HOW TO WRITE AN EDITORIAL

An editorial may be written by the editor or someone invited by the editor. It serves many other purposes, including concise reviews of topics that do not warrant a full-length invited review, and other topics on very recent developments that are deemed by the editor to be important to readers of the journal and the community. As there is typically a limited space in which to deliver its contents, the message contained in the editorial needs to be well thought out and concisely delivered. It should contain the correct sequence of the elements of critical argument, ideally supported by evidence, and end with a clear conclusion. Structure of the Editorial Writing an editorial is in some ways more demanding than writing a research paper. The well-known conventional format for research papers is a relatively easy model into which to fit data and interpretations; at first glance the editorial has no format. The research paper usually runs to more than two printed pages, and an occasional slackening in it s thought process may not be noticed; the editorial is short, and flawed ideas and sequence stand out. So the task is to fit into a tight space content with a clear and logical sequence. The task is easier if the steps of critical argument are kept in mind. The editorialist has to:

- Pick an issue, a problem, a question

- Pose one or more possible answers;

- Weight the evidence supporting possible answers;

- Assess counter-evidence; and

- Conclude with an answer. The answer might seem to e that there is no answer and that more information is needed, but that is itself an answer! Even such an answer is reached in a well-reasoned editorial through critical argument.

Table 3 illustrates how the structure and sequence of an editorial relate to the elements of critical argument. The length of an editorial, the number of paragraphs, depend on how complex a problem it considers, the amount of evidence it examines, and the number of possible answers. Some editorials may consist of only one paragraph and yet carry the main elements of argument in their natural sequence. The opening paragraph states the first element of the argument: >The problem or Question=. Most readers will need more than a simple statement of the problem. Experts on the subject will know what new events or new knowledge led to awareness that a problem needs an answer, but most editorials are not written for a small number of experts. The question of how much background information to include in the lead-in to the statement of the problem is probably best answered as it is for the Introduction to a research paper. The editorialist should assume that readers know less than he does about the topic of the editorial but are well informed on the larger subject field within which the topic lies. The author of an editorial on the usefulness of laparotomy in staging Hodgkin=s disease should assume that the reader knows less than experts experienced with this use of laparotomy but is well informed in general on recent developments in Hodgkin=s disease and knows the meaning of >laparotomy= and of >staging=. The editorialist can then open the editorial with a brief summary of the not-entirely-satisfactory of the methods

for staging or with a summary of the current controversy on laparotomy, depending on the actual situation. This stance will guarantee an adequate, if brief, lead-in, while avoiding a long-winded and patronizing ramble to the main point to be made by the end of the introductory paragraph.

Paragraphs

Elements of Critical Argument

Introductory Paragraph Too many people cannot afford good medical care; we need national health insurance.

Statement of the problem; tentative answer

Middle Paragraphs National health insurance would spread costs among industry and the wealthy. Other countries have successful national health insurance. Our country cannot afford such insurance in face of competing demands for defence spending.

Evidence in support Evidence in support Counter-evidence

Closing Paragraph Health is more important than military spending. We should work politically to get top priority for national health insurance.

Assessment of all evidence; final answer.

Although the middle paragraphs of an editorial carry the evidence considered in the argument, they differ from one of the counterpart sections of a research paper, the Results, in not presenting detailed data. They resemble more the paragraphs in a discussion in that the evidence is likely to consist of statements supported by citations to published papers. Usually there is not enough space in an editorial to examine >the credibility of evidence=; the reader can assume that the >credibility= of papers selected for citation in the editorial was >examined= by the editorialist while reading the papers considered as possible references. The closing paragraph should carry a clear final answer to the question posed in the opening paragraph. If the answer is that there is no answer, so be it. But then the editorialist may wish to suggest possible routes to new evidence that may dispose of the no-answer answer. A Variant of the Editorial: The position paper

Some journals have a section for opinion papers that the editor prefers not to publish as editorials. The papers may be too long, or may take positions the editor does not wish to seem to support by giving the editorial cachet of approval. Two such sections are >Sounding Board= of The New England Journal of Medicine and >Perspective= of Annals of Internal Medicine. Well-written papers of this kind usually have the same structure as a clear and logical editorial, although they may differ widely in their use of documented reasoning and rhetorical heat. The points made above about editorials apply as well to position papers. Conclusion An editorial has little room in which to deliver its message. The structure must be well worked out, with the right sequence of the elements of critical argument, lest the very brevity of the editorial expose all too clearly any flaws in logic. Reference Huth E J (editor) 1982 How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences. Chapter 8: The Editorial. 2nd edition: 69 - 71