usage

Welcome the 11th Edition of the AMA Manual of Style!

Posted by

4

We are pleased to announce the 11th edition of the AMA Manual of Style, now live at https://www.amamanualofstyle.com/ and shipping in hardcover in a few days.

The manual has been thoroughly updated, including comprehensive guidance on reference citations (including how to cite journal articles, books, reports, websites, databases, social media, and more), an expanded chapter on data display (for the first time in full color), a completely up-to-date chapter on ethical and legal issues (covering everything from authorship and open access to corrections and intellectual property), and updated guidance on usage (from patient-first language and terms to avoid to preferred spelling and standards for sociodemographic descriptors).

The section on nomenclature has undergone thorough review and updating, covering many topics from genetics and organisms to drugs and radiology.

The statistics and study design chapter has been extensively expanded, with more examples of usage and terms that link to a related glossary.

Chapters on grammar, punctuation, abbreviations, capitalization, manuscript preparation, and editing feature refreshed examples and new entries (such as allowance of the “singular they”).

The nearly 1200-page book is enriched by a variety of online features. For example, regular updates to address changes in style or policies will be featured in the Updates section. Any corrections will be made online so that you are always looking at the latest guidelines as you use the manual.

New quizzes will be posted to help new or continuing users learn to master the finer points of AMA style, and the units of measure calculator offers easy conversions between the SI system and conventional units, as well as the metric system.

We welcome questions and comments on the manual: write to stylemanual@jamanetwork.org or find us on Twitter (@AMAManual). We look forward to engaging with you. –Stacy Christiansen, for the AMA Manual of Style Committee

A Blueprint for Science Editing

Posted by

3

As a high school student, I stumbled across A Blueprint for Teen-Age Living in a recessed shelf of the library. The book was older than I was with a spine unbroken. Despite these red flags, I believed this William C. Menninger author might have some wisdom for the ages.

The breezy illustrations failed to track against the daily dramas unfolding around me in those years, and its advice did not seem to be applicable to peers. No one else was consulting a book on how to behave. One of the 7 signs of maturity was the ability “to deal constructively with reality.” Real life never arranges itself as in a guide to behavior, so to deal with reality, I began to disregard the Blueprint advice. Let’s just say that A Blueprint did not open any doors.

Happily, as a manuscript editor, I have access to guidebooks that not only open doors but also resolve questions. With the impending arrival of the AMA Manual of Style 11th edition comes the opportunity to take a brief peek at the first edition, which is of about the same vintage as that guide for teenagers.

A reasonable facsimile.

The typeface on the cover is, like the illustrations in A Blueprint, deceptively breezy. The book gets down to business. Even a quick look shows that the book arranged itself according to the real life of an editor. Written by director John H. Talbott, MD, for the Scientific Publications Division, this 70-page Style Book was produced in 1962 for an in-house audience. Stapled with a green cover, it has the look and weight of a fundraising cookbook from church. The Foreword (spelled “Foreward,” a potential mash-up of “foreword” and “forward”) indicates that numerous blank spaces appear on pages for additions the user may wish to enter. How thoughtful, but the version in hand must be a facsimile edition because all pages are jam-packed with scant space for additions.

The Style Book consists of 25 sections, mostly about the conventions of punctuation, with excursions into italics, laboratory values presented as cc instead of mL, drug names, and proofreader’s marks (perhaps the most constant of all sections). The Style Book shouts. CORRECT USAGE. INTERROGATION MARKS. FOOTNOTES. What became of the cover’s breeziness? The CORRECT USAGE section 9 lists “lipid: noun” and “lipoid: adjective,” and “mucous: adjective” and “mucus: noun.” These distinctions have evaporated over the years. In contrast, Section 9.16 advises for “over”: “‘more than’ preferred when numbers are used,” which appears to be an eternal directive.

The current manual directs us not to use a colon if a sentence is continuous without it. No such ruling appears in the first edition, which mentions colons as an indication of an explanation or enumeration to follow, as an introduction to a formal direct quotation, or to separate numbers in time of day, biblical references, and parts of numeric ratios. The book does use colons even when the sentence would be continuous without. In at least one place, the verb “are” is followed by a colon then its predicate nominative string.

One change that won’t surprise those of us in house is the guidance about numbers. NUMBERS 16.00 indicates “In the text all numbers from one through ten should be spelled out.” Current style is to use numbers, which still surprises many authors who return proofs with the instruction to spell out numbers. Another minor change is in capitalization after a colon. CAPITALIZATION 4.00 directs that the first word after a colon in a reference gets capitalized. Now the opposite is true.

In current Common Usage, “utilized” is not preferred because “use” is concise. The Style Book has plentiful examples of “used,” but “utilized “makes at least 1 surreptitious appearance.

It may sound odd to personify a book, but the Style Book has become surer of itself in the last 58 years. I believe it must have gone through the 7 signs of maturity. The original Foreword claims that “Few of the rules contained in this book are inviolable” and that the book “is not to be static,” modest claims presented with a certain authority, not to mention an admirable realism. The current Foreword focuses on the need for communicative writing and the manual’s standing as a more extensive and comprehensive manual than earlier editions.

The upcoming Foreword characterizes the manual as indispensable for medical journalism and communication, which embodies being “not static.” The new manual is 17 times the size of the 1962 edition, whose Foreword also presented the optimistic expectation of a new edition every year. Unlike A Blueprint, the community of users was accurately assessed. I imagine that even in 1962, people who consulted the Style Book felt like part of a community centered around this makeshift blueprint for science editing. Now the community of users extends around the globe. The AMA Manual of Style also opens doors, not just for editors but also for conversations between editors and authors.–Timothy Gray

How Many Is They?

Posted by

1

Since I’ve been a manuscript editor, JAMA Network journals have published a few articles about health care for transgender patients. I’ve had the good luck to edit a few—they are always interesting—but this week, I realized that there is a grammatical issue in editing these articles that I have never heard fully addressed.

The issue is not what pronouns to use for transgender individuals—that question is well-known. Because the English language uses gendered pronouns, people who change their gender expression or whose gender isn’t accurately defined by labels are faced with several choices: should they go by she, he, a singular they, or a neologism, such as xe?

The news media has addressed this, including The New York Times articles in 2016 and 2017, with another written by transgender English professor Jennifer Finney Boylan in 2018. These articles often make the same points: that people can get confused by this transformation of language, but that people who want to use pronouns that reflect a gender different from their assigned sex should have their wishes respected. This squares with the approach used in JAMA Network journals.

But it also raises a question rarely addressed: what about verb conjugation? In the present tense, English applies a letter s to the third-person singular (he, she, or it runs) but not to the first-person singular, first-person plural, second-person singular, and third-person plural (I, we, you, and they run). So, if an article uses a singular they, should it be conjugated like the third-person plural (run) or like the third-person singular (runs)?

While editing, I have realized that the default method of using the singular they along with someone’s name (or a descriptor, such as the patient) involves flip-flopping between singular and plural verb conjugations (eg, “The patient is receiving gender-affirming treatment, and they are pleased with the outcome thus far”). A consistent use of the singular they would seem to require using third-person singular conjugations throughout (“The patient is receiving treatment…. They is pleased…”) or plural conjugations throughout (“The patient are receiving treatment…. They are pleased….”). Is either approach correct?

The public discourse on pronouns has not provided much insight. It has prompted the argument that we all use forms of singular they-series pronouns in casual language, in sentences such as “If someone wants gender-affirming treatment, that is their choice” or “Give them an injection.”

But that is distinct from the current issue. In these usages, the pronoun is usually objective (them) or possessive (their or theirs), and the verb is conjugated in the third-person singular alongside another subject. (In the example sentences, these are “someone” and “that,” and in the command, an unspoken “you.”) When the singular they is placed immediately before the verb, the question of conjugation instantly reappears.

Weighing “they run” vs “they runs,” I looked for guidance in the AMA Manual of Style. It offered a few relevant thoughts: “In an effort to avoid both sex-specific pronouns and awkward sentence structure, some writers use plural pronouns with singular indefinite antecedents… Editors of JAMA and the Archives Journals prefer that agreement in number be maintained in formal scientific writing.”

But that seemed short of clear instructions. Still uncertain if constructions like “they is pleased” would please anyone, I reached out to Jennifer Finney Boylan, the New York Times contributor whose article on pronouns was published in 2018.

A quick email to her university address got an equally quick response. “I’m not certain about this,” she wrote. “I want to endorse ‘they is’ because the non-specific pronoun is still referring to a singular individual. On the other hand, ‘they are’ sounds better to my old, English professor ears.”

That seemed similar to how our society is handling the matter. On her authority, I decided to stick with conjugations that shift from singular to plural and let the matter rest until a thoughtful body of grammarians, popular opinion, and perhaps the next edition of the New York Times’ article series on pronouns weigh in with a definitive answer to conjugating verbs after a singular they.—M. Sophia Newman

Unconfusing “The Confusables”

Posted by

0

I was recently gifted a copy of Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style, a book by Random House Copy Chief Benjamin Dreyer. It is one of the latest in a line of modern guides on editing and writing that shed the stuffiness usually associated with language and instead take on the subject with wit and humor.

Amid references to pop culture and classic literature, tips on spelling and punctuation, and even a relatable confession that the rules of grammar aren’t always  interesting (sorry, linguistics enthusiasts), there is a chapter called “The Confusables.” Confusables are homonyms, synonyms, similarly spelled words, words with comparable meaning — a word you thought you meant but did not. As Dreyer puts it, “Spellcheck is a marvelous invention, but it can’t stop you from using the wrong word when the wrong word you’ve used is a word (but the wrong word).”

He’s right. Spellcheck and software like Grammarly are useful, but they don’t perform the same function as an editor. This can feel hard to explain to businesses looking for a way to cut costs. Copy editors are increasingly difficult to find in newsrooms, advertising agencies, and other companies that decide to leave writers to edit their own copy. But, like with many of the finer points of editing, confusables are hard to detect, and a keen, well-trained eye is needed to spot them. (Not to mention it feels pretty darn satisfying to catch one.)

Dreyer includes a list of common confusables in his book. Here are a few I have seen recently:

Affect/effect

This is one of the more common pairs of confusables. There are some subtler differences between the 2 words, but most of the time the RAVEN rule (Remember, Affect is a Verb, and Effect is a Noun) will get you by.

Casual/causal

In medical and scientific editing, we frequently discuss the use of causal language in studies (ie, the inference that there is a relationship between variables).  Casual language might be used to describe a relationship with friends. A misuse of either of these words might be easy to read over because they are very close in spelling, but they are very different in meaning.

Discreet/discrete

To be discreet means to be prudent, while discrete means separate or distinct. I used to have a hard time differentiating these 2 words until a fellow editor shared her mnemonic device that the t between the e’s of discrete keeps them separate from each other.

Intermediate/intermittent

These confusables, though different in definition, have some crossover in usage. Intermediate means in the middle, while intermittent means in intervals. So, sure, a solution could be mixed using either intermediate or intermittent shaking. But how does one quantify an intermediate shake? It’s likely intermittent is meant in this situation, but if something isn’t completely clear, it’s always best to ask the author to clarify.

Peak/peek

This pair is tricky because writers might think of the oft-combined “sneak peek” and want to use the ea spelling for both. However, peak refers to a high point, such as the peak concentration of a drug, and peek means to look. The way I keep these straight is associating the ee of peek with the ee of peer or the 2 e’s in eye.

Rational/rationale

These 2 words have similar spelling and meaning, with only one letter setting them apart. However, rational means to be reasonable while rationale is the reason behind said reasonableness.—Jamie Scott

Race and Ethnicity

Posted by

1

One of my favorite chapters in the AMA Manual of Style is about inclusive language, particularly the section about race/ethnicity (11.10.2). Race/ethnicity is a complicated topic because these categories have cultural and biological implications. In scientific research, it is important to specify race/ethnicity of study participants to understand the generalizability of the results. AMA Style instructs authors to indicate who classified the race/ethnicity of study participants (ie, the investigator or the participant).

Recently, I edited a research article with a table of participant characteristics that listed race/ethnicity as white, black/African American, Asian, and other. AMA Style notes that Asian and Asian American are not equivalent or interchangeable and that authors can be queried to clarify. All participants in this study were from the United States, so I asked the author about using Asian American instead of Asian. The author declined the edit, so Asian it stayed.

The editor in me shrugged it off. Editing is meant to serve authors and their research, and unless something is inaccurate, I have no problem reverting to the author’s original wording. After all, even the CDC website uses Asian and Asian American interchangeably.

The noneditor side of me, though—the child of immigrants who grew up in the United States and spent childhood summers in Hong Kong and Taiwan—was frustrated. I have been told I’m either not Asian enough or not American enough, and I try to explain that I’m both. I’m Asian American.

(As a sidebar, I also want to point out that black/African American presents its own problems. Many researchers do include non-Hispanic black, but where does that leave Afro-Latinx? This could be a whole other blog post.)

Of course, I understand that it may be exhausting to list out all the racial/ethnic groups in a table, especially considering page limits. I do appreciate when authors list more specific racial/ethnic groups, even if for many of them, n = 0. Any type of representation is a big step. However, I’ve also seen manuscripts in which the only race designations are white and nonwhite. The AMA Manual of Style notes that we should avoid using “non-” (eg, white and nonwhite participants) because it is a nonspecific “convenience” grouping. Instead, editors can query the author about using a specific race/ethnicity or using multiracial or people of color to address the heterogeneous ethnic background of many people. As an editor, a human, or even a potential study participant, I would self-report my race/ethnicity as Asian American or a person of color but never as nonwhite.—Iris Y. Lo

Offensive Words and Apologetic Quotation Marks: Sorry Not Sorry

Posted by

1

News organizations everywhere had an important editorial decision to make in early January 2018 when President Trump categorized certain countries in a defamatory manner during a closed-door discussion about immigration in the Oval Office with Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsay Graham, among others.

  • “Trump decries immigrants from ‘shithole countries’ coming to US” (CNN headline)
  • “Trump derides protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries” (Washington Post headline)
  • “‘Fox & Friends’ host called for Trump to clarify ‘s—hole’ comment shortly before denial” (The Hill headline)

In scientific reporting, as in politics and life, things sometimes get ugly, and when they do, we turn to apologetic quotation marks. In the examples above, the term shithole is a part of the story; without using the offensive term, the story’s meaning is lost. It’s interesting that these 3 examples apply the apologetic quotation marks in 3 different ways. The first example includes “countries” within the quotation marks, which is not necessary. The Washington Post example gets it right. And the example from The Hill is not fooling anyone. If you’re going to include it, include it. Crossing out a few letters in the offensive term is the literary equivalent to putting black bars over a patient’s eyes to make the patient “unidentifiable.” (←ironic use of apologetic quotation marks.) 

This is not a picture of my cat:

This is not an offensive word:

S—HOLE

You get the point.

The revised edition of the AMA Manual of Style will provide expanded guidance in the “Apologetic Quotation Marks” section of the Punctuation chapter, which currently only states that apologetic quotation marks are “sometimes used around words for special effect or to indicate irony.” Additional guidance will note that in some instances, the use of a potentially offensive term might be unavoidable if it is a direct quotation that is important to an article (eg, in a news story). In such cases, the offensive term may be published within quotation marks. The New York Times occasionally opens up its policy on including offensive terms in print. Ultimately, whether or not to include offensive language in an article is an editorial decision that comes down to how the term relates to the meaning of a story.—Lauren Fischer

   



Disability and Language

Posted by

1

I recently found myself in the middle of an intense inter-community debate regarding whether the term “disabled people” or “people with disabilities” should be used when speaking of people who have disabilities. I personally prefer to describe myself as a person with a disability (hard-of-hearing, to be exact), but there are many people within the disability community who object to the term and would describe themselves as disabled people. As that article highlights:

The description “disabled people” is preferred by people who follow the social model of disability, which prefers the term “impairment” to describe our conditions and argues that “disability” is caused by barriers put in place by society to prevent people with impairments accessing society “normally.’”

This is certainly true, but the barriers society has put in place regarding disability are often not fully realized by most people. I’ve lost count of how many times someone claims they “don’t need a microphone,” ignoring hard-of-hearing folks who won’t be able to hear without a microphone no matter how loudly the speaker projects. Unfortunately, society as a whole still views disability as a negative thing. The AMA Manual of Style combats such negativity by emphasizing “people-first” language. The style guide’s section on inclusive language advises writers to “avoid labeling (and thus equating) people with their disabilities or diseases (eg, the blind, schizophrenics, epileptics). Instead, put the person first.” In describing myself as a person with a disability, rather than a disabled person, I avoid defining myself solely by my hearing loss (not to mention the negative connotations that society has given the term “disabled”).  The same must be done when discussing patients or study participants. Avoid using phrases such as “confined to a wheelchair,” which implies that the person is somehow limited or by their wheelchair use. Instead, “uses a wheelchair” is preferable.

It is similarly important to avoid words or phrases that imply helplessness on the part of people who have experienced illness or trauma. For this reason, the style guide advises against using the term “victim”: instead of “victim of trauma” or “stroke victim,” use “survivor of trauma” or “person who has had a stroke.”

Use of people-first language and avoidance of emotion-laden terms such as “suffering” and “victim” offer patients autonomy and dignity even as they’re being written about anonymously in a journal publication that thousands of people read every day.—Suzanne Walker

 

 

 

Death Sentences

Posted by

1

Could it really be 15 years since we waited in this funeral home parking lot for a wake to begin? It seems only last week that we were here for her mother. Both women are now gone from our lives, too soon. We steel ourselves for a few moments more but exit the car when her grandmother arrives. I take the small woman’s frail arm, opposite the one holding a cane, and walk my mother-in-law into the building.

The funeral parlor hasn’t changed much. In place of easels with poster boards full of family photographs, a large-screen monitor at the back of the room runs a PowerPoint file chronicling my niece’s life. Friends and family watch and smile as they recognize themselves in photographs from happier days.

Funeral parlor conversations haven’t changed much either. She “passed away,” “is in a better place,” and “is at peace.” Most conversations are in those soft tones reserved for such occasions. Quiet laughter, though, is heard every so often as stories about fun times are retold.

Wikipedia includes a table of more than 131 expressions related to death categorized as slang, polite, formal, humorous, and so forth. In my work as a medical copy editor, we encounter expressions for death in many forms.

Large clinical trials may include a Kaplan-Meier graph illustrating mortality, with each treatment group represented by a curve that shows the percentage or proportion of patients still alive as follow-up progressed. The number of patients at risk at regular time intervals is provided in a table; the values dwindle as they advance in pace with the downward trajectory of their group’s curve. Text descriptions may list the different causes of death with a simple “(n = X)” after each one. “Seventy-two patients with visual impairment died during follow-up: myocardial infarction (n = 27), respiratory disease (n = 18), and renal disease (n = 12) were the causes most often listed for patients with this information.”

Case reports provide narratives of a single patient from presentation to the end of follow-up or death. In these manuscripts, I’m more likely to encounter euphemisms (taken from the Greek eu, “good,” and pheme, “voice”). The AMA Manual of Style describes euphemisms as “indirect terms used to express something unpleasant,” and states that “directness is better in scientific writing.” Part of my job, then, is to replace the euphemisms: patients died rather than succumbed or passed away.

Even reports of animal studies are not immune to the appearance of euphemisms. Such studies typically require the animal’s death to allow for dissection and subsequent measurement of bone, tissue, or ligament to assess outcomes. However, even in these manuscripts, I often replace sacrificed or euthanized with killed or humanely killed.

The Manual’s chapter on correct and preferred usage further states that “persons die of, not from, specific diseases or disorders.” An example of this usage could be the written as: “She died of complications of renal failure.”

Scientific reports may seem clinical and removed; patients may be grouped and their mortality is frequently categorized. Nevertheless, individual lives underlie advances in medical science. Although euphemisms seem called for when discussing the deaths of people we love, direct language, such as that used in our work, is no less respectful.—Connie Manno, ELS

 

The Proliferation of Wellness

Posted by

0

My interest was piqued by this post on Language Log exploring the ubiquity of the word wellness. It’s a trend I might never have noticed, but now that it’s been brought to my attention I have to admit that wellness is everywhere.

For many, wellness connotes a certain touchy-feeliness that health doesn’t, in particular the integration of mental, emotional, and even social well-being into the concept of health. In this sense it’s very much a word for our times, as science explores the physiological effects of practices like meditation and mental health is discussed more openly. A New York Times article from 2010 referenced in the blog post gives some of the background on the burgeoning popularity of wellness over the years. The author notes that the word has become more popular as society expands its notion of what it means to be healthy. The article traces the origins of this mindset back to the mid twentieth century, quoting from the preamble to the World Health Organization’s 1948 constitution: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” On the flip side, to some wellness has a whiff of the unscientific; one of the commenters on the blog post recalls seeing the word used extensively in sales pitches for alternative medicine.

What makes wellness such a hot property? As Mark Liberman of Language Log points out, wellness has a ring of positivity to it that health doesn’t: “My impression is that ‘health’ has become too much about negatively associated things like doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and giant pharmaceutical firms—and it was never rigorously positive enough anyhow, since you can have good health or bad health. There’s no such thing as bad wellness.”—Heather Green

 

 

Medical Literature and “Forbidden Words”

Posted by

0

On December 15, 2017, reports emerged that staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were presented with a list of 7 forbidden words or phrases (ie, diversity, transgender, vulnerable, fetus, entitlement, evidence-based, and science-based) when writing budget appropriation requests. Since then, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services clarified the situation, saying that these words should be avoided but were not necessarily prohibited. Regardless, physicians, researchers, marginalized people and their allies, and others have spoken out against this. What is the importance of these words in a medical research context, and what does the AMA Manual of Style say about usage?

Diversity

Including men and women of different races/ethnicities is imperative to research, particularly for understanding drug outcomes. For example, male and female bodies metabolize drugs at different rates. Because women wake faster from sedation with anesthetics, they recover at a slower rate and report more pain events than men. Not including both male and female participants in a study could lead to incomplete results. Race and ethnicity are also important to incorporate in medical research because specific diseases or disorders may be more pertinent in certain groups, such as chronic hepatitis B in Asians and Pacific Islanders or Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

Transgender

Transgender refers to people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender health care is unique and differs from cisgender health care. Besides gender reassignment surgery, transgender patients may also require special care concerning mental health or substance dependence.

Vulnerable

Clinically vulnerable populations may include persons with Medicaid, no health insurance, low educational attainment, limited English proficiency, and members of racial/ethnic minority groups.

Fetus

A fetus is the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined. Per AMA style, neonates or newborns are persons from birth to 1 month of age, and infants are children aged 1 month to 1 year. There is a clear difference between a fetus and a newborn or infant. Fetus is a medical term and is not open to political or social interpretation.

Entitlement

Government programs that give assistance to anyone who qualifies are called entitlements. For example, Medicaid, the Children’s Medical Security Plan, and the Vaccines for Children Program are entitlement programs. These types of programs are important for those who may not have easy access to health care.

Evidence-based and science-based

According to some reports, these phrases should be replaced with “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” Evidence-based medicine applies the best evidence from rigorous studies (eg, randomized clinical trials) to clinical decision making, and hopefully, to policies. Without evidence-based medicine, clinicians may not be using the best knowledge base when treating patients.

Even if these words are actually banned from use in CDC budget requests, it is important to note that medical journals with true editorial freedom would theoretically never fall into a similar situation. Editors and publishers/owners must guard against the influence of external commercial and political interests (as well as personal self-interest) on editorial decisions. Editors of such journals should not comply with external pressure from any party that may compromise their autonomy or of their journal’s integrity. The AMA Manual of Style notes these examples, among many others, of inappropriate pressure:

  • Pressure from an owner or a politically powerful or motivated individual or group on the editor to avoid publishing certain types of articles or to publish a specific article
  • Compliance with governmental or other external policy to not consider manuscripts from authors based on their nationality, ethnicity, race, political beliefs, or religion

Read more about editorial freedom and integrity of medical journals in AMA 5.10.—Iris Lo