Agreed. Most papers, even good ones, are hard to understand because the subject matter is hard. They are written with the assumption of a certain amount of pr

Agreed. Most papers, even good ones, are hard to understand because the subject matter is hard. They are written with the assumption of a certain amount of prior knowledge of the field, and depending on the intended audience, very little background might be explained. Writing clearly is also remarkably difficult and not everyone can do it. I have often found that the initial exposition of a scientific concept is not the easiest. After it been been digested by the community for a while, clearer ways of explaining it might be found. Now, there are controversies like the Bogdanov papers, and even successful hoaxes like the famous Sokal paper, but I think these are exceptional, and usually reviewers _will_ say that a paper is "flat out bad" despite, or even because of obfuscation.