Humans have a tendency to place words in written works that do not belong. It is as if while writing we are carrying on a conversation with another person in the same room. That may provide a degree of comfort while doing what, for a large segment of the scientific community, is a daunting task in the writing of a manuscript, it tends to deposit on the page words that are not needed. The job of the scientist is to be precise in the execution of the experiment and in the reporting of the results. In a previous editorial I described the process I find useful when constructing a manuscript. I am not going to repeat that in this instance. What is going to be covered is the use, or perhaps the misuse, of certain words. These are found at the beginning, or embedded, in the sentence. They are normally use for emphasis, or to strengthen a point. In other instances they are just fill space. Some of the words are, in no particular order, “the”, “thus”, “therefore”, “however”, “very”, “on the other hand”, “it should be noted that”, “it is interesting that”, and “recently” or “in the last few years or decade”, that to a greater, or lesser, degree are like fingernails on a chalkboard and will cause me to delete them during the review process. In most instances they are simply not needed, thereby contributing to lesser precision. Use of “the” indicates that something is going to be immediately named. There is probably no need to use “the” as in “…application of the fertilizer…” could just as easily be written as “…application of fertilizer…”. “Therefore” is an emphasis word that generally is placed where emphasis is not needed. It is as if the readers are being directed to a conclusion that they would not arrive at by themselves. If that is the case chances are the revelation is probably not that important. The word “thus”, as in “Thus it was determined that…”, is not needed in the sentence which could start with “It…”. There are legitimate uses of “however”, but its use at the start of a sentence is not always necessary when it is just as easy to start the sentence with the words that would follow “however”. The word “very” is subjective. What is “very” important, or “very” high to one person, may not be so to another. The example, “on the other hand” is a usage that I can not delete quickly enough in all instances where used. This is a construction that does not make a lot of sense even when used in the spoken word. It probably alludes to the balancing of an option in one hand against that in the other hand. That allusion is better suited to a visual presentation not a written one. Occasionally an author will indicate that “It should be noted that…” to which I am mentally asking “Why?”. An alternative, but similar, construction is “It is interesting that…” to which I am mentally asking “To whom?”. These are opinions and not science. State what occurred not what you hope it says, your audience will be the judge of whether it is important or interesting. There are terms that limit the importance of following statements just because they are used. Among those are “recently” and “In the last few years it…” or “… decade it…”. These terms define a time period. “Recently” is subjective. If the manuscript is being read in the year of publication the term could have some temporal importance but your work will live for all eternity, it will won’t it? “Recently” in the current year is meaningless 10 years into the future. The same is true for the “last few years” or “decade” prior to the current year. Time continues forward. It is possible that with the options for data storage and retrieval work published in this year will be available, and more important, relevant in the future. My absolutely worst favorite construction is use of “Nowadays”, which is not even to be found in my dictionary. I assume it is suppose to mean that “at this time in history”. Like the similar statements above history is not frozen in time. By the time the manuscript is published the information is at least a year old. Be precise in your writing. You are not so much having a conversation as describing an event which has temporal and spatial definition and in which the insertion of extraneous words could tend to devalue the message.
Reviewers of submitted manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I want to extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meet the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: A. Basrir, S. Bhagat, S. Bojnec, A. Dansi, I. Fuelop, R. Hiyama, S.A. Hussain, A. Kaluzewicz, G. Kakkar, H-Y. Lai, Z. Lei, S.M. Laurie, G.A. Martinez, D. Nyadanu, M.F. Qayyum, R.G. Sideman, and S.S. Veena.