Three-character acronyms (blue lines) are more common than two-character acronyms (brown-orange lines) and four-character acronyms (olive green lines) in both titles and abstracts. The proportion of acronyms (purple line) has risen steadily over time in abstracts both for acronyms that are letters and/or numbers (top left) or just letters (top right). Acronyms are generally less common in titles than abstracts, and the proportion in titles has been relatively stable since 2000, but there was an increase from 1960 to 2000 (bottom left and right). We examined acronyms because they can be objectively identified and reflect changes in specialisation and clarity in writing. In this article we report trends in the use of acronyms in the scientific literature from 1950 to the present. 'RUN had significantly (p<0.05) greater size-adjusted CSMI and BSI than C, SWIM, and CYC and higher size, age, and YST-adjusted CSMI and BSI than SWIM and CYC.' (2002) ‘After their co-culture with HC-MVECs, SSc BM-MSCs underwent to a phenotypic modulation which re-programs these cells toward a pro-angiogenic behaviour.’ (2013)

'Toward this goal, the CNNT, the CRN, and the CNSW will each propose programs to the NKF for improving the knowledge and skills of the professionals within these councils.’ (2000) 'Applying PROBAST showed that ADO, B-AE-D, B-AE-D-C, extended ADO, updated ADO, updated BODE, and a model developed by Bertens et al were derived in studies assessed as being at low risk of bias.’ (2019) The four sentences below are taken from abstracts published since 2000, and reflect the increasing complexity and specialisation of science. Box 1.Įxamples of sentences with multiple acronyms. Box 1 contains four sentences from published papers that show how acronyms can hinder understanding. For example, the acronym UA has 18 different meanings in medicine ( Lang, 2019). One feature that can make scientific papers difficult to read is the widespread use of acronyms ( Sword, 2012 Pinker, 2015 Hales et al., 2017 Lowe, 2019), and many researchers have given examples of the overuse of acronyms, and highlighted the ambiguities, misunderstandings and inefficiencies they cause ( Fred and Cheng, 2003 Narod et al., 2016 Patel and Rashid, 2009 Pottegård et al., 2014 Weale et al., 2018 Parvaiz et al., 2006 Chang et al., 2002). Writing scientific papers that are clearer to read could help to close this gap and increase the usefulness of scientific research ( Freeling et al., 2019 Letchford et al., 2015 Heard, 2014 Glasziou et al., 2014). This information overload is driving a ‘knowledge-ignorance paradox’ whereby information increases but knowledge that can be put to good use does not ( Jeschke et al., 2019). As the number of scientific papers published every year continues to grow, individual papers are also becoming increasingly specialised and complex ( Delanty, 1998 Bornmann and Mutz, 2015 Doubleday and Connell, 2017 Cordero et al., 2016 Plavén-Sigray et al., 2017).

Meta definition medical