> There is a lot of specific data presented in the article, such as that women have higher writing standards, in the form of more revisions to publication. The

> There is a lot of specific data presented in the article, such as that women have higher writing standards, in the form of more revisions to publication. The data comes from this paper: http://www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf http://www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf That paper assumes that "higher writing standards" means "simple vocabulary and short sentences". So you might get a bad score for > There is a lot of specific data presented in the article, such as that women have higher writing standards, in the form of more revisions to publication. And a better score for > The article refers to examples like women writing better, and rewriting their work more. Whether "simple words" really means better writing for academic journals is not clearcut to me. Overall, the readability calculator here: http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-... scored your comment "difficult to read", which the paper would have said meant bad writing, and the OP article would have called a man's "poorly written mush". I'm not saying this to insult you, but to point out that the article's definition of good writing may not be something you agree with.