How to use this Page

Where did the weekend go, seriously? *scratches head*

Mine was busy with fun things, a little bit of work and hanging with BFF while we went to Macy's and got our nails done. It was kind of an we're (including R)-all-waiting-for-Monday couple of days. R was actually the one who convinced me to replace my ridic sneakers. So, Kate and I went to Macy's and petted shoes we couldn't afford if we combined our bank accounts. But we did find some killer heels and sneakers for K and two preeettty pairs of walking/exercising shoes for me. Kate and I decided we're going to start walking around our park soon (under the strict ruling that I'm somehow supposed to protect her from ALL nature.) and I sooo needed shoes. Pink and gray and pink and white Pumas. I heart them!

We hopped the train back home and later got our nails done. Now, this is soo picture worthy. I got mine done in honor of ALICE IN WONDERLAND in a shade called "Mad as a Hatter" by OPI.

Yes, it is an explosion of sparkles. Love. Love.

Must start writing now though I'm super distracted, so "working" might mean cleaning or mindless organizing. Or rewriting my to-do list for this INSANE month. But it's insane in a good way because it's something I'm really excited about--going to Florida (hello, 75 degrees!!) and presenting at a conference. Plus, BFF's coming and we're going to have fun. :)

Happy Monday!

Mark Jackson is Professor of the History of Medicine and Director of the Centre for Medical History at the University of Exeter. His newest work, Asthma: The Biography, is a volume in our series Biographies of Disease which we will be looking at for the next few week (read previous posts in this series here).  Each volume in the series tells the story of a disease in its historical and cultural context – the varying attitudes of society to its sufferers, the growing understanding of its causes, and the changing approaches to its treatment. In the excerpt below Jackson relays the story of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

On 7 December 1889, an American inventor, Frederick Augustus Roe, obtained a patent for a device that was designed both to cure and to prevent not only the deadly strain of influenza that was sweeping across Europe from Russia, but also a wide range of other respiratory complaints, including catarrh, bronchitis, coughs and colds, croup, whooping cough, hay fever and asthma. Sold from offices in Hanover Square in London for ten shillings, the Carbolic Smoke Ball comprised a hollow ball of India rubber containing carbolic acid powder. When the ball was compressed, a cloud of particles was forced through a fine muslin or silk diaphragm to be inhaled by the consumer. Boosted by testimonials from satisfied customers and endorsements from prominent doctors, Roe was sufficiently confident that the contraption would prevent influenza that, in several advertisements placed in the Illustrated London News and the Paul Mall Gazette during the winter of 1891, he offered to pay £100 to any person who contracted influenza ‘after having used the ball 3 times daily for two weeks according to the printed descriptions supplied with each ball’. As if to demonstrate the sincerity of his offer, Roe claimed to have deposited £1,000 with the Alliance Bank in Regent Street.

In November 1891, Louisa Elizabeth Carlill, the wife of a lawyer, purchased a Carbolic Smoke Ball in London and carefully followed the instructions for use. When Mrs Carlill contracted influenza the following January, her husband wrote to Roe claiming the ‘reward’ offered in the advertisements. Suggesting that the claim was fraudulent, Roe refused to pay and provided Mr Carlill with the names of his solicitors. In the resulting legal case, initially heard in the court of Queen’s Bench and subsequently reviewed by Appeal Court, the dispute did not revolve primarily around whether the plaintiff had used the device correctly or indeed whether or not she had contacted influenza; these issues were accepted largely as fact. Rather, legal arguments focused on whether the advertisement constituted a valid offer, rather than ‘a mere puff’, as Lord Justice Bowen neatly put it, and whether Mrs Carlill’s use of the smoke ball constituted acceptance of that offer. By deciding unanimously in Mrs Carlill’s favour, the English courts set a precedent regarding unilateral contracts that continued to inform the legal doctrines of offer and acceptance, consideration, misrepresentation, and wagering throughout the twentieth century.

While Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company became a celebrated moment in legal history, it al

Brenda Gregoline, ELS, manages the copyediting team for 5 of the Archives Journals, and is a member of the committee that writes and updates the AMA Manual of Style. She is a member of the Council of Science Editors and has worked in scientific publishing for nearly 15 years. In this 3-part series, she reports on the most frequent mistakes authors make when submitting manuscripts to JAMA and the Archives Journals, and lets us in on what drives copy editors crazy. Read part one here and part two here.

It’s impossible to expect authors to absorb all the information in the thousand-page AMA Manual of Style–they’re just trying to get published, and it’s our job to help them. Here, in classic top-10-list reverse order, are the top 10 editorial problems we see in our submitted and accepted manuscripts, compiled by committee and editorialized upon by me. In Part I we discussed filling out author forms, omitting “behind the scenes” stuff, and generally making life difficult for the copy editor. In Part II we discussed common punctuation and style mistakes, errors of grandiosity, and wacky references. Today we discuss the final 4 in our top-10 list of most frequent mistakes.

4. Duplicate submission. In scientific publication, it is not acceptable to submit a report of original research to multiple journals at the same time. Journal editors are likely to be more disturbed by this if it looks deliberate rather than like a simple mistake (not realizing that a foreign-language journal “counts,” for example) or if the case is debatable (a small section of results was published in another paper, but the new paper adds tons of new material). Remember those forms from the 10th most common mistake? One of them asks about previous submission or publication. We need authors to be up-front about any other articles in the pipeline, even if (especially if) they’re not sure if they might constitute duplicate publication.

3. Failing to protect patient identity. Yup, there’s a form for this too! Any time a patient is identifiable, in a photograph or even in text (as in a case report), authors must have the patient’s consent. (Contrary to popular belief, the gossip-mag-style “black bars” over the eyes are not sufficient to conceal identity.) Usually we hear complaints about this, because studies are written long after patients are treated and it can be hard to track people down, but them’s the breaks. If it’s really impossible to obtain after-the-fact patient consent, editors will work with authors to crop photos, take out case-report details, or whatever it takes to “de-identify” patients.

2. Not matching up all the data “bits.” In the abstract, 76 patients were randomized to receive the intervention, but it’s 77 in Table 1. There was a 44.5% reduction in symptoms in the medicated group in the text, but later it’s 44.7%. Sometimes this is because the abstract is written first from the overall results, while the data in a table are more precisely calculated by a statistician; or maybe the number of patients changed along the way and no one went back to revise the earlier data. Either way, it drives copy editors crazy.

1. Not reading a journal’s Instructions for Authors. These days almost all scientific journals have online submission, and almost always there is a link to something called “Information for Authors,” “Guidelines for Manuscript Submission,” or something similar. Judging by the kinds of questions editorial offices receive almost daily, authors rarely read these—but the publication process would often go so much more smoothly if they would.

We are proud of our style manual here at JAMA/Archives, although we realize it isn’t the last word in scientific style and format. There can never really be a “last word” because some editor will always want to have it! Anyway, without authors there wouldn’t be anything to edit, so we would never hold any “mistakes” against them. No matter how grievous a manuscript’s misstep, an editor will be there to correct it, because it’s our job. (But mostly because we can’t stop ourselves.)

Brenda Gregoline, ELS, manages the copyediting team for 5 of the Archives Journals, and is a member of the committee that writes and updates the AMA Manual of Style. She is a member of the Council of Science Editors and has worked in scientific publishing for nearly 15 years. In this 3-part series, she reports on the most frequent mistakes authors make when submitting manuscripts to JAMA and the Archives Journals, and lets us in on what drives copy editors crazy.

It’s impossible to expect authors to absorb all the information in the thousand-page AMA Manual of Style–they’re just trying to get published, and it’s our job to help them. Here, in classic top-10-list reverse order, are the top 10 editorial problems we see in our submitted and accepted manuscripts, compiled by committee and editorialized upon by me. In Part I we discussed filling out author forms, omitting “behind the scenes” stuff, and generally making life difficult for the copy editor. Today we discuss the next 3 in our top-10 list of most frequent mistakes.

7. Common punctuation and style mistakes (not an exhaustive list). Most frequently we see authors fail to expand abbreviations; use different abbreviations for the same term throughout a manuscript; use commas like seasoning instead of like punctuation marks with actual rules of deployment; and overuse the em dash. However, I’d like to tell any authors reading this not to fret, because that’s the kind of stuff we’re paid to fix. Plus I can’t really throw stones—being a fan of the em dash myself.

6. Errors of grandiosity. Sometimes a perfectly nice and valid study will go hog-wild in the conclusion, claiming to be changing the future of scientific inquiry or heralding a sea-change in the treatment of patients everywhere. Or authors will selectively interpret results, focusing on the positive and ignoring the negative or neutral. It’s natural to want to write an elegant conclusion—it’s one of the few places in a scientific manuscript where one can really let loose with the prose—but it’s always better to err on the side of caution.

5. Wacky references. All journals have a reference citation policy, and across scientific journals it is fairly standard to give reference numbers at the point of citation, cite references in numerical order in the text (as opposed to only in tables or figures), and retain a unique number for each reference no matter how many times it’s cited. However, we still get papers with references handled in all kinds of odd ways (alphabetical, chronological, or seemingly inspired by the full moon). References that include URLs can mean big problems. Often the URL doesn’t work or the site is password-protected, subscription-only, or otherwise useless to the reader. Also aggravating: references that are just the result of the search string for the article and not the URL for the article itself.

Authors and aspiring authors: stay tuned for the final 4!

I thought it would be nice to highlight the best of our “advice” giving posts from the past year. Below is a sampling of posts that may help you reach your resolutions. Good luck!

Having a case of the Mondays? These tips from authors Gillian Butler, Ph. D., and Tony Hope, M.D., should help you get down to work. (more…)

Share This

This morning we presented a post from R. Barker Bausell, author of Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine , in which he argues that the placebo effect has as much healing power as alternative medicine. Below, in an excerpt from Bausell’s book, we learn about the history of the use of placebos in scientific research.

…The placebo effect itself escaped serious scientific scrutiny until 1955, having largely been considered prior to that time to be more a part of medical lore (or physician mystique) than a documented clinical entity. (more…)

Share This

The debate regarding the healing potential of alternative and complementary medicine can be a heated one. In his book, Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine Barker Bausell, professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, dissects alternative medicine practices, and finds that much of their healing powers lie in the placebo effect. In the post below, he takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the battle between alternative medicine and the placebo effect.

One of the many daunting tasks I faced in writing Snake Oil Science: the Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine was to compare the biological plausibility of the theories supporting the analgesic effects of alternative medical therapies with that of their chief rival, the placebo effect. (more…)

Share This

The Complete Writing Guide to NIH Behavioral Science Grants provides simple and clear explanations into the reasons that some grants get funded, and a step-by-step guide to writing those grants. This volume is edited by Lawrence M. Scheier, President of LARS Research Institute, Inc., and an Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine at Washington Univeristy, and William L. Dewey, a Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the School of Medicine and former Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. In the excerpt below some grant writing essentials are explained.

There are a few tried and true methods that will help you learn scholarship along the way. People working at think tanks or nonprofit groups can hire outside consultants with extensive grant-writing expertise, using this as an avenue to model writing skills. Individuals residing at academic centers can seek consultation from faculty with well-funded laboratories regardless of their substantive focus (good writing is good writing whether in chemistry or in anthropology). (more…)

Share This

Autism confounds researchers but one way of understanding it is to look through the lens of stress and coping. That is exactly what editors M. Grace Baron, June Groden, Gerald Groden and Lewis P. Lipsitt do in their book Stress and Coping in Autism. Contributions by researchers, clinicians, teachers, and persons living with autism illustrate how it is possible to reduce the impact of stress in autism by understanding both the science and the experience of it. Below we excerpt part of the introduction. To learn more be sure to visit our morning post, Helping Children With Autism Learn.

The construct of stress has expanded our understanding of both typical and atypical human development in a revolutionary way. Research into a number of disorders that are often comorbid with a diagnosis of autism, such as anxiety, shyness, phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and thought disorder, already include a systematic theoretical and applied analysis of the contribution of stress to the disorder. Autism, in its own right, might also benefit from such a focus for a number of reasons.

Anxiety, an indicator that someone is experiencing stress, was associated with autism as early as Kanner’s (1943) first description of the syndrome. A few early clinical and research reports (e.g., Marks, 1987; Matson & Love, 1990) examined the correlation between fear and anxiety and autism. In 1994, Groden, Cautela, Prince, and Berryman presented the first systematic framework for using the concepts of stress and anxiety to describe and treat autism and proposed that those with autism may, in fact, have a special vulnerability to stress. We now have a better understanding that the clinical problems often associated with stress, such as anxiety, are more prevalent among people with pervasive developmental disabilities than in the general population.

Autism has long been seen as a problem of faulty or different arousal responses to environmental intrusions (Dawson & Levy, 1989). This has given rise to continued speculation about the role of such patterns of arousal as diagnostic markers or even indicators or subtypes of autism. As early as 1979, Piggott’s review of selected basic research in autism suggested that, “Children called autistic probably represent a complex of clinically similar manifestations in a variety of difference physiological disturbance[s]. Objective markers are needed as to allow the demarcation of subgroups of autistic children for further study” (p. 199). More recently, Tordjman, Spitz, Corinne, Carlier, and Roubertoux (1998) offered a stress-based model of autism, integrating biological and behavioral profiles of individuals wish ASD. They propose that stress and anxiety may be core problems of autism and that an analysis of differential responses to stress can lead to the identification of different subtypes. Similarly, Porges’s The Listening Project (2002) documents hyperarousal and vagal disruptions in children with autism and offers a biologically based behavioral intervention designed to stimulate the social behavior of children with autism.

Some of the known biological or behavioral effects of stress (see McEwen, 2002; Sapolsku, 1998) can be seen in persons with autism. For example, there is recent evidence (Krause, He, Gershwin, & Shoenfeld, 2002) of suppressed immune system function in some persons with autism. Under- or oversentivity to pain is a hallmark behavioral symptom for many with autism, and turbulent sensory and perceptual experiences are documented regularly in first-hand reports (e.g., Jones, Quigney, & Huws, 2003). Fur

Trying out a nib I found, and this came out...

My Blog