In general, how we speak translates to how we write. Unfortunately, how we speak, except for a few humans, is not through coherent sentences. We stumble around, get distracted by other thoughts, and repeat sentences, or part of sentences. If a transcript of our everyday conversations were produced, we would wonder how anybody understands what we are trying to say. Writing a manuscript, or for that matter a note on a card, can cause discomfort. As a species I do not think that we like to write. Looking back at our history speech was developed before writing. We did not understand the writing process then and probably are not much better at it now.
In doing science there is a certain joy associated with planning and executing the experiment. Then after the data is collected and analyzed there comes the necessity to actually write up why the experiment was done, how the current work relates to what has gone before, what methods were used, what the analyses have determined, and what new information has been provided to the specific discipline as a result of the work. Not only that, it is often the case that this chore has to be done, not to satisfy the person who has done the experiment, but because the people higher in the pecking order expect that is what is to be done. There is a deadline associated with the chore and the knowledge that if a certain number of manuscripts are not produced there will be consequences. In other words, the joy is sucked out of the accomplishment. All of this must be done in a format where the words must contain precision so that the reader does not question what was done. To add to the problem once the manuscript is sent out of the office, and the individual’s control, it runs into people like me who require that the words actually make sense, and that the entire construct is suitable for acceptance and publication. As a result, if enough manuscripts are accepted for publication there is the possibility of advancement in the organization. However, always lurking behind the writer is the mantra “publish or perish.” As a result, there is put in place a desire for speed in production. Unfortunately speed always, and I emphasize always, produces problems. Under pressure an idea, or a sentence construct, becomes embedded in the brain and can not seem to be dislodged or replaced by a better idea or sentence construct. I am absolutely convinced there are persons out there who put down the words once without considering there may be a better way to express the content of the manuscript. Hurry and submit leads to getting it back, at least from me, dripping in red. That leads to more anxiety and probably other mistakes in the resubmission.
To make matters worse, as a group, scientists tend to invent words, or use jargon. Those persons that have not actually invented the word sometimes grab onto it without concern for the actual meaning, the intent, or whether it is being used correctly. It does not matter the language in which the manuscript is written, the tendency is the same since the people writing are human regardless of the language used. It is the editors job to make corrections, but sometimes things get by. When that happens, the content is cheapened because the intent is clouded by misuse of the language. The organizations that sponsor research have a right to expect results. If they count pages and not content, then no one is benefitted. That does not absolve the practitioner from placing the written word to paper with the correct intent and usage. But be of good cheer, as experience is gained, and if an appropriate dictionary is used, the writing of coherent manuscripts gets easier. In the meantime, write it once, put it aside, come back to it later and correct the problems that we both know are there. The intent is always to be precision in thought and application of words to convey the intent of the work accomplished.
Reviewers of submitted manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meets the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: J. Aarrouf, R. Aranciba, D. Hall, C. Janko, H. Kitazawa, E. Koc, C. Pathak, L. Roy, and A. Tanwar.