I agree! To combat this 'jargonification' and make ourselves better writers, some of the PhD and MS students at my alma mater decided to make a journal club for

I agree! To combat this 'jargonification' and make ourselves better writers, some of the PhD and MS students at my alma mater decided to make a journal club for well written papers. Not papers that were good science, but just well written and easy to understand (in our field). We would submit papers and then go over them at lunch once a week. We found: 1) The appropriate metric for 'well written' is that you can read the whole thing aloud and understand the findings in the time it takes a person to eat a sandwich, a bag of chips, and drink a medium coffee. About 75 minutes. Anything more may be 'read' but not understood and anything less means you should have done more work. 2) Everyone loves jargon. The more obscure words the better. The more complicated and obfuscated, the better. I find that I want to grok the research. Most of my compatriots do not want to do that. However, we all think the same thing about everyone else. More complicated papers result in a 'treasure hunt' mentality that many researchers actually enjoy, it seems. The journal club evolved into a 'tennis game' of sorts where the submitter would lord over the others about their knowledge of the paper. i don't want to generalize too much, but I think this behavior of 'one-up-man-ship' and 'I-know-more-than-yoooou-dooo' is core to academia.