Editor's Note

Have Scientific Journals Gotten Too Scientific?

Most agree that the best way to keep up with advances in medicine today is to read the journal literature. Butchild and adolescent psychiatrists write that it has become more and more difficult to understand. Has thescientific literature gotten too scientific?

Yes, the technical language of medicine has changed. Tables and statistics are used more often than casehistories. But tables are simply a numerical way of summarizing group data, just as case histories summarizeindividual data. And statistical tests are simply a way of analyzing that data for the probability that they arecorrect. Computation is not the goal; understanding is. The purpose of an article is to layout the facts in anorderly manner so they can be understood and judged by the reader. The language of science may have changed,but the basic format of an article serves the same purpose today as it did 200years ago when scientific journalsbegan.

That format is simple. A good journal article has four parts-Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion.Consider a case report published in 1770 describing Mozart as a child prodigy (Barrington, D. Account of aVery Remarkable Young Musician: Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society, volume 60, 1770).

First, the Introduction, where the author presents the purpose of the article and summarizes what is knownabout the subject. Barrington began: "If I was to send you a well-attested account of a boy who measured sevenfeet in height when he was not more than eight years of age, it might be considered as not undeserving thenotice of the Royal Society. The instance . . . of most extraordinary musical talents seems perhaps equally toclaim their attention." He then reviewed the state of knowledge about other child prodigies with a specific focuson Handel, who played the clavichord when he was 7 and composed church services at 9. The stage was set.

Next, the Method describes the precise way the study was carried out so that anyone who wants to repeat itcan do so. Barrington described the experimental test performed on the 8-year-old Mozart in 1765: "I carriedto him a manuscript duet which was composed by an English gentleman . .. it being absolutely impossible thathe could have ever seen the music before." The method was clear. Mozart would now playa piece that was notfamiliar to him.

Third, the author presents the Results of the study as clearly and simply as possible. In this illustration, theyconsisted of Barrington's eye-witness observations of Mozart's performance: "The score was no sooner put onhis desk than he began to play the symphony in the most masterly manner, as well as in the time and stylewhich corresponded with the intention of the composer." Incidentally, the author made his own developmentalobservations to confirm Mozart's chronological age: "While he was playing to me, a favorite cat came in, uponwhich he immediately left his harpsichord, nor could we bring him back for a considerable time." The findingswere clearly presented, and the critical variable of Mozart's age validated.

The fourth part of a scientific article is the Discussion. Its purpose is to clarify the meaning of the findingsand consider their implications, the extent to which they can be generalized to others. Barrington comparedMozart to Handel: "The scale most clearly preponderates on the side of Mozart in this comparison, as I havealready stated that he was a composer when he did not much exceed the age of four. His extemporarycompositions also, of which I was a witness, prove his genius and invention to have been most astonishing." .

As you can see, the basic format of a good journal article was essentially the same in Mozart's day as it istoday. It evolved for good reason-to help make scientific writing readable and understandable. Sounds good .The trouble is, we don't always follow it. As Mark Twain said about another great composer, "Wagner's musicis better than it sounds."

J. McD.

534