Not dead yet!
How to write better scientific papers.
This is generally meant to be lighthearted. Here is a list of words, phrases and concepts I find irritating in Pubmed, or any published research really...
* Associated with (positive or negative correlation?)
* dose dependent manner (yeah well any graph is dose dependent, is it exponential? linear? bell curve? sine wave? plateau? what?)
* We corrected for the following 587 confounders, including the likelihood of a stubbed toe, and the amount of dust variability on the moon, and found that our data no longer made sense (duh)
* In our retrospective analysis 5 people dropped out ?!! (cough.. phack, cough)
* capable of modifying (upward, downward? in a swirly pattern? what?)
* further research is needed (I guess the research on the effectiveness of preventive care doesn't have that statement because... well it can't since it doesn't exist. But all you women, get your mammograms!! Or else!) - science seems awfully selective about what needs to be verified
"Another more recent review of 13 randomized controlled studies also emphasized the need for conclusive evidence before recommendations can be made (80)."
* tables instead of graphs (don't break a sweat over there guys, nobody's reading anyway)
* significantly (but does that matter in a real sense? if the absolute difference is 1% do I care?) - of course this brings up the boogieman of absolute vs relative results
And the #1 most irritating word in all of science is.... Modulates
That word takes the cake as the most vague in all of science, imo. We really need a "clarity in science" initiative.