"Readability" has no clear definition; we all have our own idea of what it is. To me, readability in the field of research papers is not so much about the grammar, but much more on the motivations for the work being solid (without it, it makes no sense to keep on reading), a clear and lucid presentation of the research question and of the tools used, as well as the derivations of results, illustrations, serious comparisons with what came before, and so on.

I for one - with a quite long experience of having done referee duties for nearly 300 papers - can say that I find that the readability of published papers are in decline. Quite often when I read I see in front of me a very nervous scientist who dares not write a lot about the motivations for the paper (because it takes up too much space), and the analysis (whichever its kind) is also shallow. Most focus is on RESULTS, GRAPHS - whether they tell you something, or not. But if the results from whatever activity is not clearly stated, or compared in detail with previous ones, the paper will remain a shallow one, as well as being isolated from the core of the subject, since it is not rooted anywhere.

We need to take back at least the right to write a good survey - otherwise the paper will be disconnected from the volume of work already done. At least THAT we need to have space for.

Hi,

I find these findings correct. When reading research papers from the 1980s and 1990s I find them much more readable than papers from the 2000s. In the earlier papers the use of words, and the structure of sentences are more appealing than in the latter years, and the reading experience as a whole is nicer than reading research papers of the recent decade.

Yes the readability is declined and the ethical plagiarism is growing stronger with cooked up values

"I for one can say" - I think that's not too hard to grasp, even though there is a pause in the middle. :-)

Or is my phrasing a sign of exactly the decline I'm talking about? ;-)

There are some quite annoying aspects in modern-day publishing:

(a) Papers are supposed to have extraordinary news value, so much so that authors are not allowed to put these news into any perspective - as editors think that historical overviews (surveys) are a waste of space - so many papers become disconnected from the past. In 20 years time, therefore, those newer papers will not be understood, because there are - on purpose - holes drilled in the timeline of the research development. I find this alarming, in fact.

Dear MP, I did read it as "I for one can say" :) but then I wonder why I was confused about it. Sorry for that. And thanks for pointing out the intricacies involved. The plot is thickening :)

Yes the readability is decline, I observed research paper of recent decade have nothing new just paraphrasing or interpretation of already existing information that leads to low interest of readers.

What evidence do these authors have? What criteria and design did they use?

If they have well-designed research, they should compare a journal over time. For example, compare the readability of each journal longitudinally over time, NEJM, JAMA, BMJ etc., in 1880 and now, rather than mix journals in their comparison.

I think that many analysis sections are far too technical for many readers. That is an observation - not a criticism as they also typically demonstrate rigor.

Neil Dagnall How come those papers are not understood? My hunch is that the review part is cut short, at the request of the publisher/editor. If this is true, we are heading in the wrong direction. Since the flood of articles is growing, the editors of the major journals MUST allow the authors to survey the narrow path(s) up until the point where they present their contributions: without a good enough glance back into the past, we would not be able to connect what has been to what is now being done.

I fear that journal editors (or, rather, the publishers) will make very serious mistakes by cutting down the allowed room for the writing of the history, in the form of a serious survey. Without surveys we - and those who read what we now write - will be misunderstood! I hope everyone who publishes can argue with their editors in such a way that the survey can be expanded - for the sake of keeping the connections to the past, in order to keep science connected.

Palwasha Khan Afridi You're not making any sense! If you have any evidence, then present them!

Hi,

If we are judging the increase or decrease of the readability of scientific papers these days. compared to previous decades, it is logic to think that the readability did not decrease, because the number of citations to scientific paper are increasing. The question is if citations are actually a reliable indicator of usage. it is assumed that if a paper is cited, the information provided in it is understood. Or is it ?

Dear Rad Maythil

Concerning your thread, the use of new vocabulary (in my field) makes it sometimes almost impossible to read abstracts and titles in new research articles.

I have to ask someone else or spent weeks trying to guess what some authors mean.

Add that for me is harder since English is not my native language.

Best Regards.

Dear Rad Maythil,

May I argue that the issue is not related to quality of scientific content of the research papers, progress or regression.

The readability of research papers from my point of view is related to scientific language in which the research is written and the adherence to the formal standards agreed upon in writing. This means that scientific language is characterized by simplicity and brevity based on the principle of “the best speech is what is less and clear” and that scientific language transcends the narrow cultural framework; To be clearer and simpler especially for non-native speakers of English as a mother tongue as indicated by Dr. Pedro L. Contreras E..

Best Wishes,

Thank you, Prof. Hatem Albasis

Citing classical works and using their vocabulary has been always my duty!

Best Regards.

It is a phenomenon that has been known for some time and that has increased since the enormous diffusion of web magazines.

The research papers need to discuss the topics which are relevant to daily life and deal with real life problems. It can be at any level of research.

Indeed Dear Dr. Rad Maythil Of course we have to learn about what our mind is actually capable of capturing, since it is always looking for an explanation for everything and even more so with the new means of communication within our reach, it is necessary "above all" for healthy formation and experience of every student in University Career. We must always be alert to any explanation that we give to a student because if we fall into the error of an explanation where we appreciate that we already have the solution, we remain satisfied but we tend not to continue with the initial effort and we must give him greater emphasis if it is a Research Paper by one of our students who is going to publish an important topic for the first time. Given the initial "illegibility" of some scientific texts and with knowledge of acronyms and basic scientific vocabulary, it may be useful as an initial indicator to "start in reverse", that is, start with the results of the research being read. and end with the beginning of the scientific text

Cf.

Article Is the readability of abstracts decreasing in management research?