scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1533

BMJ 2004;328:1533 (26 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1533

Commentary

scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years

Richard Smith, editor¹

¹ rsmith@bmj.com

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The simultaneous publication of a scientific study from 50 yearsago and its current update provides an opportunity for observingchanges in presentation. The over-riding impression is of littlechange. In the 50 years during which men have landed on themoon, computers and the internet have appeared, television andcars have been transformed, the scientific article has changedhardly at all. Does this reflect the robustness of the formor a failure of imagination? I suspect the latter.

The 1954 article was shorter, had fewer references, slightlyfewer statistical tests, more basic descriptive data, and crudelydrawn figures, but the 2004 article is unusually long and resiststhe current temptation of statistical overkill.

Both articles have something close to the traditional IMRaD(introduction, methods, results, and discussion) structure,but the 1954 article is more casual in mixing comments thatstrictly ought to be in the discussion of the results. . . . [Full text of this article]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike Add to Complore Complore Add to Connotea Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us Add to Digg Digg Add to Reddit Reddit Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon Add to Technorati Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: Plain English and minimal Latin may explain readability of 1950s paper...: Mark B J Heneghan
BMJ 2004 329: 352. [Extract] [Full Text]

Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: ... and "scientific rigour" may be to blame for current dullness...: L D Mewasingh
BMJ 2004 329: 352. [Extract] [Full Text]

Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: ...but Asher was asking why medical journals were so dull back then: Tim Benson
BMJ 2004 329: 352. [Extract] [Full Text]

The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits: a preliminary report: (Reprinted from Br Med J 1954:ii;1451-5): Richard Doll and A. Bradford Hill
BMJ 2004 328: 1529-1533. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors: Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham, and Isabelle Sutherland
BMJ 2004 328: 1519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Mendez, D., Warner, K. E. (2008). Setting a Challenging Yet Realistic Smoking Prevalence Target for Healthy People 2020: Learning From the California Experience. AJPH 98: 556-559 [Abstract] [Full text]
Heneghan, M. B J (2004). Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: Plain English and minimal Latin may explain readability of 1950s paper.... BMJ 329: 352-352 [Full text]
Mewasingh, L D (2004). Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: ... and "scientific rigour" may be to blame for current dullness.... BMJ 329: 352-352 [Full text]
Benson, T. (2004). Scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years: ...but Asher was asking why medical journals were so dull back then. BMJ 329: 352-352 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

'Scientific Rigour': L D Mewasingh
bmj.com, 25 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Time For Change ?: Bill D. Misner Ph.D.
bmj.com, 25 Jun 2004 [Full text]
50 years ago...: Trisha Greenhalgh
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2004 [Full text]
CONGRATULATIONS:WE NEED TO CHANGE: CELIO LEVYMAN,MD,MSc
bmj.com, 28 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Why are medical journals so dull?: Tim Benson
bmj.com, 30 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Why are medical journals so dull?: Tim Benson
bmj.com, 30 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Re: Why are medical journals so dull?: Mark B J Heneghan
bmj.com, 9 Jul 2004 [Full text]
The risk of �sokalization� of medical articles.: Giuseppe Lippi, et al.
bmj.com, 7 May 2005 [Full text]