ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Or Not?

We have noticed a disregard for the appropriate use of the word "first" in scientific articles in the past year. While there is certainly some prestige with being the first author(s) to describe a new scientific finding or unusual clinical entity, invoking this distinction should be done only after a thorough and meticulous literature search warrants it and only when such a claim of priority has some relevance of importance.For example, one paper described the first reportedly successful implant

James Bradley Summers

We have noticed a disregard for the appropriate use of the word "first" in scientific articles in the past year. While there is certainly some prestige with being the first author(s) to describe a new scientific finding or unusual clinical entity, invoking this distinction should be done only after a thorough and meticulous literature search warrants it and only when such a claim of priority has some relevance of importance.

For example, one paper described the first reportedly successful implantation of a biventricular pacemaker in Thailand.1 Another article elaborated one of the first laparoscopy-assisted aneurysm repair[s] in Japan.2 A third concerned the first case of food-dependent, exercise-inducted anaphylaxis in Thailand. Another described the first case of metastatic tumor in the right orbit at a university in Krakow.4

While it may seem reasonable to utilize "first" in the title, such as in unusual infections that might be of...

Interested in reading more?

Magaizne Cover

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT