4 ms·
On the one hand, I think you're right, it's more the job of science journalists to summarize scientific literature and communicate its significance based on res
by furyg3 5y ago
On the one hand, I think you're right, it's more the job of science journalists to summarize scientific literature and communicate its significance based on research methods and potential impact.
At the same time, this goes wrong so often that you could make an argument for a 'plain English' summary of an article to help facilitate both journalists and the curious.
Presumably researchers explain their research to non-experts all the time, so this is not some unbelievable request.
- austinjp 5y agoSome publishers do indeed try to provide a plain-language summary where possible. See Cochrane reviews, for example this one: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012868.pub2/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
- Ensorceled 5y agoI guess I kind of feel like we are barging into a conversation between scientists and doctors and demanding that they write down to our level because we are "curious" and someone linked to it from HN. I would expect a journalist writing about this kind of article to actually be able to understand the abstract, at a minimum, or they shouldn't be writing about this. I know I'd be annoyed if a bunch of doctors started reviewing my architecture documents and criticized me for not explaining s3 or etl or snowflake or redshift.