Show of HandsShow of Hands

eLucidate October 22nd, 2014 1:07am

Scientific journals are expensive, and difficult to read for many people. Should scientists write simpler online summaries of their articles?

13 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

typetype level 2 pretty
10/23/14 5:24 am

No. More ppl media should report on the articles.

Wes28 CBus
10/22/14 10:52 am

Hell no. Scientists don't write things for the general population to understand.

jamichl Seattle
10/22/14 10:45 pm

Exactly. These aren't for the general public. They are for peers.

Diknak Ohio
10/22/14 6:52 am

scientific journals are intended to be read and scrutinized by scientists. they aren't blogs. . .

10/22/14 4:08 pm

Came on to post the same thing.

eLucidate writing
10/22/14 6:05 pm

I meant in addition to, not as a substitute.

eLucidate writing
10/22/14 3:43 am


catpillow Florida West Coast
10/21/14 9:54 pm

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.

corino Utah
10/21/14 9:34 pm

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.

10/21/14 8:31 pm

It ink paraphrased would be a better term here than summarized.

tenletters New York
10/21/14 8:21 pm

The summary is the abstract

10/21/14 8:29 pm

But the abstract doesn't seem to be near enough.

EarlyBird Portland
10/21/14 7:12 pm

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.

iBakes California
10/21/14 7:05 pm

No, we aren't bloggers.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
10/21/14 7:04 pm

It is us that needs to step up our game, not the scientists that need to coddle laymen.

eLucidate writing
10/22/14 7:36 pm

But, that is not likely to happen. I think scientists need to be pragmatic and work within the current system.

blitz6799 Chicagoland
10/21/14 6:55 pm

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.

brenstal Florida
10/21/14 6:43 pm

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.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
10/21/14 6:19 pm

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".

iBakes California
10/21/14 7:43 pm

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.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
10/21/14 8:12 pm

That would be great. I come across a lot of professional journal articles that cost a lot of money to get past the abstract.

eLucidate writing
10/21/14 6:14 pm

I have a very strong opinion on this, but I'm curious to see what others think.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 5:34 am

This user is currently being ignored