Abstract
ABSTRACTClarity and accuracy of reporting are fundamental to the scientific process. The understandability of written language can be estimated using readability formulae. Here, in a corpus consisting of 707 452 scientific abstracts published between 1881 and 2015 from 122 influential biomedical journals, we show that the readability of science is steadily decreasing. Further, we demonstrate that this trend is indicative of a growing usage of general scientific jargon. These results are concerning for scientists and for the wider public, as they impact both the reproducibility and accessibility of research findings.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference39 articles.
1. A new readability yardstick.
2. J. P. Kincaid , R. P. Fishburne , R. L. Rogers , and B. S. Chissom , “Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel,” Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch., vols. RBR-8-75, 1975.
3. J. S. Chall and E. Dale , Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books, 1995.
4. K. E. Danielson , “Readability Formulas: A Necessary Evil?” vol. 27, no. 3, 1987.
5. W. H. DuBay , The Principles of Readability. Impact Information, 2004.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献