AMA Manual Of Style Research Articles

The <i>AMA Manual of Style</i>, 11th edition: the ultimate guide to scholarly publishing in the digital age

The <i>AMA Manual of Style</i>, 11th edition: the ultimate guide to scholarly publishing in the digital age

Current Guidance on Inclusive Language for Medical and Science Journals

MODERATOR: Stacy L Christiansen JAMA SPEAKERS: Tracy Frey JAMA Network Annette Flanagin JAMA and JAMA Network Stacy L Christiansen REPORTER: Michele Springer Caudex New York, New York “Inclusive language supports diversity and conveys respect. Language that imparts bias toward or against persons or groups based on characteristics or demographics must be avoided.”1 This session focused on inclusive language updates from the AMA Manual of Style, a resource used by scientific authors, editors, and publishers worldwide. Stacy Christiansen opened the session by explaining the rationale behind updating the AMA Manual of Style so soon after the last update (February 2020): They believe it is imperative for medical and scientific journals to use consistent, equitable language when describing the race and ethnicity of patients or in articles that discuss health disparities in healthcare, research, and education (Figure). The AMA Manual of Style Committee began reassessing the guidance for reporting race and ethnicity in spring 2020. After 8 months of research, updates, and external review, the revised guidance was published as an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Assosication (JAMA) in February 2021 with an invitation for wider review and feedback. The guidance was revised following comments from numerous reviewers and those with expertise in diversity, equity, and inclusion. After another round of peer review, the updated guidance was published in JAMA in August 2021. The following key principles are included in the updated guidance: An acknowledgment that race and ethnicity are social constructs—race is a created concept, not defined […]

Steering Clear of Providers

Person-first language is a hallmark of conscientious, professional writing. Most writers and editors of scientific content (especially in medicine and related fields) are familiar with terms that empower patients or do not trivialize or label them. Instead of “asthmatics” we write “patients with asthma”; instead of “the aged” we write “elderly patients” or “older people.” The recent update to inclusive language in the AMA Manual of Style also notes this approach for racial and ethnic terms: instead of “Blacks and Whites” we write “Black and White individuals” (after clarifying the categories used in the study and if people were able to self-identify their race and ethnicity).1 Yet this approach to using terms of respect is not limited to patients or study participants: terms applied to health care workers should also be chosen with the same care. For example, the terms “orthopod” (orthopedic surgeon) and “osteopath” (osteopathic physician) are considered jargon.2 One term in particular has engendered a vigorous response: “provider.” What’s Wrong With “Provider”? At first blush, one might think there’s nothing inherently bad about the word “provider.” According to Merriam-Webster, a provider is someone who provides; in other words, supplies something or makes it available.3 Seems accurate enough, no? We’ve all seen documents that discuss our “primary care provider (PCP)” and “preferred provider organization (PPO).” In the cases of insurance documentation, billing codes, and the like, “provider” is a standard term with a very specific, sometimes even legal, definition. In the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), for […]

Ask Athena: How Do I Correctly Apply British vs. American Spelling?

Ask Athena is Science Editor’s advice column for your most challenging publishing and editing questions. Submit your questions to scienceeditor@councilscienceeditors.org Dear Athena, I have two questions, the answers for which I can’t locate in the AMA Manual of Style. Should we use the spelling Programme or Program in the following? UN Joint Global Programme on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Likewise, should we use Centres or Centers in the name Directory of Radiotherapy Centres? —Looking Across the Pond Dear Looking Across the Pond, When it comes to English-language spellings of institution names, a widely accepted rule of thumb is to follow the official spelling of that institution rather than impose house style on the spelling. The quickest and most accurate means of determining the official spelling is to consult the institution’s website. For the two institutions in question, an online search confirms that the British spellings Programme and Centres are used in the official names of these institutions—so these spellings should be applied whenever either institution is mentioned, even if your house style is to apply U.S. spelling. Similar exceptions should be made for published material, both in text and in an end reference. For example, if The Lancet article “Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia (SYMBAD): A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial”1 were to be cited in a journal that prefers U.S. spelling, the British spellings Behaviours and Randomised would need to be retained in the citation nonetheless to preserve the accuracy of content that was formally […]

Updated Guidance on Language Appropriate for Reporting Race and Ethnicity

For writers and editors of scientific publishing, usage and word choice are critically important. This is especially true when describing patients or other individuals and when discussing race and ethnicity. The language used must be clear and precise and must reflect fairness, equity, and consistency in the reporting of race and ethnicity. The AMA Manual of Style provides extensive guidance to those who write, edit, and publish in the biomedical literature, including a dedicated section on inclusive language. Even though the latest edition of the manual was just published in 2020, ongoing and recent events spurred us to revisit the guidance on reporting race and ethnicity (and we will be examining other content in the inclusive language section as well, including sex and gender, age, socioeconomic status, and persons with diseases, disorders, or disabilities). The committee responsible for writing and producing the manual began reassessment of the guidance on reporting race and ethnicity in the spring of 2020. The first decision we made was to recommend capitalization of all racial and ethnic categories (e.g., Black and White are now uppercase). This was presented a year ago in Science Editor,1 along with a preview of some of the topics we were beginning to discuss. The stylebook committee embarked on an 8-month process of research, writing, editing, external review, and revision. The initial revision was published as an editorial in JAMA in February 2021 with an invitation for wider public review and feedback. Numerous reviewers and scholars with expertise in diversity, equity, […]

Restoring Sanity Into Punctuation of References

What punctuation would you use in mentioning a company and its location (as in Microsoft, Redmond, WA) in running text? Isn’t it most common and natural to use commas? And yet, when it comes to giving the publisher and the place of publication of a book as part of a reference, many journals, including Science Editor, require you to use a colon, as in New York: Harper & Row or London: Penguin Books. The most common function of a colon is “to indicate a step forward from the first to the second—as when the second part explains the first part or provides an example”1 or, to put it more simply, to signal that what follows a colon is an elaboration, a definition, an explanation, or an example(s) of the text that precedes the colon, as in “This brings us to possibly the most significant development of 2020: The prominence of science, and scientific publishing, in the minds of the general public.” In the examples given above, Harper & Row or Penguin Books is none of these things in relation to New York or London. Another use of the colon in references that flies in the face of the recommendations made in usage guides is seen in references to chapters, as seen in the following example from the AMA Manual of Style,2,p83 in which a colon follows the preposition “in”: Boushey CJ. Application of research paradigms to nutrition practice. In: Coulston AM, Boushey CJ, Ferruzzi MG, eds. Nutrition in the Prevention […]

What Do/Does the Data Show?

You’re editing a document when you come across this sentence: “Follow-up data from a large sample was used to estimate the incidence of carcinoma.” Sounds good. Right? Wait, should it be “Follow-up data from a large sample were…” instead? Is the word data a singular or plural noun? Yes. There are generally 2 approaches when it comes to words such as data and bacteria, common terms that are of Latin origin and appear often in scientific documents. One is more of a “purist” approach, treating these words as the plural nouns they are in Latin (singular forms would be datum and bacterium). The other is a more contemporary-language approach, recognizing that modern English speakers would rarely if ever use the word datum in common parlance, and perhaps not even in formal scientific writing. So which is it? Well, reference sources themselves vary in their recommendations. The Plurals chapter (chapter 9) in the AMA Manual of Style, 11th edition, notes: “A few nouns are usually used in the plural form; however, the distinction between plural and singular should be retained where appropriate” and gives the following examples: data/datum, criteria/criterion, media/medium, and phenomena/phenomenon.1 Ok makes sense: “The data are what they are.” But wait, there is a footnote on that page: Exception: when referring to social media, news media, or the media, use a singular verb. The same applies when referring to big data as a term for extremely large, often unstructured data sets that can be mined for business or social […]

Scientific Style and Format Update: Capitalize Racial and Ethnic Group Designations

As editors and publishers, most of us understand that preparing and publishing an updated edition of a book is a multi-year undertaking. In the case of style manuals and other reference titles, 7 to 10 years is a typical interval between editions. Even in the most mundane times, an awful lot can change in the better part of a decade. And as we know all too well, the current climate can hardly be described as mundane. To date, CSE’s practice with respect to Scientific Style and Format has been not to introduce changes to its rules and recommendations between editions. When the 8th edition was published in 2014, however, an online edition was introduced. The Introduction to the 8th edition noted that “The Scientific Style and Format 8th Edition Subcommittee worked to ensure the continued integrity of the CSE style and to provide a progressively up-to-date resource for our valued users, which will be adjusted as needed on the website.” And so we find ourselves 6 years later, with a call to be—and, fortunately, a platform that allows us to be—”progressively up-to-date.” In light of recent events and in keeping with announcements and changes made in a number of other style manuals, including the Chicago Manual of Style, the AMA Manual of Style, APA Style, and the AP Stylebook, an Editor’s Note will be incorporated into the online version of Scientific Style and Format 8th Edition (SSF8) advising that editors should capitalize designations based on color or local usage, including […]

The Case for Journal Style Guides

Style guides. I’ve spent the better part of my 28-year career conceiving, constructing, and curating them—and although I’ve formed some strong opinions about what makes a good guide, the more I work with them, the more I realize there isn’t one, perfect formula. The one thing I do know, though, is that an in-house style guide is an indispensable element of any journal that aspires to achieve consistent, coherent presentation while publishing high-quality content. Let me be clear: I’m not necessarily advocating for an in-house guide alone. Indeed, most journals subscribe to at least one of the major style manuals. Whether it be ACS (The ACS Style Guide), AMA (AMA Manual of Style), Chicago (The Chicago Manual of Style), CSE (Scientific Style and Format), or any combination of these and/or other references, it’s wise to defer to a higher order; doing so establishes a firm, widely known standard that manuscript editors are more likely to know and that authors are more likely to accept when their precious prose has been undone. Furthermore, because these manuals are cited so prevalently within the scientific journal community, to endorse them is to demonstrate that your organization is an invested member of that community. All of this being the case, you may very well ask: Why, then, do I need an in-house style guide? Making the Case Questioning the necessity of an in-house guide is understandable given the considerable breadth of the aforementioned manuals. Regardless of how strictly a general manual is followed, however, […]

What's New in the 11th Edition of the AMA Manual of Style

What's New in the 11th Edition of the <i>AMA Manual of Style</i>

AMA Manual of Style

AMA Manual of Style

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

Quoting A.T. Still with rigor: an historical and academic review.

The statements of Andrew Taylor Still, MD, DO, abound within the osteopathic literature. However, Still is sometimes misquoted, and corresponding references to his quotations are occasionally incomplete or inaccurate. There are several reasons why these errors continue to occur, including confusion surrounding the copyright dates and multiple editions of his books. In addition, less reliable, secondary sources of Still's words are often used instead of primary sources. To help resolve these problems, the author proposes 3 solutions. A list of Still's known published books, including the correct copyright date of The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Osteopathy, is provided. The disadvantages associated with using the 2 most popular secondary sources of Still's work are described. Guidelines from the 10th edition of the AMA Manual of Style are reviewed to assist authors, educators, and students in accurately citing material from older sources, such as Still's writings.

Reviewers List

Archives of Facial Plastic SurgeryVol. 13, No. 3 Free AccessReviewers ListWayne F. LarrabeeJrWayne F. LarrabeeJrSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 May 2011AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Thank You to Our ReviewersThe peer review process is one of less frequently discussed but essential foundations of modern scientific publishing. As stated in The AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors, written by Cheryl Iverson and other JAMA and Archives Journals staff, “The essence of peer review consists of asking experts: ‘How important and how good is this paper, and how can it be improved?’ This use of expert consultants to advise editors about the selection and improvement of papers has become a standard quality-assessment measure in biomedical publication. It is remarkable that the peer review process depends largely on the efforts of peer reviewers who donate their time—sometimes large amounts of it.”ref-qrl15000-1(p304) Information is expanding rapidly on the Internet and elsewhere. The peer review process provides an excellent, if sometimes imperfect, method to select the best science and assure our readers that knowledgeable reviewers have considered the manuscript thoughtfully. Most of the manuscripts published in the Archives journals have undergone revision based on 1 or more reviewer’s suggestions. They become better manuscripts because the authors are willing to undergo the peer review process. We would hope that even rejected manuscripts benefit by conscientious peer review, which can help the authors improve their manuscripts for future submissions. On behalf of the editorial board and all of our readers, we would like to thank the individuals who participated in this peer review process during 2010.Peter A. AdamsonBryan AmbroRichard L. AndersonShelia AndersonFazil ApaydinBabak AzizzadehShan R. BakerLucy J. BarrAlexander BerghausAmit BhranyKeith E. BlackwellJason David BloomKofi Derek O. BoahenePatrick J. ByrnePaul J. CarniolMinas ConstantinidesSteven H. DayanJaimie DeRosaYadranko DucicDavid EllisEdward EllisDonald Gregory FarwellFred G. FedokAndrew S. FrankelOren FriedmanJaime R. GarzaHolger Guenther GassnerGrant S. GillmanMark J. GlasgoldRobert Alan GoldbergTessa A. HadlockJason S. HamiltonPeter HilgerMarcelo HochmanJ. David HolcombRich HoltCarlo P. HonradoGeorge J. HruzaKoen IngelsPerry J. JohnsonNick S. JonesGregory S. KellerRobert M. KellmanDouglas J. KibblewhiteMimi S. KokoskaTheda C. KontisJ. David KrietKeith A. LaFerriereSamuel M. LamWilliam LawsonSamson LeeRobin LindsaySusan E. MackinnonBenjamin C. MarcusLawrence J. MarentetteKris S. MoeEric Jason MooreSam P. MostJeffrey S. MoyerCraig S. MurakamiFarhad B. NainiPietro PalmaIra D. PapelStephen S. ParkJosé A. PatrocinioLucas G. PatrocinioJonathan A. PerkinsHarrison C. PutmanDavid ReiterGerhard RettingerJohn S. RheeJames RidgwayRussell RiesThomas Romo IIIScott B. RoofeHesham SalehSherris Allan SherrisJames D. SidmanKathy SieBryan S. SiresLee E. SmithBenjamin Collin StongAbel-Jan TasmanSherard A. TatumJ. Regan ThomasTravis T. TollefsonDean M. ToriumiWilliam H. TruswellTom D. WangMark K. WaxIvan WayneWilliam WerschlerEdwin F. WilliamsCatherine P. WinslowFrederick T. C. WongJoseph K. WongRitchie YoungerJohn A. ZitelliChristopher Isaac ZoumalanRichard Abraham ZoumalanREFERENCEIverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al.. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors.. 10th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007:304 Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 13Issue 3May 2011 InformationCopyright 2011 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.To cite this article:Wayne F. LarrabeeJr.Reviewers List.Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery.May 2011.142-142.http://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2011.17Published in Volume: 13 Issue 3: May 2, 2011PDF download

Giving Credit: Citations and References

You are nearing the end of the process of writing your scientific paper. You have carefully written a concise introduction, provided a detailed description of your methods, reported your results clearly, and discussed the meaning of your results. You may even have the perfect title and abstract ready to go. But the need to keep your focus and attention to detail remains, because there is still an area where you can stumble and hurt your efforts: the citations and references. Lest you consider references to be a minor component of a paper, consider the fact that the Council of Science Editors devotes 86 pages in their style manual to the proper use of references (1) and the AMA Manual of Style (2) includes 41 pages covering references. During the writing process you compiled a file (a stack of photocopied articles or an electronic database) of previously published papers that directly or indirectly contributed to your study. Therefore, it is important to give credit to (cite) the ideas, methods, and results of others. It is also important to tell readers where they can access documentation of this work (references). A citation (typically a number or the author name and year) inserted in the text identifies material that should be attributed to or associated with previously published work. A corresponding reference documents the original source of the material. Citations and references can be a source of information for readers, but they can also become a source of frustration if not selected and used wisely. So let's go over some basics of the use of citations and references. The ideal time to organize (or perhaps reorganize) the materials you might cite is when you begin writing a paper. Organizing potential references at this stage is useful for several reasons. First, the process allows …

Editorial: Keep It Simple: Study Design Nomenclature in Research Article Abstracts

improved the consistency of the information contained in the abstracts of submitted articles, one area that has remained an enigma to authors is what to put in the ‘‘Design’’ section of the abstract. Some authors write a short phrase describing the type of clinical study design that aligns with widely used level-of-evidence taxonomies, such as those of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine2 or the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy,3 whereas others describe the factorial design of their study, and a few submit a creative hybrid of these 2 formats. After thorough discussion of this issue, the NATA Journal Committee has endorsed the use of the clinical-study–design nomenclature advocated by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.2 We have revised the JAT Authors’ Guidelines to provide a finite list of acceptable nomenclature to use when describing study designs in the abstract. This simple format will have several advantages, including (1) offering consistency across manuscripts submitted to and published in JAT, (2) allowing readers of the abstracts in computer search engines to quickly align a study’s results with its level of evidence, and (3) aligning the JAT guidelines with those of other leading sports medicine journals in this respect. In particular, we owe a sincere thank you to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the American Journal of Sports Medicine; both entities have granted us permission to borrow extensively from their descriptions of study designs. Now when authors submit to JAT, they are required to select one of the study designs in the list below for their

Study/Experimental/Research Design: Much More Than Statistics

The purpose of study, experimental, or research design in scientific manuscripts has changed significantly over the years. It has evolved from an explanation of the design of the experiment (ie, data gathering or acquisition) to an explanation of the statistical analysis. This practice makes "Methods" sections hard to read and understand. To clarify the difference between study design and statistical analysis, to show the advantages of a properly written study design on article comprehension, and to encourage authors to correctly describe study designs. The role of study design is explored from the introduction of the concept by Fisher through modern-day scientists and the AMA Manual of Style. At one time, when experiments were simpler, the study design and statistical design were identical or very similar. With the complex research that is common today, which often includes manipulating variables to create new variables and the multiple (and different) analyses of a single data set, data collection is very different than statistical design. Thus, both a study design and a statistical design are necessary. Scientific manuscripts will be much easier to read and comprehend. A proper experimental design serves as a road map to the study methods, helping readers to understand more clearly how the data were obtained and, therefore, assisting them in properly analyzing the results.

Ethical and Legal Guidance in Biomedical Publishing: The AMA Manual of Style, Tenth Edition

The AMA Manual of Style is the bible of style and presentation for JAMA and its sister publications, the Archives specialty journals. The Manual is used not only by JAMA editorial and production staff but also by research authors, medical writers, editors, proofreaders, and many others involved in the creation and editing of scientific publications. The book was born in 1962 and has grown from a small in-house document (68 pages) to the newly released tenth edition, weighing in at 1,010 pages. 1 Iverson C Manual labor: the evolution of the AMA Manual of Style.. Sci Editor. 2007; 30: 191-192 Google Scholar

Writing an Article for a Geriatrics Journal: Guidelines from the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

The ability to translate clinical research findings or a critical analysis into a publication is essential to disseminate new knowledge, advance the field, and influence patient care. Complete coverage of article preparation and style can be found in texts such as the AMA Manual of Style. Additionally, all major publications provide organizational and content instruction in a "Guideline for Authors" document. This article provides structured information regarding editorial expectations for a medical publication, focusing on the geriatric submission. For the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (JAMDA), manuscripts should be applicable to, if not focused on, issues related to long-term care. The editors of JAMDA are committed to assisting authors in developing ideas for manuscripts, structuring the article and providing thoughtful reviewer comment to assist in revising the document.

AMA Manual of style – a guide for authors and editors Cheryl Iverson (chair) AMA Manual of Style – A Guide for Authors and Editors Tenth edition American Medical AssociationOxford University Press1010pp£32.9997801951763399780195176339

AMA Manual of style – a guide for authors and editors Cheryl Iverson (chair) AMA Manual of Style – A Guide for Authors and Editors Tenth edition American Medical AssociationOxford University Press1010pp£32.9997801951763399780195176339