[mohave529]

From my perspective as an outsider, I have always been amazed by the use of papers in academic research as a means of communicating findings to the wider world. I find it problematic that these papers are often formatted in a way that makes them highly unreadable, with two columns and compressed text. In my opinion, adopting more modern methods of publishing research could greatly enhance the overall quality of research by making papers more accessible and increasing the likelihood of them being read.

Imagine a scenario where there is a standardized format for academic papers, where the conclusion is explicitly derived from specific data and accompanied by confidence intervals. This standardized schema would enable easier referencing of other papers and easy incorporation of additional data through features like autocomplete. Implementing such a system could potentially reverse the trend of academic papers that use excessive and unnecessary language to appear more intellectually rigorous, even when the actual information being conveyed is limited.

By embracing these changes, we could create a more transparent and efficient research environment that promotes clearer communication and enhances the impact of academic findings.

[jltsiren]

Whatever you think academic research is, it's not always like that, and it's usually easy to find counterexamples. That's why the attempts to standardize the processes usually fail.

There is not necessarily any data behind the paper. Even if there is data, the conclusions may not be about the data. Even if the conclusions are about the data, the paper may not use quantitative methods. Even if it uses quantitative methods, confidence intervals may not make sense. Even if confidence intervals do make sense, adding new data might not. And so on.

[valec]

you don't know how to read papers then. first read the abstract. then the conclusion/discussion. then the methodology to see if the study was conducted reasonably. papers are made to be read by scientists -- dumbing them down to be understandable by layman would waste time for little gain. that is the job of science communicators and journalists -- and even these often do a pretty poor job of it.