Why are Scientific papers nowadays  written in a convoluted and pretentious way? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrOmnos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 07:25:54 pm
content: I am a newbie and I have not read many papers but those I have read have really put me off. There seems be a race going on to come up with coolest and complex looking titles. They use terms that can be easily replaced with simpler terms ( I am not talking about the scientific terms). I mean what the hell? I feel like these are the people that are trying too hard to impress. If you are one of those, please stop!!There was a paper I read a while back on Quantum Illumination and the damn thing was so well written, it was like reading a really interesting story. I mean have you read Einstein's papers. The titles are so elegantly put together and the papers are like reading a Novel. (I think they were translated but still)May be I am just stupid don't understand the stuff but this is what I feel. Do you agree or disagree, please post your opinions.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 07:52:22 pm
content: Sometimes it is translations that causes silly sounding language / titles.For the US there is the tendency to make 5 papers with essentially the same contend - so they must have at least a different sounding title.Also the use of search engines makes it sometimes better to have a longer title with more catch words - just to make sure they are easier to find. Silly - but search engine optimization is not limited to google.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 10:13:51 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 28, 2016, 10:06:46 pmMake that "data based, targeted outcome,..." and you will have sufficiently described the nature of the paper to enable learners to achieve maximum benefit efficiency.John

author: AutomationGuy
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 10:30:39 pm
content: When I studied computer science most paper turned out to be useless for me. There is so many useless documents in computer science that you just can learn to be more critical on science.I learned to do my own investigations where ever possible. I am sure if someone would waste time on meta investigations on science papers he could prove lots of them are trash.That might change in future becorse nower days there is more experience in computer science than in the beginning where computers came up.But now its proven for me some scientists don't hesitate to puplish trash.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 10:42:24 pm
content: It is the same here as every where else. You get what you asked for. You say that to get a faculty position, or retain such a position, or to get tenure you must publish. Preferably multiple times a year. When you score quantity, quality is likely to suffer.Be careful what you measure, because if people are involved they will be quite clever in delivering what you ask for.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 10:45:55 pm
content: Science is a competitive field as well. Researchers want to progress their career, recognition and funding as well. Titles should remain factual IMO and maybe highlight one remarkable fact from the invention or discovery. Titles should afterall catch the readers attention, because there is a lot of papers being published every month. It's almost unfeasible to go through them all.I don't see anything wrong with the high usage of jargon in papers. The audience for a paper are research colleagues from similar faculties anyway. 1 excellent way on cutting down on technical documents is 1) Not to repeat yourself. 2) Not to repeat others. Just reference a book. If the reader is not up-to-date on the material at hand, how much (in general) is the 'constructive criticism' worth he/she is able to provide?That indeed does exclude the content from a lot of people, but think of it this way: if you would give the datasheet of a modern microcontroller to any non-technical person, they would probably throw up from the amount of technical jargon in it. I think the only thing they will recognize is "Ethernet" (does it also have wifi?), "USB", "Volt" and maybe "Ohm".However, there is a lot of BS research being done today. Data crunching and 'benchmarking' of e.g. population research is an art, because it's reasonably easy to shape results in the way you want them to be. At this point you can go wild in the number of 'discoveries' you have made, as long as the statistical numbers reach some predetermined threshold that should validate the accuracy of the data set.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 10:48:15 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 28, 2016, 10:06:46 pmThat example is certainly "corporate weasel speak". But I'm not sure that's what the OP had in mind. That kind of stuff certainly has no place in a scientific paper.Scientific journal articles are certainly full of jargon that may sound "convoluted and pretentious" to someone not familiar with the research being described. I certainly had that reaction before I first became immersed enough in a field to understand the jargon. If I look at a paper outside of a field I'm familiar with, it still can feel that way.A *GOOD* research article should be written in language that is technical and specific enough so that it accurately, precisely and efficiently conveys the intended meaning to knowledgeable peers. Of course a poorly written article may use completely unnecessary jargon. But any good journal editor will not stand for that type of "Baffle them with bullshit" approach.

author: edpalmer42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2016, 11:19:16 pm
content: One thing that makes technical and scientific papers sound pompous verging on silly is when the authors refer to themselves in the third person; "the authors noted that.....", or "this researcher found......" instead of just saying 'I' or 'we'. There's a reason for that - maybe not a good reason, but at least a reason. The idea is that the people writing the document are irrelevant. The only thing worthwhile is the information and data so the people should be de-emphasized as much as possible. To do otherwise is seen as arrogant.The experiment is important, not the people who do it. After all, the experiment isn't considered valid until someone else has repeated it and got the same results.

author: Kohanbash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 12:59:10 am
content: Quote from: MrOmnos on November 28, 2016, 07:25:54 pmWhen I first started I had similiar sentiments as you expressed. However, now 10 years (or so) later I no longer think that way. Often (not always) there is a slight technical difference between terminology or specific words that an expert in that field would use that ends up in the title.Example: stochastic vs random

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 01:26:13 am
content: Quote from: Kohanbash on November 29, 2016, 12:59:10 amNo functional difference, just a set of ill defined connotations and conventions. You wouldn't have to look very hard to find distinguished authors who would use random in a context where you would consider it wrong. I've done this a couple of times in discussions where pedants refuse to just go along with a discussion and feel the need to correct terminology because of a misguided idea that scientists use language very consistently, they don't ... when given the option always derive meaning from context, less likely to steer you wrong.Of course if it's needlessly verbose word salad it becomes hard.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 02:47:05 am
content: This is not a recent phenomenon. The truth is that most scientists and engineers just plain can't write for toffee. Aside from not paying enough attention to their English1teachers at school, they get their writing style from their peers, so they learn to copy the writing style of their lecturers, professors, PhD supervisors and, of course, poorly written papers from the 'literature'. Weirdly this also applies to lawyers, whose whole business is words, and yet who can't write a social letter or a magazine article without it sounding like a formal legal document.If you want proof, just read the prose of the native English speakers on this forum. Not all, but at least half of the writers have a hard time getting their point across clearly. And here, gentle reader, we are talking about a bunch of engineers whochooseto write every day on this forum, so they can't claim they're not getting enough practice.There is no great secret to writing a paper well, good writing is good writing whatever the subject matter. Remember that you are telling a story, whether it is "What I did on My Holidays", or "An Investigation into The Behaviour of sub-10nm Transistors", it is still a story. Think about the person reading it and about what they will want to know.Don't use a complex or unfamiliar word where a common one will do, don't use a phase where a word will do. (My personal pet hate - "at this moment in time" instead of "now".) If there are formal conventions for your field, use them - such as the typical use of "we" to describe the experimenter, even if it's just an individual - not doing so is jarring to the reader.Keep sentences as short as fluidity will allow. Write as little as possible. By that I mean don't take three pages to say what half a page will. PhD theses are particularly prone to this disease. Someone has just spent three years of their life researching and doesn't want it to come to a mere 10,000 words. Furthermore they are encouraged to write at length even when a briefer document, perhaps with some appendices, would serve everybody better.Professional tip: If you are writing anything that even vaguely qualifies as 'news', once you have written it delete the first paragraph. Does it still make sense? If it does, leave it; if it doesn't, OK, you can put the first paragraph back. You'd be surprised how often this works.Learn to accept constructive criticism of your writing and get feedback. I've been a professional writer, a tech journalist and magazine section editor. In the magazine world you have sub-editors who take what you've written, clean up the grammar and spelling if it needs cleaning up, put things into house style and, most importantly, clean up any awkward or ambiguous phrasing. They are a god-send and every professional writer worth their salt gets to love good sub-editors - even if they do cut your jokes.I find that it is amateur writers who think that their work is precious and get upset the minute a sub or an editor changes something. The latter may go some way to explaining why there are so many badly written papers out there. The journal editors probably start out their careers trying to actively edit papers for clarity. Then they run into manyprima donnaswho throw a fit that their precious words have been changed. Eventually they give up and follow the path of least resistance and stop actually editing and instead become managing editors.Quote1 Or whatever their native language is.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 03:09:12 am
content: my one and only comment here!welcome to the world of junk education, just as you have junk food, that looks the part but fails.with education for profit. the quality of the knowledge can be poor even if the written work is a literary masterpiece.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 07:17:00 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 29, 2016, 02:47:05 am92 minutes of applauseThis, 100%. The whole post actually.Until a specific moment in my young life i've always neglected reading and writing, a burden that i'm still carrying: every time i read a post from certain users i tell myselfHOW do they do it? WHY is it so clear, so simple? WHY would i have needed double the words.. or more?. Needless to say, the answer, i already know it. Reading a lot helps a lot and trying to write a lot helps a lot. One of my personal and professional heroes is jim williams (of course) but not as an engineer as much as a technical writer. I'd say i want to become at least as good as him at writing articles

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 07:48:03 am
content: Forget convoluted and pretentious, why do I have to pay $20 a pop to read one even if the research was done with public money is my biggest beaf with these...

author: woodchips
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 11:53:59 am
content: I empathise and sympathise.I became interested in electromagnetism so started reading up about it. I discovered that any book newer than about 1965 simply wasn't worth bothering with. Why? Because around then they changed from explaining how it worked to using advanced maths, became rubbish. Go and read people like Scroggie or Steinmetz from the 1920's and 1930's for a real read.I subscribed to various proceedings when I belonged to the IEE. In 10 or so years I found one article I understood and was useful. Waste of paper.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2016, 12:06:51 pm
content: There's a program floating around somewhere that takes a topic as input, and it outputs a nonsense "paper", complete with confusing jargon, strange sentence structure etc. It would be nothing but a silly curiosity if someone hadn't managed to actually get some of these papers accepted and published. If I have a minute, I'll try and dig up a link.edit:https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/#examplesThat's one of them, at least. I think there are more.Anyhow, I have to agree. Because of some work I did years ago, I had to go through some scientific literature. I had to sit there and read every sentence, over and over again, until the damn thing started to make sense. I think part of it is just a simple lack of writing skills. Very annoying, especially when you finally translate the sentence and it ends up meaning, "If you shake it too hard, it breaks."I have the same problem reading news stories. It used to be that journalists wrote simply and clearly. Now, I have to keep reading sentences over and over again. They do weird things like change people's names every sentence. For example, if someone is named "John Smith", in one sentence they'll call him "John Smith"...and another sentence he'll be called "Smith"...and in another one, he'll be called "John"...and in another one they'll call him "the plaintiff"...and if there's a wife involved, they'll call him "her husband". Not a big deal with just one person involved, but when there are multiple people involved, you can get whiplash scanning back and forth trying to figure out who the heck they're talking about. Now add in similar nonsense with other parts of the story and I start to wonder to myself if they aren't trying to confuse me on purpose so my attention will drift and I'll click on an advertisement just to escape.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 02:17:55 am
content: Security through Obfuscation.In this case Job Security.Either because they are professional academics, or so any company wishing to implement their ideas has to hire them to decode the papers.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 02:33:56 am
content: Oh, for a minute there I thought we were talking about the masturbatory web site, otherwise known as Wikipedia"Look at me, look at me, I know LaTeX and did pure math at uni for 20 years to explain why a ball bounces"

author: Len
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 05:09:08 pm
content: "Scientific language is becoming more informal" - a recent editorial in Nature:http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-language-is-becoming-more-informal-1.20963

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 06:59:51 pm
content: Quote from: Len on November 30, 2016, 05:09:08 pmThat is an interesting editorialI find that interesting!Thanks for the link.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 10:16:42 pm
content: Quote from: ivaylo on November 29, 2016, 07:48:03 amBecause:http://sci-hub.io/

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2016, 11:54:05 pm
content: Quote from: hans on November 30, 2016, 10:16:42 pmAwesome!

author: Kohanbash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 12:58:05 am
content: Quote from: ivaylo on November 29, 2016, 07:48:03 amDon't forget the authors also usually pay to have the papers published.------------------Unsuccessfully I have tried a few times to get people to publish academic papers to my Robotics site. The idea is that it would be free and easy to find by others. With my model I wanted to get papers double blind peer reviewed and have the reviewers names listed with the paper. This gives people a sense of who reviewed it, and would make reviewers want to protect there reputation more.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 02:51:04 am
content: Quote from: Kohanbash on December 01, 2016, 12:58:05 amNo. Not true. At least not in the basic sciences and not any reputable journal. Unless something has changed in the last few years - which I doubt.Basic science research itself is mostly publicly funded but the journals are not. They are mostly published by for profit scientific publishing houses. That is why one must usually pay for online access to full articles. Of course any decent University library will subscribe to all major journals and have interlibrary access to others. They will provide free access to students, faculty and staff.

author: julian1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 03:13:49 am
content: There's a similar tendency toward convoluted complexity in some programming languages/environments,http://java.metagno.me/

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 02:08:16 pm
content: Quote from: julian1 on December 01, 2016, 03:13:49 amThere's a similar tendency toward convoluted complexity insomealmost all programming languages/environments,

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 02:20:38 pm
content: Part of it might be similar to why patents, and legal documents in general, are so convoluted and difficult to understand. Style points don't count for anything. The only thing that counts is absolute precision so that there's no possible way anyone can take away your accomplishment. It's much different than something like a presentation to colleagues, or customers, where it's far more important to get your point across clearly and succinctly.I think something changed, maybe in the 1930s or 1940s, where papers became less about science and more about self-preservation. I do hope it's true that scientific language is becoming a little less formal because some of this stuff is just absolutely brutal to get through.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 03:02:24 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on December 01, 2016, 02:20:38 pmI fear that obscure language in patents is more about deliberately making them hard to understand. Yes, there's an element of precision but the deal with patents is "Tell everyone how you did it and we'll give you a term of exclusivity on the idea" so there is an incentive to have one's cake and eat it - tell everybody but do your best to make it hard to understand. I have seen patents written in perfectly clear English where the patentese* has been kept to the absolute minimum necessary. Earlier and more historic patents are often, but not always, quite easy to read.Legal language is different. There is clearly a need for rigour but I suspect the linguistic habits are, as I alluded to previously, learned from bad examples. I have seen legal documents that are as clear as you could like but no less rigorous than documents peppered with "notwithstanding", "heretofore", "party of the third part" etc. etc. Plus there is an element of job security involved - if legal documents were written so that we could all understand them then there would be no need to hire lawyers to read them for us and tell us what they mean. Revolution, wall, first, you know the rest.* I don't believe that I have ever seen the word 'plurality' used in an everyday English sentence - either at all or, if I have, certainly not in the way it is used in patents..

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 03:10:12 pm
content: If you ever want to see something TRULY difficult to understand, try reading through a typical US federal bill.

author: kony
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 03:15:12 pm
content: Quote from: hans on November 30, 2016, 10:16:42 pmI'd rather suggest using the hidden onion service, not public mirrors. Just in case of possible future witch hunts.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 04:08:06 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on December 01, 2016, 03:10:12 pmI've never understood why US law drafting and, by extension, US bureaucracy is so much worse than British. Nobody in Britain has to do the equivalent of "queue at the DMV" for any everyday motoring related transaction and even recent English parliamentary bills (which have recently hit a record low in terms of the quality of drafting) are a model of clarity compared to the US equivalent documents. I can't believe the number of things that, in most states, you seem to need a permit for that just we just go and do in the UK.My expectations always used to be that, with the American preference for informality, the US would be better at this stuff than Britain and make it easier for folks. You know, "by the people for the people" in comparison to the British system that reluctantly grew out of feudalism and Royal fiat. Of course if you want an example of government by bureaucratic torture - there's La belle France.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 04:54:19 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on December 01, 2016, 04:08:06 pmThe UK is tiny compared to the US, both population wise and just physical size. There's a lot of separation between our typical citizen and our government...even state governments. We've let it grow out of control simply because no one noticed it happening. Our capital isn't even in a normal city. It's isolated in it's own little kingdom. It's a lot tougher for things to grow out of control when you have the government nestled in among the people, like in London for example.We've made it quite uncomfortable for normal citizens to participate in their government, and the consequence is that it generally goes off and does whatever the heck it wants to do. At this point, I'm pretty certain that this is done on purpose.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 05:29:54 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on December 01, 2016, 04:54:19 pmI don't think size has much to do with it, France is highly comparable with the UK, both on population and acreage, but is very different legally and bureaucratically because of starting from the Napoleonic Code. Whereas the US and UK both start from the Common Law and, at least initially, the same people from the same culture. With the US essentially starting out as a highly progressive nation, I'd have expected the US to adopt the best from Britain and fix what was poor. I'll leave proper explanations to the historians, my real point is my constant surprise that you haven't done better with a fresh start and with history and others as an example of how not to do it. The Declaration of Independence and a written constitution were a great start and then it seems to have not lived up to its promise. I kind of want to shout at historical America and say "Hey, come on, you can do better. You know you can". I guess it's what you guys, I believe, call quarterbacking.(Why do Americans always make size an issue? Are they trying to compensate for something? Their big, beautiful hands perhaps?)

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 05:54:44 pm
content: We got a fresh start, but a population that has been heavily larded with people who want to make things "better". For some reason we have decided that we can legislate better, and every time something is found wrong a law is generated to prevent that wrongness. Not at all in keeping with the principle of freedom, but that is where we are at.One of my favorite examples comes from one of our mid-Western states, with the history that follows being my interpretation.Early in the history of railroads competing companies occasionally had tracks that crossed at right angles. Which caused fist-fights and other public disorder when trains competed for right of way. In the same era many people believed that trains were evil, threats to health and jobs. Combine those two elements with an attitude to legislate things better and you got the following law, apparently still on the books though not enforced."When two trains meet at an intersection they must both stop and wait for the other to pass."Bang - two problems solved with a short legal sentence.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 06:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 01, 2016, 05:54:44 pmMust be where Dr. Seuss got the idea for The Zax.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 07:16:55 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 01, 2016, 05:54:44 pmThat's the "Tony Blair" approach to lawmaking. While Blair was Prime-minister slightly more than one criminal offence per day was added to UK law. I challenge anyone reasonable to come upde novowith a list of criminal offences that ought to exist at all that is longer than 200 odd items.Anyway, enjoyable as it's been, perhaps we're diverted this thread a little too far and a little too long.

author: Kohanbash
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2016, 07:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on December 01, 2016, 02:51:04 amYou are correct that in many cases journals/conference-papers do not "double dip" on charging however there are still many that do charge on both ends.For example (a reputable agriculture space journalhttp://www.ashs.org/Journals):At least one author is an ASHS member: $100 per printed page.Authors who are non-ASHS members: $170 per printed page.There are additional fees for publishing figures in color.Papers can be made open access immediately for an additional charge of $600.Authors making more than five (5) corrections on their page proofs will be billed at $10 per correction.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 11:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: MrOmnos on November 28, 2016, 07:25:54 pmtrying too hard to impress?.... it's just to finish the last trial and get the degree in order to leave that bloody place that's called university. It's inevitable that from a certain point on you lose your willingness. It's a matter of time and if you are strong enough to finish you are done, otherwise bad things will happens.

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 02, 2016, 11:45:28 pm
content: Nonsense paper written by iOS autocomplete accepted for conferenceQuote