Re:Is the business of scientific publishing bad for science?
by Someone on Thursday June 29, 2017 @03:43AM
(#14661478)
"The fact that journalists write articles instead of just copying and pasting the abstract shows that abstracts aren't very readable."
No, it shows that journalists write for a different audience.
"What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers."
That shows journalists wrote for a wider audience.
The articles that journalists write are considered better by laymen, but typically, they provide insufficient information for experts to see what exactly is new in the article and/or simplify so much that experts find the information presented downright wrong (search HN on battery or fusion break-throughs for examples)
But yes, it is true that quite a few scientists could do with a good editor that helps them write text that is easier to understand for experts. The current citation-happy culture doesn't help there, with abstracts that have more "(Newton, 1754)" phrases than actual text describing the work done.
No, it shows that journalists write for a different audience.
"What's easy to read is news articles that are based on scientific papers."
That shows journalists wrote for a wider audience.
The articles that journalists write are considered better by laymen, but typically, they provide insufficient information for experts to see what exactly is new in the article and/or simplify so much that experts find the information presented downright wrong (search HN on battery or fusion break-throughs for examples)
But yes, it is true that quite a few scientists could do with a good editor that helps them write text that is easier to understand for experts. The current citation-happy culture doesn't help there, with abstracts that have more "(Newton, 1754)" phrases than actual text describing the work done.