There is a reason why conferences are so hugely important. Often, what will be published as an article is presented beforehand on conferences, among knowledgable and interested peers. And while some conferences are invite-only or have to be paid for, most universities have a lot of conferences either completely open to the public or at least open to students. Often, just asking someone of one is allowed to just audit the talks without going to all he social events aimed at invited people will be enough in order to be "let it".

Overall, what bothers me most about this blog post is this:

>> Papers are, intentionally, written for an audience of specialists rather than a general interest group, which reduces both the tendency and ability of non-specialists to read them when asked

This repeats the same bias that everyone can say something about everything. Nobody here would complain that mailing list discussions about bugs, features or programming questions are hard to understand for non-programmers. However, a scientific discussion in a paper is supposed to cater to everyone. In reality, especially within the confined spaces of an article, one has to assume some baseline of knowledge in the reader, because one can't afford to explain all the basics one implicitly builds upon. To give an example: I do literary studies, and often people assume that they know just as much without having properly dealt with it, because hey, everyone can read a book, right? right? While that part might be true, every scientific discipline over time builds up a plethora of instruments for analysis of their respective topics, an understanding of the matter's and the subject's history, its pitfalls, shortcomings and strengths.

Also, I do not understand his paragraph regarding the "bottom line", since I know noone who writes the abstract first. The abstract is the very last bit to be written, after the paper's structure, arguments, theses, supporting evidence and rebuttals are decided, fixed and usually written. What both the cited Paul Graham essay and his text fail to see is the process of writing a paper. It is true that the actual writing process usually doesn't start with a thesis statement and a chain of arguments. But structuring a paper is just as much part of writing as finding words for what one wants to express.

The author hints at being an undergrad in maths, having trouble with the understanding of state of the art research. A professor I know once said this about degrees: undergrad & grad work are a necessity, they teach how to start a car, how to accelerate, break and also drive on basic roads (research methods/skills). A PhD then allows (and teaches) you to drive on the autobahn (research), where you can start to close the gap somewhat to all the people already on it going faster than you do. The actual entry into novel research doesn't happen until after the PhD. That's where journals and conferences, workshops, groups, funding etc. become interesting and important. First then are you within the actual target group for academic papers, since you are seen as an equal, equal also in terms of discussing on eye level.

Nobody expects complex technology etc. to be understandable by everyone, but one could say: "Everyone thinks they are a writer, much like many people stand in front of contemporary art saying they could produce the same thing." What they fail to understand is the complexity involved in the writing process. What sometimes looks easy or even "trivial" in a finished paper often has a highly complex, dense and far-reaching background.

[edit] Mhm...I apologise for the length of this comment, it grew larger than I originally thought it would... [/edit]