The Problem with Acronyms
Webster’s defines an acronym as "a word formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term." I like to believe that the dictionary editors were subtly trying to convey an opinion when they offered "snafu" as an example. Language is a flexible commodity, and some acronyms like "radar" have become so accepted and so common that their original derivations are now invisible to all but the specialist. Nevertheless, there is no point in mucking up our particular branch of science with extraneous and gratuitous acronyms.
The purpose of parenthetically listing an acronym after presenting the parent compound term in a paper, when that term and acronym are never used again, escapes me entirely, yet this is not an uncommon practice.
Some manuscripts use new acronyms in the abstract where the reader has no context for understanding the acronym, and therefore no basis for following the all-important abstract. Other AAPG manuscripts throw new acronyms at us with wild abandon, leaving me to page back and forth trying to find the original terms just so I can follow the author’s English, and only after that trying to decipher the scientific argument. I’m never sure whether authors figure that they’re saving significant amounts of time by typing in acronyms instead of the full terms, whether they feel that acronyms make a paper sound more scientific, whether they hope to be able to point to a commonly accepted acronym in future years and say "I coined that," or whether it’s just a useless but common convention these days, like tonsils or an appendix. Regardless, I am sure that the use of uncommon acronyms, or the frequent use of even the more common acronyms, makes reading harder for all but a few specialists.
Consider the following:
There is no point in mucking up our particular branch of science (OPBS) with ext raneous and gratuitous acronyms (EGAs). The purpose of parenthetically listing an EGA after presenting the parent compound term (PCT) in a paper, when that PCT and EGA are never used again, escapes me entirely, yet this is not an uncommon practice. Some manuscripts use new acronyms (NAs) in the abstract where the reader has no context for understanding the NA, and therefore no basis for following the all-important abstract. Other AAPG manuscripts throw NAs at us with wild abandon, leaving me to page back and forth trying to find the PCTs just so I can follow the author’s English, and only after that trying to decipher the scientific argument. I’m never sure whether authors figure that they’re saving significant amounts of time by typing in EGAs instead of the full PCT, whether they feel that EGAs make a paper sound more scientific, whether they hope to be able to point to a commonly accepted EGA in future years and say "I coined that," or whether it’s just a useless but common convention these days, like tonsils or an appendix. Regardless, I am sure that the use of uncommon NAs, or the frequent use of even the more common EGAs, makes reading harder for all but a few specialists.
Some authors write as if the purpose of writing is merely to get a name and a paper into print rather than to communicate science and to convince others of the value and validity of that science. A poor presentation can obscure good science whereas a good presentation can make good but unconventional science palatable. Authors must lead readers logically and easily to their conclusions by making the English as easy to follow as possible. Eschewing acronyms is one small way to help.
John Lorenz, AAPG Editor
2003