Content
Scientific journals around the world have reached an extraordinary boom with the development of information and communications technologies. Their mission to publish results goes beyond personal recognition to become a necessity. However, the path to scientific writing is winding, and some prefer to remain anonymous rather than face it. Another considerable number of researchers strive to reach the goal, even knowing their shortcomings in language. The journal 2 de Diciembre receives many articles from professionals and students, and both receive their revised manuscripts for correction, in which errors in the normative and textual order are detected. This editorial undertakes the task of reflecting on some of these errors detected by the journal's copyeditors in order to improve the writing quality of the submitted texts. The first error that appears in most manuscripts is the use of quotation marks around the names of institutions: “Manuel Fajardo Rivero” Psychiatric Hospital, “Celia Sánchez Manduley ” Faculty of Medical Sciences of Manzanillo, “Fe del Valle Ramos” Gynecological-Obstetric Hospital . The spelling rules for quotation marks included in the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of Doubts do not mention their use in the name of institutions, whether or not they are proper names of individuals [1] . In response to a question on this subject in the query section of the Current Spanish Edition, a reader is clarified: “... No rule regarding quotation marks explains that this orthographic symbol should be used to enclose proper names of places. For this reason, the examples you mention should be written without quotation marks.” [2] Following the line of punctuation marks, it is necessary to highlight that in a high percentage of articles a colon is used followed by a capital letter. In this regard, the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) recommends using lowercase letters and only in exceptional cases, capital letters. The Urgent Spanish Foundation ( Fundeu ), affiliated with the RAE, explains: “After a colon, a capital letter is written in the following cases:• – When writing on a separate line, that is, when using a full stop.• – When closing a courtesy, as in “Dear Mr. Castro: I am writing to you...”.• – When introducing a textual quotation, as in “according to article X of the Statute of the Councilor: “The councilors are obliged...”.• – When citing sentences, decrees, edicts, etc.• – When the word that follows is a proper noun” [3] .
Another error that is repeated with some regularity is the alternation of upper and lower case letters in the names of diseases and medications. According to the RAE, diseases are only written in capital letters when their name refers to the person who discovered them. “Proper nouns that follow expressions such as syndrome, evil, disease or similar (Kawasaki disease, Down syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) do begin with a capital letter, or sometimes identifications that, as a code, specify variants (flu A).” [4] In the case of medications, as explained by academic spelling, “...the names of the active ingredients of medicines, that is, the medication itself, are common and are written with an initial lower case letter”; However, “the registered trade names of medicines, like brands, are proper names and should be written with an initial capital letter” [5] . The inappropriate use of parentheses and brackets is observed in some manuscripts, this can cause confusion in the reader and hinder the understanding of the message, for example: 5-FU... It is also used to treat AK (non- hyperkeratotic and non-hypertrophic type [Olsen grade I and II]) and superficial basal and squamous cell skin cancers, topically 1 to 2 times a day. In the previous fragment, parentheses and brackets should be used because an explanation appears within another [6] , the logical order of the elements within the text has also been disorganized, a wording similar to the following is recommended: 5-FU... It is also used, topically 1 to 2 times a day, to treat AK (non- hyperkeratotic and non-hypertrophic type [grade I and II of Olsen]) and superficial basal and squamous cell skin cancers. Sloppy syntax particularly affects the quality of submitted papers. Some representative fragments are presented: In the opinion of Goel R et al (...) allege that several mechanisms proposed by various authors on the association between ABO blood group and SARS-CoV2 infection. In this case there is a redundancy in the phrase "in the opinion of" and the verb form "allege", another verb form has also been omitted. The authors are offered the following model: In the opinion of Goel R et al (...) there are several mechanisms proposed by various authors on the association between ABO blood group and SARS-CoV2 infection. In this other example: «...Considering a very careful clinical analysis by Hoiland et al (...) of critically ill Canadian patients, it revealed that patients with blood groups A and AB presented a higher risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy and prolonged admission to intensive care units than patients with blood groups O and B.» The central idea of the text is confusing due to the agreement error between the plural of the authors represented by et al and the verb revealed. It is recommended to write it as follows: Through a clinical analysis by Hoiland et al (...) in critically ill Canadian patients, it was found that those belonging to blood types A and AB presented a greater risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy and prolonged admission to intensive care units than patients with blood types O and B. Some of these examples can be modified by organizing the ideas appropriately; in other cases, it is necessary for the author to take charge of it since there is a risk of distorting the information. The idea of the text that appears below can be expressed by eliminating a series of words that lead to verbosity (one of the most common errors in scientific writing). Added to this is the incorrect use of the phrase "in relation to", which should be expressed as indicated by the RAE: in relation to or in relation to [7] .« Thiesen et al (...) suggest that when comparing patients with Class I, II and III malocclusions, in relation to the different intensities of asymmetry, it was found that there were no differences in the variables analyzed for relative symmetry and moderate asymmetry. Recommended writing: Thiesen et al (...) in a comparative study of patients with class I, II and III malocclusions, in relation to the different intensities of asymmetry, found no differences in the variables for relative symmetry and moderate asymmetry. The reviewed manuscripts reveal several of these examples and others that deserve a more exhaustive analysis; the fundamental cause of the occurrence is, in the opinion of the authors of this article, not only in the lack of knowledge of some language rules but also in the little or no habit of revision