anaesthetic literature compares most favourably with that of many other clinical specialties. The risk of being misunderstood, or of being misled, is an ever present hazard of communication by language. The misunderstanding may be corrected

easily, in conversation or dialogue—less so in a large conference, and only with great difficulty when the medium is the printed word. It is one of the functions of the Editorial team of a medical journal to ensure that, so far as is possible, the content of the publication is comprehensible and unambiguous. Although the overall quality of medical writing, and in particular writing by anaesthetists, has improved in recent years, there is an awareness among Editors of scope for improvement in the standards of preparation of papers and articles. Action to promote such improvement should be taken as a matter of urgency in view of the increasing costs of every aspect of the Editorial process. Several distinguished medical Editors have grappled with this problem in the past and there is a large number of monographs on medical writing; this is always dangerous ground for the unwary and it has to be admitted that not all of the books themselves have been easy to read. The recent publication of a little book written by Professor Hugh Dudley of St Mary's Hospital, London (Dudley, 1977), is the latest venture in this field. Although Dudley provides no new solutions, his lucid presentation and his deep understanding of the difficulties of authors and lecturers have enabled him to present his subject most attractively. This journal also has contributed to the volume of advice, notably in the postgraduate issue of September 1970. The contributions of Dr Lock on "Writing for a journal" and of Dr Whitwam in "Spoken communications" continue to be of value in laying the broad guidelines for writers and lecturers respectively, and directing the reader to the key reference material. In the opening to one of his chapters, Dudley says: "Satisfactory communication by language embraces grammar, logic and style. Much is known about all

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on June 28, 2015

TOWARDS BETTER COMMUNICATION

956

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA

Downloaded from http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/ at Carleton University on June 28, 2015

three, but nevertheless it is difficult to extract . . . a language which, paradoxically, may be followed more simple pattern that will help the intending com- rigorously by the foreigner than by the Englishman. municator." Personal supervision for the inexperAs our contribution to solving the problems in ienced in the preparation of manuscripts may be written communication, the editorial team of British much more effective than the help which can be Journal of Anaesthesia has prepared an extended obtained from textbooks on writing. Recently, the Guide to Contributors which will deal particularly British Medical Journal has sponsored workshops to with the difficulties which recur in manuscripts which authors were invited to bring their unpublished submitted to our office. The December 1977 issue manuscripts for criticism and advice; perhaps this will give information on how the document may be type of exercise should be encouraged more widely. obtained. Many of the academic departments of anaesthesia, To those who share our concern, we would suggest particularly in Britain and North America, have staff finally that precision in the use of language and members who are skilled and experienced authors clarity in presentation need not be exclusive to the and who are often willing to advise on the preparation lecture theatre or the printed page. Casual perusal of of manuscripts. One of the many advantages of hospital records reveal a paucity of language and a encouraging the trainee in research is that he may plethora of mysterious abbreviations which ensure improve his capacity to communicate and it is sound incomprehensibility to all except the privileged few advice that a doctor who has reached this stage of his with local knowledge. Perhaps our medical schools career should have the best guidance possible in should consider their responsibilities in this regard. preparing his work for presentation. Rarely will the Alastair A. Spence trainee succeed on his own. "Every article should be intelligible to a doctor REFERENCES whose native language is not English" (Lock, 1970). Dudley, H. (1977). The Presentation of Original Work in Thus, the opinions of colleagues outside the Medicine and Biology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. specialized area to which the writing relates and, on Lock, S. (1970). Writing for a journal. Br.J. Anaesth., 42, occasion, the endorsement of a literate layman, will 764. be worth while. The needs of a worldwide readership Whitwam, J. G. (1970). Spoken communication. Br. J. Anaesth., 42, 768. such as this journal enjoys are an additional major justification for adherence to the rules of the English

Towards better communication.

" / would have everie man write what he knowes and no more"—MONTAIGNE BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA OCTOBER 1977 VOLUME 49, No. 10 EDITORIAL Alt...
134KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views