This image, entitled “A pangram written twice in a typeface by Jean Jannon, each time with a different style. From top to bottom: Roman, italic”, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Subject to disclaimers.
Warning: This is the second of a pair of posts, and which may look like even more of a rant than the previous one about the need to set-out scientific names correctly. Whilst the matter raised here may appear to be arcane and abstruse, it is also fundamental to science writing, and important to Mr P Cuttings and his attempts to communicate science to a general audience in his blog.
As mentioned previously, one of the ambitions of the plantcuttings blog is to communicate scientific matters to a non-specialist audience. Part of doing that is to present scientific information properly. And to do that, it is necessary to follow certain conventions. That should also be a goal of all sites that aim to promote greater understanding of science amongst the general public. But, is that always the case? I’ve came across another issue in the scicomm – the communication of science (Bruce V Lewenstein, 2022; Sarah Hubbart; Anika Gogia & Brittany Zhao) – media that undermines that goal.
As for the ‘binomial issue’ considered in Part 1, this matter was found in a post on Phys.Org, a site dedicated for science, and powered by Science X Network (see here), “one of the largest online communities for science-minded people”. Phys.Org is “a credible Pro-Science source based on the publication of scientific information from credible universities and peer-reviewed journals and properly sourced original content. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record” (quoted from here). As readers should by now know, Phys.Org is a site that I value highly as a source of very good scicomm reporting – and has provided inspiration for many of my own posts.
With those endorsements, what do readers make of this statement? “Alessandro Chiolerio et al, Bioelectrical synchronization of Picea abies during a solar eclipse, Royal Society Open Science (2025). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.241786“. These are the publication details for the science discussed in Phys.Org’s scicomm post entitled “Forest in sync: Spruce trees communicate during a solar eclipse”.
What is wrong in this? First, and probably the most serious error, is the way that the scientific name of the plant is shown. That issue was dealt with in Part 1. Second, there are two issues regarding use of ‘et al’, which matter is dealt with in this post.
Getting et al. right
For important background and context, ‘et al.’ is the abbreviation for the Latin phrase ‘et alia’, which means ‘and others’ (Shundalyn Allen). It’s used a lot in science writing to indicate scientific papers that are written by multiple contributors. In which instance authorship of the publication written by Freeman, Hardy, Willis, Stead and Simpson becomes reduced to Freeman [the family name of the first-listed author] et al. [which phrase covers the surnames of all of the other named contributors to that piece of work] [Ed. – which is why so much importance is attached to being the first-named author (An Evans; Charles Viera; Holly Else)!].
But, what’s the problem with the Phys.Org extract?
Surely, that abbreviated phrase has been used appropriately – and as intended – to indicate that multiple authors – in addition to the first-named Alessandro Chiolerio – wrote the paper. Yes, it is, but the ‘problem’ – well, my problem (and there are actually two of them) – is that way in which ‘et al.’ is actually shown in that Phys.Org post. This abbreviation of a Latin phrase is shown unitalicised, and without a full-stop after the ’l’.
So, by way of guidance on this matter…
Don’t forget the full-stop…
When one abbreviates any word, it is customary to add a ‘.’ [called a full-stop in UK English, but also known as a ‘period’ amongst users of American English] to the end of the word – or words –that have been abbreviated (Shundalyn Allen)*. In the case considered here the abbreviated form of ‘et alia’ should be shown as ‘et al.’**, not the unpunctuated ‘et al’ as used above in the Phys.Org article. [Ed. – do note that only the word alia has been abbreviated – and requires a full-stop; et is used in full in the abbreviated phrase, and therefore not only requires no full-stop, but would be wrongly shown if it had one…].
… or the italicisation
This particular term should be italicised (Matt Ellis); i.e., it should be shown as ‘et al.’.
When a word or phrase – whether or not it is abbreviated – of Latin (or other non-English) origin is used in written English it is customary to show it in italic script [in which the letters are slightly slanted]. Such usage will therefore mark those words or phrases as ‘special’ [to indicate their non-English origin], because they are contrasted with the use of un-slanted, non-italic – ‘Roman’ – script for ‘proper’ English words. [Ed. – see the image above for the difference in appearance of these two scripts]
If you were wondering whether ‘et al’ is how the list of non-first authors is shown by the journal, Royal Society Open Science [and which is owned by as august and authoritative a body as The Royal Society of London (Michael Hunter)], and which Phys.Org is therefore merely copying, I’m happy to advise that such is not the case. In fact, and interestingly, Royal Society Open Science lists all authors of articles published in the journal, and states that the article in question should be cited as: “Alessandro Chiolerio, Monica Gagliano, Silvio Pilia, Paolo Pilia, Giuseppe Vitiello, Mohammad Dehshibi, Andrew Adamatzky; Bioelectrical synchronization of Picea abies during a solar eclipse. R Soc Open Sci. 1 April 2025; 12 (4): 241786. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241786”. [Ed. – I’m usually somewhat suspicious of anything – scientific articles or otherwise – published on the 1st of April (Ben Johnson)…]. Listing all authors is a remarkably egalitarian layout, which is – in my experience – most unusual amongst science journals, but is to be commended. And, looking at the details of all references cited within that article, I was pleasantly surprised to see that in all cases all authors were duly listed; there was not one ‘et al.’ in sight.
And, for completeness, and consistency with mention of the Phys.Org item’s source story for scientific names [see Part 1], Southern Cross University also lists all authors for the scientific article their post is based upon: ‘Bioelectrical synchronization of Picea abies during a solar eclipse’. Authors: Chiolerio A, Gagliano M, Pilia S, Pilia P, Vitiello G, Dehshibi M, Adamatzky A. Journal: Royal Society Open Science DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241786
But, what about custom..?
It is, however, customary not to continue to italicise foreign words or phrases that have long been assimilated into the English language. That is why in my blog posts I try not to italicise ‘i.e.’ [the abbreviation for the Latin phrase id est , which means ‘that is’ or ‘in other words’, and ‘e.g.’ [the abbreviation for the Latin phrase exempli gratia, meaning ‘for example’].
Whilst one can accept that, in normal everyday written English usage, italicisation is probably not necessary, I think it should continue to be used in cases of ‘scientific English’ writing (although acknowledging that there is on-going debate over whether one still needs to do so in that specific context (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here) [Ed. – whilst recognising that, with passage of time, it is highly likely that unitalicised ‘et al.’ [but not ‘et al’!] will become the norm, Mr Cuttings will continue to ‘fight the good fight’ for integrity in scicomm in this instance. However, for readers’ own use of this abbreviation, they are advised to check the specific stylistic requirements of the publication or outlet for which they are writing…].
Maintaining those standards (again)…
It is possible that Phys.Org, a site dedicated for science [see Part 1], may be displaying ‘et al.’ in that non-punctuated, non-italicised way in an attempt to avoid what may seem by some to be excessive elitism, or prissy, pettifogging, petty linguistic pedantry. Whilst its non-italicisation is not necessarily dumbing-down as such, Phys.Org may be doing what it considers to be more acceptable to a 21st century readership.
Maybe. But, as a site that publishes scicomm for consumption by a science-minded audience, in doing so Phys.Org [and other outlets who practise this ‘et alism’***] contribute to an erosion of standards in writing about science, and this affects the way that (plant) science is communicated and therefore understood by the public. And, anyway, omission of the full-stop is just wrong.
Take-home message: plantcuttings.uk intends to continue to use italicised – and punctuated – et al. for cited publications which have more than two authors for the foreseeable future as exemplifying best practice in this aspect of science writing, and communicating.
Having now got that off my chest, it should be back to proper plant stuff next week…
* But! Where the last letter of the abbreviated form of a word is also the same as the last letter of the full-length word, then the full-stop/period should not be shown (e.g., here, here, and Mignon Fogarty).
** Acknowledging that men and women do science and may both therefore contribute to authorship of scientific articles, it’s worth mentioning that the neutral term ‘et alia’ considered so far has two variants (Jessica Abbadia): ‘et aliae’, the feminine plural form of ‘et alia’ – used to show that a source has numerous female authors. And, ‘et alii’, the male plural form of ‘et alia’ – used to show that a source has numerous male authors. Whilst recognition of such authorship specifics is to be applauded, both of those gendered phrases are abbreviated to ‘et al.’ [Ed. – which may be interpreted as celebrating the egalitarianism of science..?].
*** This non-punctuated, non-italicised usage is also seen in Sarah Conshof’s post for Botany One, “In an article recently published in the Annals of Botany, Lazzarin and Dupont et al have found …”. Botany One is the blog for the Annals of Botany, and is another site that promotes public understanding and dissemination of plant science, i.e., scicomm: “The goal of the blog is to promote Botany in all is aspects as well as discuss the human issues involved in being a botanist” (quoted from here).
REFERENCE
Bruce V Lewenstein, 2022. What is ‘‘science communication’’? JCOM 21(07): C02; https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070302
Plant Cuttings 
Leave a comment