Scientific journals are expensive, and difficult to read for many people. Should scientists write simpler online summaries of their articles?
No. More ppl media should report on the articles.
Hell no. Scientists don't write things for the general population to understand.
Exactly. These aren't for the general public. They are for peers.
scientific journals are intended to be read and scrutinized by scientists. they aren't blogs. . .
Came on to post the same thing.
I meant in addition to, not as a substitute.
Don't read them don't care
I think it would be better to have someone else do the writing. Scientists often think they're being simple and clear, but are sometimes still way above other people's heads.
This is one of the bigger problems actually, they boil down everything into 'easy to understand metaphor that makes less sense than what's actually happening.
It ink paraphrased would be a better term here than summarized.
The summary is the abstract
But the abstract doesn't seem to be near enough.
The journals themselves shouldn't be dumbed down but it would be nice if there was a reputable company that wrote summaries that were easy to understand.
No, we aren't bloggers.
It is us that needs to step up our game, not the scientists that need to coddle laymen.
But, that is not likely to happen. I think scientists need to be pragmatic and work within the current system.
The scientists/journals themselves? Nah, I feel like that's all trade work. But! The people who report on stories from those journals absolutely should. I'm thinking of PopSci, Scientific American, Discover, Nature(?), Nat Geo, etc.
Scientists shouldn't also have to be the educators and interpreters of research. Performing experiments/analysis is its own job, without also distributing that among the wider public. The distributers/interpreters should be reporters and teachers.
I don't think they should be dumbed down for the masses, but I do think they should be readily available to be read by everyone. I wouldn't count it as being "published" unless it was also "public".
Most people who have entered the field within the last decade or so just link PDFs of all their publications on their personal websites so it truly is free & public. Well, that's the case in most psychology fields at least.
That would be great. I come across a lot of professional journal articles that cost a lot of money to get past the abstract.
I have a very strong opinion on this, but I'm curious to see what others think.
This user is currently being ignored