For a number of years, authors in (scientific) journals and books are expected not to use any of the abbreviations that were once common, except a few ones, like etc., e.g., i.e. Likewise, journal names in the references are no longer abbreviated. I think that was a wise decision in publishing policy.
However, at variance with this policy, it has become quite customary among authors to use numerous idiosyncratic abbreviations to indicate procedures, tests, groups of subjects, etc., seemingly to save journal space or reading time. Journal editors allow them to do that, if not encourage them. I find this quite tiring and time-consuming because it is impossible to memorize all those abbreviations at the first time they are introduced, and afterwards it takes time to find them back in the previous text, especially if one reads from paper.
It would be helpful if journal editors urged their authors to put a table in their article, summing all the uncommon abbreviations used, or if they refused these abbreviations. Am I the only one in the scientific community who feels this way?
Thenkas for your support. By means of the option "Auto correction" of WORD, one can have one's abbreviation automatically changed into the full expression. It would lengthen one's text with a limited number of sentences at worst, and it would make the text much more readable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing