Reply to comment

while i agree with your argument and have to admit that you've brought to light a side of scientific writing that many people (definitely myself included) tend to take for granted.

however, on the same note, the one problem i have with scientific writing is its accessibility - the jargon used makes it so that people outside the subject cannot fully understand or take away any message from the article unless they do a lot of extra background work to help them define terms and relate to what the article is talking about.

this problem became especially apparent to me while i was doing a research project for a psych class this past weekend - our project was catered towards helping a target audience, and we had to make sure that everything in the project, including article annotations was devoid of any psych jargon. it was only when i started doing this that i realized how easily some of the articles could become more accessible to a wider audience. and while i do know the value of having terms that are specific to the subject area and realize that it makes these article easier to read for professionals, i cant help but wonder if a large part of it is just to sound legitimate, and sound smart.

but with everything we know being so much more accessible now and with research and theories being easily available on the internet, i cant help but wonder if it would be easier to just have things written so that anybody who was interested could access it.