(no subject)

[superborb]

tl;dr STEM papers SHOULD be readable by someone outside the field, and I wish to correct this misconception. (level of navel gazing: high, and probably of little interest to most people sdfjsl)

A week or so ago, there was a thing going around twitter about how it was presumptuous to expect humanities papers to be understandable by the non-expert in the field, because you'd never expect that for a STEM paper. Of course, I do agree with the underlying complaint here, which is the devaluation of humanities knowledge and specialties.

However, I was a bit shocked to read it, because I basically expect to be able to pick up a paper in any field and get the gist of it. While I'd miss plenty of subtlety and might not be able to meaningfully judge it against the other work in the field, and the more theoretical the field, the more that is true, I don't think this is an unusual expectation. A good paper positions itself in the field and is written in plain enough language that any jargon is frankly, googleable.

I fully admit that I am in a privileged place to say this: I have... a PhD in a STEM field, which uh, definitely teaches you how to read papers. But my first year courses in biology (which I subsequently dropped as a major, so it's not like I was particularly good at biology) were entirely paper reading based. We'd read a few papers and discuss them each class, and yes, obviously the professor chose them for their clarity and general readability, but it's not like those /weren't/ research papers.

Of course there are people like the professor who'd take the papers his students wrote, which were perfectly clear and well written, and add obfuscating language to them. But the resulting papers are still understandable to the outsider, just not fun to read.

I most admired my advisor for her clear communication skills, both in presentations and in papers. Her ability to be convincing and provide the base knowledge for her arguments is what drew me to her lab. That was, and still is, my idea of what a good science paper should be.

Comments

[cortue]

Oh I 100% agree with you that papers should be generally readable, especially since there is a good amount of research that is funded through tax dollars. I am glad to hear that at least in your field (?) they are, but they are deeefinitely not in mine. It's really frustrating, but there is a whole host of terms that everyone just knows and so there is no database to go and look them up. You just have to pick them up from context or ask someone already in the field to explain it to you. It's unfortunate. Oh also, of course, not everyone agrees on the terms all the time, so you have to pick that up from context as well. (sigh)

[superborb]

Mmm, yes, the jargon is definitely a problem! Especially in a cutting edge field, where terminology hasn't been set yet.

[jetsam]

It's the classic test of whether you understand it, isn't it? If a PHD candidate can't explain their research area, at least in general terms, in an understandable way for a non-specialist in less than 2 mins, then they have work to do.

[superborb]

Yes, definitely! Though tbf, we're talking about papers intended for the specialist audience, so there is no intention of simplification in these papers -- but it should still be clear

[jetsam]

In that case it's an even easier job because you can assume knowledge. Being comprehensible is also a test of professional skill.

[superborb]

For sure! Though I guess my point is that even when it assumes that knowledge, it's still basically comprehensible to a lay-person, as long as you're willing to try

[rekishi]

But then everyone could read it and there wouldn't ne a hurdle anymore! /o\

[superborb]

Pffffffft, there's a difference between reading and doing! I never understood that argument anyway

[rekishi]

should have added a /sarcasm tag ^^;

there are many reasons I left the field. this is one of them. though honestly, read enough of those papers and it's so much easier writing one as well than trying to write something in clearer language.

[superborb]

Yeah, I knew you were being sarcastic haha!

It's true, you really pick up the style of the stuff you read

[silveredeye]

I basically expect to be able to pick up a paper in any field and get the gist of it. While I'd miss plenty of subtlety and might not be able to meaningfully judge it against the other work in the field, and the more theoretical the field, the more that is true, I don't think this is an unusual expectation.

Same. I made it most of the way to MSc, so I've had some training in reading papers, but when I read papers for fun they're usually outside my field and I do expect to understand the basic argument in STEM ones as well as in non-STEM ones.

One of my friends (who did her degrees in a much more theoretical STEM field than mine) had a tendency to underwrite her papers, but I think her advisors kept gently reminding her that one should probably put words in a paper in addition to the mathematical formulae.

[superborb]

Yeah, like, learning to read and judge papers /is/ one of the major things you learn in grad school! But there's a difference between "fully understand", "get the gist of it", and "completely opaque", and imo, nothing should fall in the last category...

At least her advisors are training her out of it haha instead of releasing her on the world without correction

[lirazel]

A good paper positions itself in the field and is written in plain enough language that any jargon is frankly, googleable.

Ideally yes! I am a big believer that writers have a moral duty to be as clear as possible. Unfortunately, I don't think all writers stand by that.

[superborb]

No, definitely not! And there's still a strain of gatekeeping in a lot of fields...

[forestofglory]

My dad told me years ago that if I could understand the title of a paper I could probably understand the paper. Which I've found to be true. These days I'm more likely to read history papers than bio papers but the rule still applies

[superborb]

Hah! That is a good rule of thumb I guess