4 ms·

Why is this even relevant? Few people actually read published papers compared to, say, blogs, so the standard needn't be so high - inconveniencing 100 people is

Why is this even relevant? Few people actually read published papers compared to, say, blogs, so the standard needn't be so high - inconveniencing 100 people is better than inconveniencing 1000. Yet nobody pays for copy editing and layout of their blog. It's not only trivial but also not important if it isn't quite right. If readability is important for journal articles, then layout is the least important way to achieve that. The whole style of writing needs to be changed. They're notoriously hard to read even for other researchers in similar fields. I'm not saying dumb it down but, for example, perhaps they could be structured a bit like a newspaper story with a quick overview using common vocabulary first, then more details and more precise language later. That's just one idea but my general point is that readability is not what they're aiming for anyway so why bother making it look pretty?

jeffwass 9y ago
This is already the case. Every scientific journal article I've seen starts with an abstract, which is exactly the summary you desire.
- averagewall 9y ago
  That's a start but doesn't go nearly far enough to relieve the burden of reading papers that researchers have to suffer through. An abstract usually has a high density jargon and undefined terms that are specific to the niche they're working in. What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers. The fact that journalists write articles instead of just copying and pasting the abstract shows that abstracts aren't very readable. Also, once you're past the abstract, it's still heavy going. Compare that to text books which tend to be a bit easier to follow. I'm not saying these are the answers. Just highlighting the problem of readability. That seems more serious than not having a space between a unit and a number, or a formula having a disproportionately big fraction. Even more important than spelling and grammar which humans can mostly correct as they go.
  - Someone 9y ago
    "The fact that journalists write articles instead of just copying and pasting the abstract shows that abstracts aren't very readable." No, it shows that journalists write for a different audience. "What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers." That shows journalists wrote for a wider audience. The articles that journalists write are considered better by laymen, but typically, they provide insufficient information for experts to see what exactly is new in the article and/or simplify so much that experts find the information presented downright wrong (search HN on battery or fusion break-throughs for examples) But yes, it is true that quite a few scientists could do with a good editor that helps them write text that is easier to understand for experts. The current citation-happy culture doesn't help there, with abstracts that have more "(Newton, 1754)" phrases than actual text describing the work done.
  - pcrh 9y ago
    Research articles are dense and full of jargon because that is the most efficient way to communicate with their intended audience, which is other researchers. Making a standard research article readable to the lay audience, even if it is also educated to some degree in the field, would double or triple its length.
  - dagw 9y ago
    What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers. The reason they are so easy to read is that the journalists tend to simplify and generalize the results to such an abstract level that the 'research' they present in their article bares only passing resemblance to the actual research presented in the actual paper. And that's assuming a best case scenario where they don't simply misunderstand the whole thing. All that being said, I agree that most papers could do with a good copy editor. Fortunately there are hundreds of freelancers willing and able to do that and many universities even have someone on staff or retainer that can help out.
Fomite 9y ago
Because it isn't about volume, and blogging is an inherently informal style in many cases (says someone who both publishes academic papers and has a blog). As for readability, clarity of writing and visual clarity are not perfectly correlated. I have read very well-written papers that were still painful to interact with as physical objects.

jeffwass 9y ago

This is already the case. Every scientific journal article I've seen starts with an abstract, which is exactly the summary you desire.

averagewall 9y ago
That's a start but doesn't go nearly far enough to relieve the burden of reading papers that researchers have to suffer through. An abstract usually has a high density jargon and undefined terms that are specific to the niche they're working in. What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers. The fact that journalists write articles instead of just copying and pasting the abstract shows that abstracts aren't very readable. Also, once you're past the abstract, it's still heavy going. Compare that to text books which tend to be a bit easier to follow. I'm not saying these are the answers. Just highlighting the problem of readability. That seems more serious than not having a space between a unit and a number, or a formula having a disproportionately big fraction. Even more important than spelling and grammar which humans can mostly correct as they go.
- Someone 9y ago
  "The fact that journalists write articles instead of just copying and pasting the abstract shows that abstracts aren't very readable." No, it shows that journalists write for a different audience. "What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers." That shows journalists wrote for a wider audience. The articles that journalists write are considered better by laymen, but typically, they provide insufficient information for experts to see what exactly is new in the article and/or simplify so much that experts find the information presented downright wrong (search HN on battery or fusion break-throughs for examples) But yes, it is true that quite a few scientists could do with a good editor that helps them write text that is easier to understand for experts. The current citation-happy culture doesn't help there, with abstracts that have more "(Newton, 1754)" phrases than actual text describing the work done.
- pcrh 9y ago
  Research articles are dense and full of jargon because that is the most efficient way to communicate with their intended audience, which is other researchers. Making a standard research article readable to the lay audience, even if it is also educated to some degree in the field, would double or triple its length.
- dagw 9y ago
  What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers. The reason they are so easy to read is that the journalists tend to simplify and generalize the results to such an abstract level that the 'research' they present in their article bares only passing resemblance to the actual research presented in the actual paper. And that's assuming a best case scenario where they don't simply misunderstand the whole thing. All that being said, I agree that most papers could do with a good copy editor. Fortunately there are hundreds of freelancers willing and able to do that and many universities even have someone on staff or retainer that can help out.

Fomite 9y ago

Because it isn't about volume, and blogging is an inherently informal style in many cases (says someone who both publishes academic papers and has a blog). As for readability, clarity of writing and visual clarity are not perfectly correlated. I have read very well-written papers that were still painful to interact with as physical objects.