3 ms·
It's a fine line to walk when publishing. For example, is it ok to use the term "Hilbert space" in an article? Perhaps in physics, but not if publishing in bio
by chaxor 4y ago
It's a fine line to walk when publishing. For example, is it ok to use the term "Hilbert space" in an article? Perhaps in physics, but not if publishing in biology - or at least in biology, a few sentences to describe the term may be more appropriate. But the use of the term is actually quite useful, as in this manufactured example the article may apply only to Hilbert spaces but not all vector spaces. So since the distinction may be important to the finding, the terminology is necessary.
- LolWolf 4y agoOh, no, I'm not dismissing terminology! (That's a whole separate topic, which is distinct from writing, though it can sometimes be a sign of bad writing.) I'm talking specifically about the actual writing. Iirc, there's a phrase that sums it up quite nicely: "most science is written like it hates you and wants you to stop reading immediately." Poor writing is so much the norm that people are shocked when you write a readable article. (You'd be surprised at the number of peer review comments I've received to the effect of, "the writing is surprisingly clear and direct," and I'm not like, a novelist, or essayist, or anything. English isn't even my first language! It's just not the norm to think about, and much less act on, these things.)
- barking_biscuit 4y ago>"most science is written like it hates you and wants you to stop reading immediately." As an educated lay person who dips into scientific papers occasionally I completely agree with this. And now I have a nice phrase I can remember next time I read a scientific paper and think "why does science hate me?".