why being scientifically conscise just makes sense

It's a lot easier to get your paper noticed and read if people can understand what you're trying to say and why. And scientists crunched the numbers to prove it.

equations

In a quote often credited to Albert Einstein, the famous scientist quips that if you can't explain a concept to a six year old, you clearly don't understand it yourself. Now, it may take a very bright six year old to truly comprehend certain concepts, but the larger point is perfectly valid and can be easily proven by analyzing the tactics of many snake oil salespeople hiding behind buzzword salads to obscure the fact that they're just making things up on the spot. If you truly understand something, you should be able to come up with a very straightforward way to summarize it, as it was done here in a brilliant display of exactly this kind of concept. But sadly, scientists are really bad at straightforward titles for their most important units or work, their papers. Countless math, physics, computer science, and biology papers have paragraph-length titles so thick with jargon that they look as if they were written in another language entirely. And that carries a steep price, as a recent study analyzing citations of 140,000 scientific papers over six years shows.

You see, publishing a paper is important but it's just half the work. The second crucial part of a scientist's work is to get that paper cited by others in the field. The more prominent the journal, the more chances for citations, and the more citations, the more important the research is seen which means speaking gigs and potential applications for fame and profit. But as it turns out, it's not just the journal and the work itself that matters. Shorter titles are objectively better and yield more citations because scientists looking at long, complicated titles get confused and won't cite the research, unsure if anything in it actually applies to them. Quality of the work aside, the very fact that other experts can't tell what you're going on and on about is bad for science, leading to even more people doing the same work from scratch. To truly advance, science needs to build on previous work and if the existing work seems to be an odd fragment of alien gibberish at first glance, no one will review it further. So next time you write a scientific paper, keep its title short, sweet, and to the point. Or no one will read it, much less cite it as important to the field.

  archived from wowt
              
# science // scientific papers / scientific publications / scientific research


  show comments
latest reads

how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

CEOs and space faring powers are treating low Earth orbit as their personal playgrounds, much to the horror of space agencies.
how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity

Not only is the C-suite not immune to AI psychosis, they seem to be primed to suffer the worst of it as their employees duck and cover.
why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity

why so many of us are just not that into chatbots

AI adoption is at an all time high, but opinion of AI keeps on tumbling with every poll and study on the subject.
why so many of us are just not that into chatbots

no, your chatbots aren't secretly marxists at heart

But they can and do detect and complain about unfair treatment when asked, according to an experiment by Stanford researchers.
no, your chatbots aren't secretly marxists at heart

how the right wing took over social media

Right wing content has a major advantage on social media. But we can do something about that with a very simple change in our habits.
how the right wing took over social media

no, we still don't know why t. rex had little arms

Popular science outlets continue to do a terrible job of explaining studies on primeval evolution and pretending we have answers we don't.
no, we still don't know why t. rex had little arms