amastyleinsider

October 19, 2012

Top 10 Mistakes Authors Make

Filed under: editing process,usage — amastyleinsider @ 4:58 pm
Tags: , ,

Publishing a style manual, particularly a lengthy, detailed manual that covers a ridiculous amount of technical material (Hello, AMA Manual of Style!), is a grueling process. In our case, it involved 10 people meeting for at least an hour every week for more than a year, where we tried not to get into arguments about grammar, usage, and the presentation of scientific data. After the meetings there would usually be flurries of e-mails about grammar, usage, and the presentation of scientific data. Then we’d all go home and dream about grammar, usage, and the presentation of scientific data. You get the picture.

My point is that the writers of style manuals are often a little, shall we say, too close to the material. In the case of the AMA Manual of Style, we are all editors as well—and it can be hard for us not to roll our eyes when we run into the same problems on manuscript after manuscript. Come on, authors: there’s a whole book on this stuff!

Which, of course, is precisely the problem. There is a whole THOUSAND-PAGE book that tries to encompass all aspects of medical editing. It’s impossible to expect authors to absorb all the information–they’re just trying to get published, and it’s our job to help them. Here, in classic top-10-list reverse order, are the top 10 editorial problems we see in our submitted and accepted manuscripts, compiled by committee and editorialized upon by me. If any authors happen to read this, maybe it will help them avoid the most common errors; if any journal website–design people read it, maybe they can grab some ideas for more explicit user interface; and if any copy editors read it, maybe they can enjoy shaking their heads in wry commiseration.

10. Missing or incomplete author forms. Most journals require authors to fill out some forms, usually involving things like copyright transfer, an assertion of responsibility for authorship, and so on. These forms are often filled out incorrectly or incompletely. Following a form’s instructions as to signatures and boxes to check can save significant amounts of time in the publication process.

9. Not explaining “behind the scenes” stuff. Values in a table don’t add up—oh, it’s because of rounding. The curve in this figure doesn’t connect the values listed in the “Results” section—oh, we used data smoothing. This kind of thing can be easily explained in a footnote, but many authors forget to do so because it seems so obvious to them.

8. Making life difficult for the copy editor. Authors and editors have the same goal: a polished, published, accurate manuscript. Sure-fire ways authors can ruin what should be a pleasant working relationship are to suggest that the copy editor is making changes in the manuscript for no reason; calling the copy editor to discuss changes without having read the edited manuscript first (this wastes oodles of time); and not reading the cover letter that comes with the edited manuscript. This last is particularly charming when the author then calls the copy editor to ask all the questions that are very nicely answered in said cover letter.

7. Common punctuation and style mistakes (not an exhaustive list). Most frequently we see authors fail to expand abbreviations; use different abbreviations for the same term throughout a manuscript; use commas like seasoning instead of like punctuation marks with actual rules of deployment; and overuse the em dash. However, I’d like to tell any authors reading this not to fret, because that’s the kind of stuff we’re paid to fix. Plus I can’t really throw stones—being a fan of the em dash myself.

6. Errors of grandiosity. Sometimes a perfectly nice and valid study will go hog-wild in the conclusion, claiming to be changing the future of scientific inquiry or heralding a sea-change in the treatment of patients everywhere. Or authors will selectively interpret results, focusing on the positive and ignoring the negative or neutral. It’s natural to want to write an elegant conclusion—it’s one of the few places in a scientific manuscript where one can really let loose with the prose—but it’s always better to err on the side of caution.

5. Wacky references. All journals have a reference citation policy, and across scientific journals it is fairly standard to give reference numbers at the point of citation, cite references in numerical order in the text (as opposed to only in tables or figures), and retain a unique number for each reference no matter how many times it’s cited. However, we still get papers with references handled in all kinds of odd ways (alphabetical, chronological, or seemingly inspired by the full moon). References that include URLs can mean big problems. Often the URL doesn’t work or the site is password-protected, subscription-only, or otherwise useless to the reader. Also aggravating: references that are just the result of the search string for the article and not the URL for the article itself.

4. Duplicate submission. In scientific publication, it is not acceptable to submit a report of original research to multiple journals at the same time. Journal editors are likely to be more disturbed by this if it looks deliberate rather than like a simple mistake (not realizing that a foreign-language journal “counts,” for example) or if the case is debatable (a small section of results was published in another paper, but the new paper adds tons of new material). Remember those forms from the 10th most common mistake? One of them asks about previous submission or publication. We need authors to be up-front about any other articles in the pipeline, even if (especially if) they’re not sure if they might constitute duplicate publication.

3. Failing to protect patient identity. Yup, there’s a form for this too! Any time a patient is identifiable, in a photograph or even in text (as in a case report), authors must have the patient’s consent. (Contrary to popular belief, the gossip-mag-style “black bars” over the eyes are not sufficient to conceal identity.) Usually we hear complaints about this, because studies are written long after patients are treated and it can be hard to track people down, but them’s the breaks. If it’s really impossible to obtain after-the-fact patient consent, editors will work with authors to crop photos, take out details, or whatever it takes to “de-identify” patients.

2. Not matching up all the data “bits.” In the abstract, 76 patients were randomized to receive the intervention, but it’s 77 in Table 1. There was a 44.5% reduction in symptoms in the medicated group in the text, but later it’s 44.7%. Sometimes this is because the abstract is written first from the overall results, while the data in a table are more precisely calculated by a statistician; or maybe the number of patients changed along the way and no one went back to revise the earlier data. Either way, it drives copy editors crazy.

1. Not reading a journal’s Instructions for Authors. These days almost all scientific journals have online submission, and almost always there is a link to something called “Information for Authors,” “Guidelines for Manuscript Submission,” or something similar. Judging by the kinds of questions editorial offices receive almost daily, authors rarely read these—but the publication process would often go so much more smoothly if they would.

We are proud of our style manual, although we realize it isn’t the last word in scientific style and format. There can never really be a “last word” because some editor will always want to have it! Anyway, without authors there wouldn’t be anything to edit, so we would never hold any “mistakes” against them. No matter how grievous a manuscript’s misstep, an editor will be there to correct it, because it’s our job. (But mostly because we can’t stop ourselves.)—Brenda Gregoline, ELS

 

October 7, 2012

Quiz Bowl: Articles

Filed under: quizzes — amastyleinsider @ 7:19 am
Tags: ,

Once again it’s time for a historic Quiz Bowl. Okay, maybe historic is a bit much, but I’m trying to make a point here. The point has to do with the subject of this month’s AMA Manual of Style quiz—articles. Is it a historic or an historic Quiz Bowl? Did you guess a historic? If so, you’re right. The article a is used before the aspirate h (eg, a historic occasion) and nonvocalic y (eg, a ubiquitous organism) (§11.9, Articles, p 412 in print).

Try another example from this month’s quiz.

The physician told that patient that he should have a/an ultrasound examination performed.

Here’s a hint. Sometimes it helps to read the sentence aloud.

The answer is as follows (use your mouse to highlight the text box):

The physician told that patient that he should have an ultrasound examination performed.

Words beginning with vowels are preceded by a or an according to the sound following (in this case, the u sound) (§11.9, Articles, p 412 in print).

Sound plays an important role in determining whether to use a or an. Test your skills by taking the full Articles Quiz on the AMA Manual of Style online. It will be a (or is that an?) unique experience.—Laura King, MA, ELS

September 25, 2012

Going the Distance: Further or Farther?

Filed under: usage — amastyleinsider @ 2:51 pm
Tags: ,

A medical editor who in a manuscript meeting asks, “Should we take this manuscript farther?” sparks the idea for this discussion on the grounds that farther suggests distance and further, “quantity or degree.”1

 
Once decided, the examples of variant use jump unexpectedly forward without my having to crack a book:

• Jack Shephard, spinal surgeon and Lost castaway, pauses amid the lush tropical foliage to ask his guide to Jacob’s lighthouse, “How much further, Hurley?”2 He’s a spine surgeon, not a brain surgeon, I think smugly, feeling confirmed in my theory that fictional characters are only as smart as the people who create them.
• The writer of a blurb on the Adventure Cycle Association itinerary3 for a guided bicycle trip in the Blue Ridge Mountains gets it right when describing what’s in store for riders after they reach Mabry Mill: “Approximately five miles farther down the road, you might want to take a detour of less than a mile off the parkway for a tour and a taste at the popular Chateau Morrisette winery.”
• I am sitting at an Italian restaurant celebrating the birthdays of 2 manuscript editors. Talking about my running schedule, I say that my weekly distance “will extend further.” I pause. “That would be farther.” I smile, lift my brows, and announce that I have selected further and farther for my blog entry.

But once I crack the dictionary and English-language usage books, my smugness at knowing the difference between the two dissolves, for the words “have been used more or less interchangeably throughout most of their history,” says the 11th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which allots 11 lines to a discussion of their usage differences, adding that they “are showing signs of diverging.” First, noting that they are not used differently as adverbs “whenever spatial, temporal, or metaphorical distance is involved,” the entry says they “diverge” when the meaning is not conveying distance. In that case, “further is used.” Furthermore, when used as a transitional adverb announcing that the sentence aims to advance a point, the entry says further is used, but farther is not. (However, further is usually changed to furthermore in JAMA in such instances.) Adjectivally, the usage entry continues, “Farther is taking over the meaning of distance.”

 
To put it in perspective, Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage devotes 3 columns to the discussion that begins, “About every usage commentator in the 20th century … has had something to say about farther and further… as to how they should be used or how they seem to be used.”1 This explanation comes after first noting that few of the commentators have ventured little beyond a 1906 “pronouncement”:

Farther should be used to designate longitudinal distance; further to signify quantity or degree.

Webster’s says that farther and further “are historically the same word” and concludes that their interchangeable use is after all “not surprising.” To buttress the claim that they have the same origin and that they did not stem from the word far, the Webster’s entry reports that, of the two, further is older and “appears to have originated as the comparative form of a Germanic ancestor of the English forth,” whereas “farther originated in Middle English as a variant of further that was influenced by the comparative (spelled ferre) of far (then spelled fer) which it (and further) eventually replaced.”

 
The rest of the entry provides examples of usage, noting when grammatical usage for one eclipses the use by the other. In modern English, Webster’s says that further “used in the sense ‘additional’ … has taken over…” But farther is more frequently used adjectivally when “literal or figurative distance is involved.”

 
The Chicago Manual of Style4 and The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual5 echo the 1906 pronouncement and distinguish the two by distance and degree. However, swerving slightly, the seventh edition of Scientific Style and Format6 suggests that the use of farther as an adverb works for physical or nonphysical distance and suggests that further be reserved for use as a transitive verb: “His theory did little to further our knowledge of the oldest galaxies.”

 
After examining the language usage explanations of the 2 words, perhaps the commentators who have not ventured further than the 1906 pronouncement offer the best understood explanation. I could go farther, but I won’t. —Beverly Stewart, MSJ

1. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc; 1989.
2. Lighthouse. Lost. ABC television. February 23, 2010.
3. Adventure Cycling Association. Blue Ridge Bliss: tour itinerary. http://www.adventurecycling.org/tours/tourdetail.cfm?id=175&t=EV10&p=3. Accessed September 25, 2012.
4. The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers. 15th ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2003.
5. Goldstein N, ed. The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2007.
6. Council of Science Editors. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 7th ed. Reston, VA: Council of Science Editors in cooperation with Rockefeller University Press; 2006.

September 19, 2012

A Peek at a Trio of Homophones to Pique Your Interest and Provide Peak Enjoyment

Filed under: usage — amastyleinsider @ 10:03 am
Tags: , ,

Grammarians who pen English usage guides do not seem piqued at the misuse of the words peek, peak, and pique. Theodore M. Bernstein notes only that piqued “takes [the] preposition at or by.” Even college-level writers’ guides make little fuss. Flipping to the usage sections of several writers’ guides, one finds a no-show for the peeks. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, however, writes that “[t]hese homophones have a way of being muddled by nodding writers.” Relying on former newspaper columnist and grammarian James J. Kilpatrick, who had caught misuses among the peaks in various news publications, the entry notes that peak most frequently edged out its competitors and inappropriately made its way into print. The entry ends by warning writers “to keep the meaning in mind and match it to the correct spelling.”

English usage of peek is traced to 1374 and stems from the Middle English piken, which some sources speculate comes from the Middle Dutch kieken. Peek means “to glance at quickly, or to peer at furtively, as from a place of concealment.” As a verb, it means that something is “only partially visible…[t]iny crocuses peeked through the snow.” The expression peek-a-boo is “attested from 1599,” according to the Random House Dictionary.

Peak is traced to 1520-1530, perhaps from the Middle Low German words pick and pike, according to Random House. As a noun it has several meanings, some of which point to the top of a mountain, ridge, or summit. It can also be used to describe a “projecting part of a garment,” as in the bill of a hat. Nautically, it means the “upper most corner of a fore-and-aft sail” or the “narrow part of a ship’s bow.” As an intransitive verb, it means reaching “maximum capacity, value, or activity,” as in “My running pace peaked at 10 minutes per mile.” Similarly, as an adjective, reaching peak levels demonstrates that one has maxed out.

In a less common usage, those who grow sick or thin are sometimes spoken of as having peaked or “dwindled away” or, as an adjective, being peaked (2 syllables), “being pale and wan or emaciated: sickly.”

Emotion rules pique. It stems from the Vulgar Latin verb piccare, “to pick,” and its usage in English is traced to 1525-1535. It is menacingly linked with pickax and pike. As a noun, it is defined as “a transient feeling of wounded vanity.” Or, as one might say of a woman scorned, “She’s in a fit of pique.” But a woman moves quickly on, pique being a transient emotion. As a verb it means that someone has been “aroused” to “anger or resentment.” Or, as I like to use it, aroused to the state of curiosity.

Although they sound alike and to an extent they look alike, the piques are as different as … Has your interest peaked? (Begs for a pun, doesn’t it?)—Beverly Stewart, MSJ

September 14, 2012

Around, About, Approximately

Filed under: usage — amastyleinsider @ 11:58 am
Tags: ,

Although each of these words is used to refer to a value that is estimated and therefore imprecise, whether it is acceptable to use them interchangeably depends in part on context and the level of accuracy being implied.

Some speakers and writers will use approximately before turning to the other two—not surprising, because people faced with a choice between words will often choose the most impressive-sounding one. And sometimes that choice happens to be correct. On the other hand, people will often, especially in casual communications, use around or about as a sort of verbal shorthand. And again, sometimes that choice happens to be correct.

So, what’s the scoop? To sort this out, it helps to recognize that authorities for the most part agree that around, about, and approximately lie on a scale from casual to formal. As it happens, around is also thought of as the most imprecise and approximately the most precise, with about falling somewhere in between. It further helps to note that around, meaning merely “with some approach to exactness,”1(p68) is not widely considered an adequate replacement for either about or approximately and thus is often accepted only in casual conversation.2 Hence, in conversation between friends, for example, many speakers will toss off a “See ya around three,” whereas in written communications, as Bernstein maintains, “‘about three o’clock’ is preferable to ‘around three o’clock.’”2

Things get a bit more complicated as one moves along the scale: not only does the choice of word depend in part on the closeness to accuracy required by different types of communication, but the differences between the implied degrees of closeness can be subtle. For example, Merriam-Webster’s defines about as “reasonably close to”1(p4) and approximately as “nearly correct or exact.”1(p61) However, it is safe to say that in nontechnical communications (which presumably often place less emphasis on precision), the use of about is not only accepted but is perhaps preferred. As Garner maintains, “When possible, use about instead of approximately, a formal word”3(p5)—where a “formal” word is defined simply as one “occupying an elevated level of diction.”3(pp153-154) On the other hand, as suggested by the above definitions, about does not emphasize a closeness to accuracy as strongly as approximately does—which helps explain why about seems fine when used to refer to estimated values that have been rounded to multiples of 5 or 10 but can seem strange when used to refer to unrounded values.4 Moreover, around and about each have multiple meanings and can be used in other senses, whereas approximately is used in a single sense only, leading some authorities to maintain that the latter is a better choice for technical communications.5

The bottom line:

● Referring to an inexact value in casual conversation? Around, about, and approximately are all acceptable, but approximately can sound a bit pretentious.

● Referring to an inexact value in nontechnical writing? About is perhaps the best choice, around being too informal and approximately being a tad too formal.

● Referring to an inexact value in medical or other technical writing? Although about may very occasionally be used if one carefully assesses the context, approximately is nearly always the best choice.—Phil Sefton, ELS

1. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc; 2003.

2. Around. In: Bernstein TM. The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage. New York, NY: Athaneum; 1985:44-45.

3. Garner BA. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.

4. Yateendra J. About and Around and Approximately: Shades of Difference? Editage website. http://blog.editage.com/about-and-around-and-approximately-shades-of-difference. Accessed August 1, 2012.

5. Scientific English as a Foreign Language: Around, About, Approximately. Worcester Polytechnic Institute website. http://users.wpi.edu/~nab/sci_eng/97_Jun_20.html. 1997. Accessed August 1, 2012.

September 7, 2012

Questions From Users of the Manual

Filed under: abbreviations,frequently asked questions,references — amastyleinsider @ 11:55 am
Tags: ,

Q: I am writing a manuscript in which I want to include the dates that a list of products were first marketed. The database from which I got the information is a subscriber-only database. This seems to be the only place that has the information I want to use. Are such subscriber-only databases allowable to include in a reference list?

A: This question was one we had to address when working on the chapter on reference citation style and the answer we decided on was YES, these may be included in a reference list. (We did not address it specifically for a subscriber-only database, but this question also arises with reference to journal articles that are password-protected/available only to subscribers.) The rationale was 2-fold. First, if there is another place that the information can be obtained that is not behind a “wall,” then of course you might want to consider using that reference instead of the one that is not easily available to all. But, as you indicated in your case, sometimes there is no “free” site for the information you want to reference, and it’s important to acknowledge your source—even if access to it is limited. Second, thinking back to the days before people were citing much online material (and those days were not that long ago, were they?), reference lists frequently cited books that might be out of print or other sources that might not allow easy access. This doesn’t seem a reason not to include the material, even though it might be an annoyance to online readers to find that the source is not freely available, so YES.

Q: How would you cite a webinar?

A: I would extrapolate from the style recommended for citing an audio presentation:

Christiansen S. Medical copyediting with AMA style [webinar]. December 15, 2011.  http://www.copyediting.com.  Accessed April 6, 2012.

Q: In section 14.12, you state “Use the abbreviation [of units of time] only in a virgule construction and in tables and line art.” Does this mandate the use or merely allow the use of these abbreviations in these instances?

A: The answer is short. It does not mandate so much as allow, although units of measure are almost always abbreviated in column heads and stubs in tables and on axes in line art in our journals because of space considerations.—Cheryl Iverson, MA

 

August 30, 2012

Quiz Bowl: Anatomy

Filed under: quizzes — amastyleinsider @ 7:54 am
Tags: ,

Quiz Bowl is back! After a much need summer hiatus (much needed on my part, not sure how you guys feel about the matter), the games continue with a quiz on anatomy. Hmmm, maybe I should rephrase that. Make that with a quiz on anatomy terms. Hmmm, that’s medical terms, not the kind you see scribbled on the bathroom wall. Now that that’s cleared up, let’s get to the question.

Edit the following sentence to conform to the AMA Manual of Style guidelines on anatomical terms (§11.6, Anatomy, p 410 in print).

The investigators examined catheter-induced lesions of the right heart.

Any ideas? Consider the term right heart. Here’s the answer (use your mouse to highlight the text box):

The investigators examined catheter-induced lesions of the right side of the heart

Although some animals have more than 1 heart (the octopus, the earthworm, the cockroach), people only have 1 heart. Authors often err in referring to anatomical regions or structures as the “right heart,” “left chest,” “left neck,” and “right brain.” The terms right and left imply 2 different structures. Generally these terms can be corrected by inserting a phrase such as “part of the” or “side of the.”

Want to learn more? Take the full Anatomy Quiz on the AMA Manual of Style online. See you next month!—Laura King, MA, ELS

August 17, 2012

URLs Gone Bad: Fixing Broken Links

Filed under: references — amastyleinsider @ 1:16 pm
Tags: ,

Link rot is a term that describes the tendency of URLs to fail over time because the page has been deleted or moved. Because of the lag between writing and publication, link rot can be a problem even before content is posted, so all URLs should be checked for dead links.

URL-Checking Software

A number of tools exist that check and verify URLs. Well-written URL-checking software can report dead links and some redirected (forwarded) links. Even if a URL appears to work and is not obviously broken, however, the content of the page may have changed, and it may no longer be what the author intended to cite. Because of this issue and others explained below, it’s not possible to detect all bad links automatically. Therefore, a copy editor should check all URLs manually at least once during the publication process, verifying that the content of the page matches the citation context.

The Link Works, but Is the Content Right?

The content of a web page can change at any time. For example, many government agencies report statistics regularly, archiving or deleting the old report once the new one becomes available. Here’s a reference from the Administration on Aging:

Department of Health and Human Services. A profile of older Americans: 2007. http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/index.aspx. Accessed April 7, 2012.

This URL is valid, but the title on the page is now “A Profile of Older Americans: 2011.” As you scroll down the page there are links to previous profiles, including the 2007 version cited by the author, which now has a new URL:

http://www.aoa.gov/AoAroot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2007/index.aspx

In this case no change is really needed; the URL is still valid, and the report the author referenced is available from this same page. If there’s any doubt about whether the content of the URL is what the author meant to cite, he or she should review and verify changed URLs (assuming time permits).

Broken Link? Google It

Here’s a sentence from an author-submitted manuscript that includes a broken URL:

To search for gene network pathways, we searched BioCarta, KEGG, and Reactome pathways and available software programs (https://www.affymetrix.com/products/software/compatible/pathway.affx).

A good tool to investigate and repair a broken link is Google. Search the title or a detailed description, in this case “Affymetrix compatible gene network pathways software.” The first result of this search,

http://www.affymetrix.com/partners_programs/genechip_compatible/genechip_compatible.affx

looks promising, and, if you click on the Pathway tab on this page, the heading is “Pathway/Network Analysis,” indicating that this new URL fits the citation context well.

It’s Really Broken: Keep the URL but Kill the Hyperlink

If a title or detailed description search fails to find a match for a source with a broken URL, ask the author to provide another source or another way to access the same source. If there’s not time to consult the author or if the author replies that there is no other way to access the reference, leave the URL in place to indicate how the author accessed the source, but remove the hyperlink.

Here’s an example from another author-submitted reference list, with the URL in place but the hyperlink removed:

Kittler H. Dermatoscopy: introduction of a new algorithmic method based on pattern analysis for diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions. Dermatopathol Practical Conceptual. 2007;13(1). http://www.derm101.com/dynaweb/resources/milestones/49057/@Generic__BookView/49067;cs=chapview.wv;ts=chaptoc.tv;chap=dpc1301a03. Accessed February 15, 2010.

A detailed title search doesn’t help in this case. There are no obvious errors in the URL. Also, entering the author’s name in the site search box provided at the home page, http://www.derm101.com/, produces this result: “The term ‘kittler’ was not found.”

Typos in URLs

Copy editors must also be alert for typos, especially errors in punctuation. These are common, and some of them, like the first example below, can be spotted and repaired before checking the reference:

Bad URL: http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/Hospital/Search/Welcomeasp

Good URL: http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/Hospital/Search/Welcome.asp

Bad URL: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal-pmed.0050120

Good URL: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050120

Bad URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Good URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Redirected URLs

If, when you attempt to verify a URL, the landing page has a URL different than the one you tested, the URL has been redirected, or forwarded. Redirection is used most often to allow URLs to be updated without breaking the old URLs. The cited URL jumps automatically to the updated URL. To identify redirected URLs, check the browser address window. Here are 2 examples:

Cited URL: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbookch4-hepb.aspx Redirected to: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2012/chapter-3-infectious-diseases-related-to-travel/hepatitis-b.htm

The Rule: When URLs are redirected, it’s preferable to cite the destination URL, both because redirection is sometimes temporary and because redirection sometimes fails.

The Exception to the Rule: Another tye of redirection is the use of vanity URLs to promote a product or a brand. For example, the vanity URL http://jama.com redirects to http://jama.jamanetwork.com/journal.aspx. Unlike updated URL redirects, vanity URLs should be left intact.

More Information

See §3.15, Electronic References in the AMA Manual of Style (pp 64-67 in print) for more information about the correct format for URLs in electronic references.—Paul Frank

August 8, 2012

Questions From Users of the Manual

Filed under: references,usage — amastyleinsider @ 2:57 pm
Tags: , ,

Q: How can a user of your online manual tell if use of a particular word (such as namely) is discouraged?

A:  The first place to look might be chapter 11, Correct and Preferred Usage. But the word you used as an example is not included therein. Or you could try a search in the online manual for the word in question. But that too produces nothing helpful, most likely because we have no “official” policy on this word. Next you might consult a good usage book or the usage notes in the American Heritage Dictionary. Finding nothing anywhere, you could decide on a policy for your publication or the document you are working on, if this seems appropriate or desirable.

Q:  Several questions about the citation of abstracts in a reference list.

  • Section 3.11.9 (Abstracts and Other Material Taken From Another Source) states on page 50 that for abstracts published in the society proceedings of a journal, “the name of the society before which the paper was read need not be included” and that “if a[n abstract] number is included, it is placed in brackets along with the ‘abstract’ designation.” What is not made clear is whether including an “abstract” designation is mandatory or voluntary.   

Should an “abstract” designation be included in the citation to an abstract published in the society proceedings of a journal if neither the society’s name nor an abstract number is being provided? In other words, using example 3 of the book as a base, which of the following would be correct?  

  •  . . . Lemli-Opitz syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(suppl):S627.  (the reference is not identified as being an abstract)

        or

  • . . . Lemli-Opitz syndrome [abstract]. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(suppl):S627.  (the reference is identified as being an abstract)

If the “[abstract]” designation is not mandatory, is it AMA style to delete it when an author includes it (without an accompanying society name or abstract number) in such a reference?

Also, if an abstract is given an abstract number in the place where it is published, is it considered mandatory or voluntary for its number to be included in the reference citation? The text in the manual says “if a number is included” but the meaning of this is possibly ambiguous (included by the journal in which it was published; or voluntarily included by the author who submits the manuscript as a matter of the submitting author’s preference? It seems most likely that it is the latter, but I’m not certain). 

A:  In order:

  • The if  is meant to signify that the designation as an abstract should be included if it is provided.
  • The second version you provided would be preferred. It’s a nice service to readers to let them know that what is referenced is an abstract.
  • Absolutely not. We would never delete it. It too provides a service to readers, helping them to find the abstract referred to, should they be so inclined.
  • You interpreted the manual correctly—the latter is what is intended.—Cheryl Iverson, MA

July 24, 2012

Anticipate, Expect

Filed under: usage — amastyleinsider @ 3:49 pm
Tags: ,

Although the use of anticipate and expect as synonyms is now largely accepted,1 at least in casual communications, the careful writer will do well to note that some authorities still hold that there is a subtle difference between them.1-3

Although both words refer to a person’s attitude toward a future event, they differ in what they convey about that attitude. For example, some observers hold that the difference between the words relates to the level of certainty toward the future event (ie, anticipate implies that a person is certain that the event will take place, whereas expect implies only that a person predicts that the event will take place3). However, this weak distinction is easily blurred, and in practice it seems that it is not often upheld. A stronger and more often upheld distinction maintains that anticipate is the stronger of the two words, connoting that some action has been taken to prepare for the foreseen event.2,3 This sense possibly arose from an early (late 1500s) use, “To seize or take possession of beforehand.”4 Although that use is now obsolete, by the early 1600s anticipate was being used to suggest simply “to take action beforehand,” a meaning still current.4 Bernstein points out that such action “Need not be taken so literally as to mean the performance of an overt act; it may simply connote an advance accommodation of the mind or the senses, even involuntarily, to the coming event.”2

In any case, if anticipate suggests the taking of some sort of action to prepare for an expected event, it seems clear that one should perhaps not use it when wishing to convey only simple expectation. Interestingly enough, even those who consider anticipate and expect synonyms do not extend the same acceptance to the synonymous use of unanticipated and unexpected.1

The misuse of anticipate in place of expect likely arose from the tendency common among writers and speakers to use larger words.5(pp22-23) It also is an example of what Garner terms “slipshod extension”5(pp22-23)—“the mistaken stretching of a word beyond its accepted meanings, the mistake lying in a misunderstanding of the true sense.”5(pp307-308) Garner further maintains that the use of anticipate in the sense of “to await eagerly” is also incorrect and points out that such use is also likely the result of slipshod extension.5(pp22-23)

The bottom line:

● Referring to a person’s attitude toward a future event? Using anticipate and expect interchangeably is likely acceptable in casual communications, but in more formal contexts one should take care to observe the subtle differences between them.

● Referring to the simple expectation of a foreseen event? Use expect.

● Referring to a state of taking action—whether that action be either concrete, mental, or emotional—in preparation for a foreseen event? Use anticipate.—Phil Sefton, ELS

1. Anticipate. The Free Dictionary website. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/p/anticipate. Accessed June 8, 2012.

2. Anticipate, expect. In: Bernstein TM. The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage. New York, NY: Athaneum; 1985:44-45.

3. Anticipate or Expect: What’s Next? Grammatically Correct website. http://www.uhv.edu/ac/newsletters/writing/grammartip2008.05.28.htm. Accessed June 8, 2012.

4. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1991: 58.

5. Anticipate. In: Garner BA. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Customized Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 444 other followers

%d bloggers like this: