Can someone with more experience in scientific writing comment on
> It’s too circuitous and indirect for a scientific report
The preceding paragraph does not seem unreasonable to me--maybe a bit too glib, but nothing that couldn't be touched up.
> It’s too circuitous and indirect for a scientific report
The preceding paragraph does not seem unreasonable to me--maybe a bit too glib, but nothing that couldn't be touched up.
100 articles at 6 pages each
and condense them to 1 article of 6 pages
And add how your method/insight moves the conversation forward, along with describing your method/insight.
The reason why scientific writing can be hard to read from the outside is the 100:1 compression. Decompression of that can require some knowledge of the field.
Also, some people are just bad at writing.