You need to provide an example of a highly cited paper with low clarity otherwise the clarity concept is vague. Even if it is true that papers are unclear, the

You need to provide an example of a highly cited paper with low clarity otherwise the clarity concept is vague. Even if it is true that papers are unclear, the incentives for academics is to get prestige, which follows from getting papers accepted, which follows from getting (usually) 3 experts to say their paper is the least terrible paper in their stack. Professors need 30-40 papers in 5-6 years so journalists reading their paper for a 2 minute story is probably not on their radar. The process for getting a paper accepted is tuned precisely to be understood by the 3 reviewers, and further synthesis is out of scope. Basically, it is incorrect to view papers as a way to spread knowledge to the masses (this is a common stance taken by science), but they are rather a form of academic currency which can be converted into other digestible forms, such as books. Often the knowledge in the paper is not even yet broadly accepted and may even be unsafe/incorrect e.g., medical research. So yes, consult with experts.