[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Correct latin&greek - was RE: New iguanodonts in PLoS ONE



On 11/28/2010 4:38 PM, Dann Pigdon wrote:
If the authors of a paper that appears in a peer-reviewed journal haven't shown 
enough care or
attention to get the spelling of words correct, then how much trust can you 
place in their methods
and conclusions?

Don't trust, verify -- it may be the paper that unlocks (e.g.) a path to cheap and clean energy -- you think it should be rejected out of hand due to a spelling/grammatical error?

And what chance will you have to get credited or contribute to science when the language of science is no longer English?

A lack of attention to detail in any facet of a paper can only plant a seed of doubt
over the rest of the papers contents as far as I'm concerned.

Well, sure. But attention to detail should not put you in a trusting mood, should it?

That said, give 'em hell.

Once you open the floodgates and begin to accept such improper usages, it
becomes increasingly harded to justify *any* sort of spelling or grammatical 
conventions.

Amen to that -- consider the word "regulate": gun-makers used to speak of "regulating" the barrels of a double rifle -- i.e., making both barrels shoot to the same point of impact. To advertise rifle as "well-regulated" conveyed the message that it grouped well, not that it had a lot of paper-work attached.

Then look what happened when the meaning began to shift -- toward "closely supervised" as opposed to "correctly functioning". Lawyers got rich.

New words with new meanings are good -- morphing old words, especially in a non-transparent fashion, is to be avoided. No matter what your politics. :D