4 ms·

Part of the problem is that you have to "Read Like Math" and not "Read Like A Novel." Papers aren't taken seriously unless they sound serious, and people like

Part of the problem is that you have to "Read Like Math" and not "Read Like A Novel." Papers aren't taken seriously unless they sound serious, and people like to read adventure stories. Anything else is just "too hard." People don't know how to read scientific papers. They don't know how to find the story in the stilted and stultifying prose. They don't know that you can skim bits and return to them later, you can read through to get the sense, then return to see the details. And it's got scary looking equations.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Just the fact that it's a PDF is enough to make me think twice before clicking, never mind reading it. There was a cool sounding project called AcaWiki (http://acawiki.org http://acawiki.org) that wanted to crowdsource summaries of research papers. Doesn't look like it's exploded yet (not a single Climate related paper as far as I can see) but it's still a good idea.
thirdusername 17y ago
Understanding that you are allowed to do random access and skimming is crucial not only to enjoy reading many papers but to technical books as well! You got taught to read something from cover to cover before college and doing otherwise is viewed as laziness, maybe even cheating. It's not until later they explicitly state you should skim and only digg deeper when there's something relevant you don't understand. It is also often pointed out that great academics aren't necessarily great writers which I'm sure is the cause for a lot of the dryness in papers. I'm also reasonably sure it has to do with journals enforcing overly strict formating rules to the point of blatantly refusing to publish for no reason other than being slightly over length. A hilarious tale of this is How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/frog/How%20to%20Publish%20a%20Comment%20w%20suggestions.pdf http://www.physics.gatech.edu/frog/How%20to%20Publish%20a%20...
_delirium 17y ago
I actually wish a lot of papers in my area (speaking as a grad student) had more novel-like writing and were less hung-up on seeming formal. I've been reading a bunch of logic papers lately, mainly to mine techniques and ideas for an application-oriented use of logic that my thesis is built on, and the papers parcel out concepts so slowly, and fail to explain any intuition about them, that it's pretty slow going. It's like 90% proofs that I don't care about (put them in an appendix) and 10% actual content I might want to read.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I agree with you, but that's what you have to do to get published. My first PhD thesis was rejected, although my viva saved me and I was given permission to re-write. The second version had mostly the same material, mostly the same proofs, but was written in a style that made it seem harder and more inaccessible. It appeared more impressive, so it made a better impression. Clear, accurate and engaging writing is hard and undervalued. My advice is: learn to live with it. After all, you don't really have a choice.
- zbyszek 17y ago
  Yes and no. In my experience it is usually a mistake for scientists to try to write fancy prose like a novelist. I would much rather have a dull but comprehensible paper (all short, plain and simple sentences) than any kind of highly literate ambiguity, or indeed the over-formal pomposity you rightly complain about. A scientific paper should not be a work of entertainment or showing off, but an attempt to communicate an idea. Remember that a paper is written for several audiences, and the annoying crap that you don't care about might be of vital importance to someone else. Having said that, it is nice when a paper is well arranged so that you can find what you want, but too often you just have to develop your cherry-picking skills.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Just the fact that it's a PDF is enough to make me think twice before clicking, never mind reading it. There was a cool sounding project called AcaWiki (http://acawiki.org http://acawiki.org) that wanted to crowdsource summaries of research papers. Doesn't look like it's exploded yet (not a single Climate related paper as far as I can see) but it's still a good idea.

thirdusername 17y ago

Understanding that you are allowed to do random access and skimming is crucial not only to enjoy reading many papers but to technical books as well! You got taught to read something from cover to cover before college and doing otherwise is viewed as laziness, maybe even cheating. It's not until later they explicitly state you should skim and only digg deeper when there's something relevant you don't understand. It is also often pointed out that great academics aren't necessarily great writers which I'm sure is the cause for a lot of the dryness in papers. I'm also reasonably sure it has to do with journals enforcing overly strict formating rules to the point of blatantly refusing to publish for no reason other than being slightly over length. A hilarious tale of this is How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 123 Easy Steps: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/frog/How%20to%20Publish%20a%20Comment%20w%20suggestions.pdf http://www.physics.gatech.edu/frog/How%20to%20Publish%20a%20...

_delirium 17y ago

I actually wish a lot of papers in my area (speaking as a grad student) had more novel-like writing and were less hung-up on seeming formal. I've been reading a bunch of logic papers lately, mainly to mine techniques and ideas for an application-oriented use of logic that my thesis is built on, and the papers parcel out concepts so slowly, and fail to explain any intuition about them, that it's pretty slow going. It's like 90% proofs that I don't care about (put them in an appendix) and 10% actual content I might want to read.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
I agree with you, but that's what you have to do to get published. My first PhD thesis was rejected, although my viva saved me and I was given permission to re-write. The second version had mostly the same material, mostly the same proofs, but was written in a style that made it seem harder and more inaccessible. It appeared more impressive, so it made a better impression. Clear, accurate and engaging writing is hard and undervalued. My advice is: learn to live with it. After all, you don't really have a choice.
zbyszek 17y ago
Yes and no. In my experience it is usually a mistake for scientists to try to write fancy prose like a novelist. I would much rather have a dull but comprehensible paper (all short, plain and simple sentences) than any kind of highly literate ambiguity, or indeed the over-formal pomposity you rightly complain about. A scientific paper should not be a work of entertainment or showing off, but an attempt to communicate an idea. Remember that a paper is written for several audiences, and the annoying crap that you don't care about might be of vital importance to someone else. Having said that, it is nice when a paper is well arranged so that you can find what you want, but too often you just have to develop your cherry-picking skills.