I've just read a paper that used 31 acronyms 162 times. Although each acronym was defined on first use it was impossible for me to remember the meaning of each and at the same time follow the gist of the text. Suggest a maximum of 5 per article?
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
6
4
59
Replies
@ajlees
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Could not agree more! Maximally five yes. And only intuitive ones
2
0
0
@basbloem
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Practical Neurology as you know forbids them which is why people actually carefully read the papers.
I would go as far as to say their use is both discourteous and elitist
0
0
2
@ajlees
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
I suggest none. If the acronym is a key term (which it often is) why take away from its branding/explanatory power by reducing it to a rubble of meaningless letters?
1
0
2
@ajlees
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Beyond the poor reader, one must also feel sorry for the author who genuinely doesn't want to make their writing both technical and beautiful.
1
0
2
@PhilAlz
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
The problem in most of these offerings is there is no author not even a ghost one just a batallion of investigators
1
0
1
@ajlees
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Avoid acronyms as much as possible. They're ugly and they don't contribute to understanding a text!
1
1
2
@JRBneuropsiq
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Its not just acronyms its the whole shebang of abbreviations and jargon
0
0
2
@ajlees
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
Many papers are starting to run a glossary of acronyms at the end.
1
0
0
@dawso007
@Brain1878
@TheLancetNeuro
That doesnt help for me a glossary is as bad as footnotes, you lose the flow. Get rid of them and think up some memorable names for new syndromes not pseudoscientific esoteric jargon
0
0
1
