Comment by alexholehouse | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexholehouse | Hacker News Reader

Slightly off topic, but I wish there was a change to how scientific papers were written (and this comment doesn't pertain to this article - it's just a general comment). For some, inexplicable reason, it sometimes feels like authors are challenging one another to write the most convoluted, unclear account of what is actually a fairly intuitive idea.

Clearly, this is not always the case, and obviously complexity doesn't lend itself to nice 10 word summaries (hat-tip to Jed Bartlet), but equally the choice of language used and the pace of arguments can make a huge difference. There is no need to use "big" words, when simple ones will do just fine. There is no need to use technical language in place of standard vocabulary where it adds nothing to further your ideas. Don't "hit the ground running" but introduce a new idea with an analogy, or a toy example.

Write papers so humans can understand them - often the science being portrayed is complicated enough, there's no need to further complicate your ideas to the point where you leave English speaking audiences trying to decipher the message, let alone what foreign readers must think.

The best papers are the papers you can read abstract-to-conclusion without stopping and asking yourself, "What does that mean?". This is all too rare an occurrence for me. /rant

The fundamental issue is that papers are often incremental, that is, they build upon some previous work, which is thereby referenced. The issue this creates is that the papers become hard to follow for anyone who is not already familiar with the previous work in the cited papers. Even if someone goes on to read the referenced papers, it often does not help as the problem is recursive.

This keeps on happening till the research becomes old and mature enough for someone to write a book on the topic which then is nearly self-contained (or assumes some prior background like mathematics, or undergrad-level courses, etc.). MOOCs are also helping the situation since the instructors create nearly self-contained courses which often also include very recent research results.

To solve the issue you mention, this basic notion may need to be broken, such that each paper explicitly explains its subject matter without relying too much on the references. Since much research does not go anywhere, this may be a premature optimization really though.

A thing that does bother me, and signifies the extent to which what you say is true is that "talking" to the authors of these papers nearly always delivers those good insights within a few minutes that you would not get after spending an hour on the paper they wrote.

A thing that does bother me, and signifies the extent to which what you say is true is that "talking" to the authors of these papers nearly always delivers those good insights within a few minutes that you would not get after spending an hour on the paper they wrote.

This. A thousand times this.

I'm not talking about technical language - there are often (if not constantly) times when technical language is required to convey a precise meaning within the context of a paper. All I'm talking about here is the use of complexity where it's not required. It's a comment on the quality of writing.

With some exceptions like Osmium wrote below, I do not think the authors are using unneeded complexity purposefully. I think complexity does end up happening still because (A) of the reason I mentioned, (B) them being not as good at explaining [1], and (C) possibly added effort required. Of these, reason A does not apply when talking to the authors in person.

I would like to hear if you have further explanations for what is behind this. For example, I read in [2] that reading is much more complex operation for the human mind as compared to seeing or hearing because, assuming you believe in biological evolution, reading and writing came to humans only about 6000 years ago while verbal language and hearing came a few millions years back. I do sometimes find listening to Coursera videos more helpful than just reading the slides, but then feel that this is generally because the slides are often incomplete (they often do not really "say" it).

[1] Many people, especially engineers, often lack good presentation skills. I am extrapolating this to writing since that sounds natural even though I do not have not directly experienced this.

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Mind-Simple-Understanding-In...

Scientific papers aren't written for you, the layman. They are written specifically for scientists in that particular field. I'm a PhD student, and never have I read a paper with wording that I would describe as "convoluted."

You nailed it. If someone cares about laypeople understanding his research, he writes a blog about it. However, most research is of no interest to people who don't work on nearly exactly the same thing. And these people will not like to read the extra pieces needed to make something self-contained over and over again.

Lucky you! I agree, though, that the problem isn't as severe as the OP suggests, but it does exist. You see it especially in papers that aren't that great, where the author obfuscates what they've done because the reality isn't as impressive as they'd like (which is a shame, because that doesn't mean it's not useful research -- and if it was presented more concisely, it'd probably be more accessible by more people -- not everything needs to be groundbreaking!).

I am not the lay person, and I am not talking about communicating your findings to the pubic, which obviously requires an entirely different set of skills than communicating your work to fellow scientists (another problem, but one step at a time!). This is purely a comment on the typical language and style of writing used in papers - not on the content itself, per se, although the two are to a certain extent linked.

> I'm a PhD student, and never have I read a paper with wording that I would describe as "convoluted."

What field are you in, because I wonder if this makes a difference? I'm in a highly interdisciplinary field, so perhaps that's part of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com