Medical manuscripts tend toward the prosaic, but this does not mean that they should also be grammatically flawed. A review of many fine journals shows a high batting average for correct grammar but suggests room for improvement. Surely, the best research demands the best grammar. The following is a light-hearted appeal.
What is the dot (period) doing in the short form of the word “Doctor”? “Dr” is not in fact an abbreviation; rather, it is a contraction.1 This means that the first and last letters are present, and as such there is no need for a dot. The same is true when “Mister” and “Missus” are shortened. In contrast, a true abbreviation — where early letters are preserved but the last letter is gone — does demand a lovely big dot. The truncated form of “Professor” is therefore crying out for a dot (“Prof.”). The shortened forms of “intravenous” and “subcutaneous” require dots for their respective abbreviations “iv.” and “sc.” The same is true for “et al.” (the abbreviation of “et alii,” meaning “other people” or “other things”) and “etc.” (abbreviated from “et cetera”).
But wait — this means that “M.D.” needs 2 dots, as does “e.g.,” the abbreviation for “exempli gratia” (meaning “for example”) and “i.e.,” the abbreviation of “id est” (meaning “that is to say”).
Call this petty, pedantic or archaic — which it largely is. Feel free to admonish us to focus on producing real research — which really we should. Regardless, spare the dot (and reserve for abbreviations) and improve the manuscript.
REFERENCE
- 1.↵