I struggle with turgid medical journal articles. Many of you secretly know what I'm talking about — that overly academic, wordy style that obscures meaning and puts you to sleep. Sentences full of phrases you've read and heard over and over again. Oh, how I wish journal authors would not write unnecessarily long and convoluted sentences that use multi-syllable, Latinized words when simple, precise words do the trick. 

Some examples: "It is not uncommon" for common; or "suboptimal health outcomes" for less healthy; "negatively impacting" instead of worsens; "optimize functional status" — how about "improves health"?

I'm not advocating short sentences — just clarity.

Bloated prose is difficult and not pleasurable to read. Does journal writing have to be this way? And I'm not the Lone Ranger posing this question. Famous writers of far greater stature and skill than me have long made the case for clear, engaging science writing.

This piece is not to show how clever I am or that I'm a better writer than others. I'm not. My aim is a simple request: Why can't journal writers make it easier for us? (Though it may deny satisfaction, you don't need to play "gotcha" by exposing this piece's flaws. I plead guilty.)

Academic medical writers know their stuff after years of study and research. But I need a friendly hand to lead me through an article's murky waters; I want to understand your deep thoughts and complex work. Give me a straight narrative, the fewest simple words for clear meaning. (A few original phrases or metaphors sprinkled here and there wouldn't hurt.) Less stilted language, fewer phrases we've read over and over would help. 

But wait, the distinguished science writer might protest — the problem is me, the reader. I'm lazy, and not adequately literate in science; not as sharp as I was. These claims may have merit and yet they don't explain why recent journals (and AI chatbots) offer "plain language" translations. Is it unreasonable to want the medical article itself to be written in plain language? 

The researcher, renowned in her or his field, can rightly argue journal reading can be tiresome because medicine, biology, and specialized research are complicated; it involves complex data, p values, Cox regression models — many difficult concepts. But does a complicated subject require complicated writing? 

I yield to Carl Sagan who makes the case that science writing can be clear. In one of his books, he quotes Einstein's clearly worded introduction for "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which lays the foundation for special relativity. The writing has a bold narrative and allows the non-physicist to share his thoughts. If Einstein can write an introduction to special relativity in clear language, it would seem authors could do so in medical journals.

The great essayist E.B. White reminds us of his most important advice: "Omit needless words." Similarly, Michael Crichton in his NEJM piece "Medical Obfuscation" asks much the same of medical authors. Be bold, be clear. Avoid pretension and qualification. Likewise, George Orwell (author of "1984" and "Animal Farm") has written in "Politics and the English Language" of the pretentious, muddled language of academic writing — words to show off and confuse rather than give clarity.  

Here's more fuzzy verbiage lifted from medical articles — and not even particularly the worst examples. "Strategies to scale and spread" — nice sounding but redundant. "To mitigate confounds" — I guess this means to clarify? "Psychedelics can also induce challenging and difficult experiences" — a single word, challenging or difficult, would do the trick. "Kinematic risky driving events" — how about slamming the brakes or speeding?

Oh, and one more thing to muddle us: this acronym Cambrian explosion or what I call AOS (acronym overuse syndrome). One beauty recently stood out: DMT for "disease-modifying therapies." Makes one wonder what else a treatment might do. No effect or harm? Overuse of acronyms gives the impression the author is searching for credibility, a bona fide for a new finding or syndrome or whatever. Is it too much work to repeat the full words when needed to make it easier for those of us with data overload? For each article, an accessible table of new acronyms would help (but I'd still prefer less of the little guys).

What phrases, acronyms, or verbiage grind your gears the most? Share examples in the comments.

Edward (Feldman) Moreau, MD, is a recent graduate of an ethics degree program at the Uehiro Center at the University of Oxford in the UK. He received his MD from Boston University.

Image by Alphavector / shutterstock