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

Commentary

scientific articles have hardly changed in 50 years

¹ rsmith{at}bmj.com

The simultaneous publication of a scientific study from 50 years ago and its current update provides an opportunity for observing changes in presentation. The over-riding impression is of little change. In the 50 years during which men have landed on the moon, computers and the internet have appeared, television and cars have been transformed, the scientific article has changed hardly at all. Does this reflect the robustness of the form or a failure of imagination? I suspect the latter.

The 1954 article was shorter, had fewer references, slightly fewer statistical tests, more basic descriptive data, and crudely drawn figures, but the 2004 article is unusually long and resists the 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 that strictly ought to be in the discussion of the results. Both papers are clearly written, but the older paper seems easier to read. In part this might be because it uses the active voice and contains slightly less jargon. The word "prospective" appears in the older paper, perhaps for the first time, and is accompanied by the largely unhelpful quote from Leigh Hunt that "He was a retrospective rather than a prospective man." The old word for questionnaire—questionary—surprises.

The biggest changes are in what might be called the furniture of the article. The older article has no structured abstract and no contributor, guarantor, and competing interest statements. The 2004 article includes our "what this study adds" box, one of our most popular innovations. Both papers include extensive thanks, but only the older paper gives the degrees and honours of the authors. The older paper says nothing about ethics committee approval, but the new paper tells us that there were no ethics committees in 1951. Some, I know, pine for such a time.

---

Competing interests: RS is editor of the BMJ and accountable for all it contains.

References

1. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004;328: 1519-33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    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. [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. Am. J. Public Health 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]