[swivelmaster]

You’ve explained this in plain and simple language far more directly than the linked study. Score yet another point for the theory that academic papers are deliberately written to be obtuse to laypeople rather than striving for accessibility.

[bmacho]

Vote for the Party that promises academic grants for people that write 1k character long forum posts for the laypeople instead of other experts of the field.

[mapt]

We have this already. It's called an abstract. Some do it better than others.

Perhaps we need to revisit the concept and have a narrow abstract and a lay abstract, given how niche science has become.

[rocqua]

I don't think the parent post is complaining that academics are writing proposals (e.g as opposed to people with common sense). Instead, it seems to me that he is complaining that academics are writing proposals and papers to impress funding committees and journal editors, and to some extend to increase their own clout among their peers. Instead of writing to communicate clearly and honestly to their peers, or occasionally to laymen.

And this critique is likely not aimed at academics so much as the systems and incentives of academia. This is partially on the parties managing grants (caring much more about impact and visibility than actually moving science forwards, which means everyone is scrounging for or lying about low hanging fruit). It is partially on those who set (or rather maintain) the culture at academic institutions of gathering clout by getting 'impactful' publications. And those who manage journals also share blame, by trying to defend their moat, very much hamming up "high impact", and aggressively rent-seeking.

[swivelmaster]

I’m not sure that’s something we get to vote on.

[eru]

On the margin, you can let anything influence your voting decision.

[swivelmaster]

File under "technically true but not particularly useful"

[eru]

Well, it's not like voting is particularly useful in the first place.

[shoubidouwah]

and hope for a president that can do both