[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.226.244.70. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
January 1986

Medical Writing and English-Reply

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112(1):112. doi:10.1001/archotol.1986.03780010114026

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

Editorial Reply.—Dr Goodman's comments are well taken. Standardization of scientific nomenclature is essential if we are to speak and write with clarity and precision. Literary style and flair, of course, are different matters, and this introduces some latitude for authors. The variability that Dr Goodman finds distracting may be viewed as a welcome relief from repetition by other readers. Synonyms are more than defensible; they add lustre to our manuscripts and lift our efforts above the monotony and sterility of technical reporting in the direction of medical literature. I would suggest that there is a middle ground between the extremes of either position, and that the articles that are enjoyable to read are the ones that we remember.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×