The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time

eLife

Volumn 6, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Plavén Sigray, Pontus ^a   Matheson, Granville James ^a   Schiffler, Björn Christian ^a   Thompson, William Hedley ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIST; COMPREHENSION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PUBLICATION; SCIENCE; STANDARDS;

COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SCIENCE;

EID: 85029434090     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.27725     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. 2010. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 468: 2572-2580. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11999-010-1380-y, PMID: 20496023
2. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2014. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67: 51.
3. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. 2015. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research 116: 116-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114. 303819, PMID: 25552691
4. Benjamin RG. 2012. Reconstructing readability: recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review 24: 63-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8
5. Bird S, Klein E, Lower E, Loper E. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python. 43 O’Reilly Media.
6. Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. 2013. Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 12: E6-E10. PMID: 24319399
7. Bruce B, Rubin A, Starr K. 1981. Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 24: 50-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1109/TPC.1981.6447826
8. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R, Jandciu EW, Jones SA, Kolopack P, Lane S, Lougheed T, Nerlich B, Ogbogu U, O’Riordan K, Ouellette C, Spear M, et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27: 514-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514, PMID: 19513051
9. Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho TH, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Almenberg J, Altmejd A, Chan T, Heikensten E, Holzmeister F, Imai T, Isaksson S, Nave G, Pfeiffer T, Razen M, Wu H. 2016. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351: 1433-1436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aaf0918, PMID: 26940865
10. Chall JS, Dale E. 1995. Readability revisited: The New Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books.
11. Danielson KE. 1987. Readability formulas: a necessary evil? Reading Horizons 27.
12. Danielson WA, Lasorsa DL, Im DS. 1992. Journalists and Novelists: A Study of Diverging Styles. Journalism Quarterly 69: 436-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 107769909206900217
13. Didegah F, Thelwall M. 2013. Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties. Journal of Informetrics 7: 861-873. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006
14. Drenth JPH. 1998. Multiple Authorship: The Contribution of Senior Authors. JAMA 280: 219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.219
15. Dronberger GB, Kowitz GT. 1975. Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 26: 108-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630260206
16. DuBay WH. 2004. The principles of readability. Impact Information.
17. Duffy TM, Kabance P. 1982. Testing a readable writing approach to text revision. Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 733-748. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.733
18. Epstein RJ. 1993. Six authors in search of a citation: villains or victims of the Vancouver convention? BMJ 306: 765-767. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306. 6880.765
19. Fischhoff B. 2013. The sciences of science communication. PNAS 110 Suppl 3: 14033-14039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213273110, PMID: 23942125
20. Flesch R. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32: 221-233. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0057532, PMID: 18867058
21. Hartley J. 1994. Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts. British Journal of Educational Psychology 64: 331-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.2044-8279.1994.tb01106.x
22. Hartley J, Benjamin M. 1998. An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68: 443-456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.2044-8279.1998.tb01303.x
23. Hartley J. 2003. Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: the case for structure. Science Communication 24: 366-379. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1177/1075547002250301
24. Hartley J. 2013. Designing Instructional Text. RoutledgeFalmer.
25. Hayes DP. 1992. The growing inaccessibility of science. Nature 356: 739-740. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1038/356739a0
26. Hinnant A, Len-Riíos ME. 2009. Tacit understandings of health literacy. Science Communication 31: 84-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009335345
27. Hirsch JE. 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 102: 16569-16572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102, PMID: 16275915
28. Jatowt A, Tanaka K. 2012. Longitudinal analysis of historical texts’ readability. Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries: 353-354.
29. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. 1975. 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. RBR-8-75.
30. Knight J. 2003. Scientific literacy: Clear as mud. Nature 423: 376-378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ 423376a, PMID: 12761517
31. Kovalchik S. 2016. RISmed: Download Content from NCBI Databases. R Package Version. 2.1.6.
32. Kuehne LM, Olden JD. 2015. Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication. PNAS 112: 3585-3586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1500882112, PMID: 25805804
33. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. 2015. Package ‘lmerTest’. 17.
34. Lim ET. 2008. The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric From George Washington To George W Bush. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/ 9780195342642.001.0001
35. Manjoo F. 2011. True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. John Wiley & Sons.
36. McNutt M. 2014. Reproducibility. Science 343: 229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250475, PMID: 24436391
37. Nielsen KH. 2013. Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education 22: 2067-2086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9475-3
38. Nordenstedt H, Rosling H. 2016. Chasing 60{%} of maternal deaths in the post-fact era. The Lancet 388: 1864-1865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (16)31793-7
39. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, Buck S, Chambers CD, Chin G, Christensen G, Contestabile M, Dafoe A, Eich E, Freese J, Glennerster R, Goroff D, Green DP, Hesse B, Humphreys M, Ishiyama J, et al. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348: 1422-1425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
40. Peters HP, Dunwoody S, Allgaier J, Lo YY, Brossard D. 2014. Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the “new media” online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles? EMBO Reports 15: 749-753. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 15252/embr.201438979, PMID: 24920610
41. Plavén-Sigray P, Matheson GJ, Schiffler BC, Thompson WH. 2017. readabilityinscience. Github. 739fd2a. https://www.github.com/wiheto/ readabilityinscience
42. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10: 712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ nrd3439-c1, PMID: 21892149
43. Redish JC, Selzer J. 1985. The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Journal of Reading Behavior 32: 46-52.
44. Redish J. 2000. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24: 132-137. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1145/344599.344637
45. Schmid H. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. p. 44-49.
46. Štajner S, Evans R, Orăsan C, Mitkov R. 2012. What can readability measures really tell us about text complexity? In: Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Improving Textual Accessibility. p. 14-21.
47. Stevenson RL. 1964. Readability of conservative and sensational papers since 1872. Journalism Quarterly 41: 201-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 107769906404100206
48. Stokes A. 1978. The reliability of readability formulae. Journal of Research in Reading 1: 21-34. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1978.tb00170.x
49. Treise D, Weigold MF. 2002. Advancing science communication. Science Communication 23: 310-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300306
50. Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM. 2015. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ 351: h6467. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmj.h6467, PMID: 26668206
51. Zamanian M, Heydari P. 2012. Readability of texts: state of the art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2: 43-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.1. 43-53