Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is literature-based medicine. The essence of EBM is ensuring that research is adequately reported in the literature, not only to help readers determine whether the research is sound but also to ascertain that it can be applied appropriately to specific patients and conditions. This need to document clinical research gave rise to the standards-reporting movement in medicine, the first and best-known standard being the 1996 CONSORT statement for reporting rand-omized controlled trials. Guidelines and checklists are widely used to augment mem-ory, improve quality and consistency, ensure thoroughness and efficiency, structure repetitive tasks, and to reduce errors, omissions, ambiguities, and misunderstandings. These characteristics make them ideal for reporting the designs, activities, and results of medical research. In fact, EBM is built around developing and using guidelines and checklists. As an early participant in the clinical guideline movement, I learned a lot about how and how not to prepare guidelines. I describe my lessons here.

FisheriesVolume 47, Issue 3 p. 129-129 Fisheries Forum Focused Process: Nominating the Next AFS Second Vice President Candidates 2021–2022 American Fisheries Society Nominating Committee Joseph D. Conroy, Joseph D. Conroy At-Large Member orcid.org/0000-0002-9561-7294 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Hebron, OHSearch for more papers by this authorElsa Goerig, Elsa Goerig Northeastern Division Representative Harvard University, Cambridge, MASearch for more papers by this authorJohn Jackson, John Jackson Chair Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, ARSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Kopaska, Corresponding Author Jeff Kopaska North Central Division Representative jeff.kopaska@dnr.iowa.gov Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Boone, IASearch for more papers by this authorTom Lang, Tom Lang At-Large Member Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Athens, TXSearch for more papers by this authorJessica Mistak, Jessica Mistak At-Large Member Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Rapid River, MISearch for more papers by this authorBrian Murphy, Brian Murphy AFS Past PresidentSearch for more papers by this authorTodd Pearsons, Todd Pearsons Western Division Representative Grant County Public Utility District, Ephrata, WASearch for more papers by this authorMacey Rowan, Macey Rowan At-Large Member West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Parkersburg, WVSearch for more papers by this author Joseph D. Conroy, Joseph D. Conroy At-Large Member orcid.org/0000-0002-9561-7294 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Hebron, OHSearch for more papers by this authorElsa Goerig, Elsa Goerig Northeastern Division Representative Harvard University, Cambridge, MASearch for more papers by this authorJohn Jackson, John Jackson Chair Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, ARSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Kopaska, Corresponding Author Jeff Kopaska North Central Division Representative jeff.kopaska@dnr.iowa.gov Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Boone, IASearch for more papers by this authorTom Lang, Tom Lang At-Large Member Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Athens, TXSearch for more papers by this authorJessica Mistak, Jessica Mistak At-Large Member Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Rapid River, MISearch for more papers by this authorBrian Murphy, Brian Murphy AFS Past PresidentSearch for more papers by this authorTodd Pearsons, Todd Pearsons Western Division Representative Grant County Public Utility District, Ephrata, WASearch for more papers by this authorMacey Rowan, Macey Rowan At-Large Member West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Parkersburg, WVSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 February 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10736Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume47, Issue3March 2022Pages 129-129 RelatedInformation

The purpose of technical editing is to prepare specific information, for a specific medium, to help a specific audience, accomplish a specific goal. What defines technical editing is its purpose—to help readers act—not the scientific discipline in which it is found. Still, traditions of technical editing differ greatly by subject matter (nuclear physics, field biology), document types (scientific articles, computer user manuals), audiences (regulatory agencies, consumers), and specific publication conventions (writing instruction manuals, documenting experiments). Because technical editing developed in the physical sciences and engineering, the term often refers only to editing in those fields. However, whereas technical editors in industry often enter the profession with degrees in technical communications, editors in other scientific fields typically receive little or no professional training in editing. Accordingly, I describe here four techniques proven to be effective in training technical editors in any branch of science. A basic technique involves applying 12 specific and evidence-based ‘edits’ that improve comprehension. In an intermediate technique, ‘structured editing,’ described here for the first time, editors follow a structured process of analysing and revising a text by completing four sequential tasks. An advanced technique—shortening a 250-word abstract to 100 words without losing content—will develop critical thinking and sharpen language skills. Finally, I describe a collaborative technique based on ‘deliberate practice,’ in which a small group of editors discusses a text in detail, in long sessions, over extended periods, to develop a high degree of skill.

The secret to success as a scientist is comprised in three words—work, finish, publish . —Michael Faraday, English chemist and physicist [1791–1867] (1).

FisheriesVolume 40, Issue 4 p. 182-182 AFS News Student Loan Forgiveness Program Aims to Keep Great Minds in Government Tom Lang, Tom Lang AFS Socioeconomics Section President [email protected] Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, 409 Chester Ave., Wichita Falls, TX, 76309Search for more papers by this author Tom Lang, Tom Lang AFS Socioeconomics Section President [email protected] Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, 409 Chester Ave., Wichita Falls, TX, 76309Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 April 2015 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1021923Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume40, Issue4April 2015Pages 182-182 RelatedInformation

Fish and fishing are woven into the fabric of American culture and deliver numerous social and economic benefits. Natural fisheries are the foundation for providing fish and fishing benefits, but a...

In this article, suggestions are given “how to” write and photograph martial arts techniques for publication. The aim is to improve the instructional and archival quality of martial arts books and articles. These suggestions are based on the author’s reviews of books showing movement, his experience in writing martial arts books (and from mistakes made in these efforts), and from his experience as a medical-technical writer and instructional designer. Simply thinking about how to present a martial art in print will help you understand and teach them: you will find it a valuable and rewarding exercise, even if you never publish the results.

Critical thinking is necessary to read the scientific literature. However, in addition to questions about the science, often one must also question the meaning of the text. This article provides an example of the analyses needed to understand a single sentence. In so doing, it raises several interesting issues of meaning, measurement, statistical analyses, and the form in which results are presented and interpreted.

Neurourology and UrodynamicsVolume 29, Issue 1 p. 28-29 Review ArticleFree Access CONSORTing with a QUOROM of MOOSES: The standards movement in scientific reporting†‡§ Tom Lang, Corresponding Author Tom Lang [email protected] Tom Lang Communications and Training, Davis, California1925 Donner Ave., #3, Davis, CA 95618.Search for more papers by this author Tom Lang, Corresponding Author Tom Lang [email protected] Tom Lang Communications and Training, Davis, California1925 Donner Ave., #3, Davis, CA 95618.Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20854Citations: 2 † Conflicts of interest: Much of the information in this article appears in Chapter 1 of Lang T. How to Write, Publish, and Present in the Health Sciences: A Guide for Clinicians and Laboratory Researchers. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2010. ‡ This information was also presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society, in September 2009, in San Francisco, California. § Christopher Chapple led the review process. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES 1 Lang T. How to write, publish, and present in the health sciences: A guide for clinicians and laboratory researchers. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2010. 2 Houghton B. Scientific periodicals: Their historical development, characteristics and control. London: Clive Bingley; 1975. 3 Dubos R. Louis Pasteur: Free lance of science. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons; 1976. 4 Scientific and Technical Reports–Preparation, Presentation, and Preservation. ANSI/NISO Z39. 18-2005 ISBN: 1-880124- 66-1. Available at: http://download.www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/pdf/free/455223/Z39-18-2005.pdf 5 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. http://www.icmje.org/index.html#top. Accessed 11/28/07. 6 Lang T, Secic M. How to report statistics in medicine: Annotated guidelines for authors, editors and reviewers, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2006. 7 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191– 4. 8 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896– 1900. 9 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 573– 7. 10 Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, et al. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND Statement. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 361– 6. 11 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008– 12. 12 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41– 4. Review. 13 Enhancing the Transparency and Quality of Health Research: The EQUATOR Network. http://www.equator-network.org/ Citing Literature Volume29, Issue1January 2010Pages 28-29 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Biomedical images differ from other figures in scientific publications because they do not summarize or organize data. Rather, they are the data. For this reason alone, they need to be documented well. In addition, because interpretations of these images can vary widely (sometimes notoriously so), accurate and complete documentation should be provided to support each interpretation. If key information is missing, interpretations may be incomplete, inaccurate, or simply wrong.

In this article, suggestions are given “how to” write and photograph martial arts techniques for publication. The aim is to improve the instructional and archival quality of martial arts books and articles. These suggestions are based on the author’s reviews of books showing movement, his experience in writing martial arts books (and from mistakes made in these efforts), and from his experience as a medical-technical writer and instructional designer. Simply thinking about how to present a martial art in print will help you understand and teach them: you will find it a valuable and rewarding exercise, even if you never publish the results.