How Accessible Language is Transforming Research Communication
Imagine staring at a groundbreaking research paper that could revolutionize your work, only to find it's written in such impenetrable jargon that you can't grasp its significance.
For many students, researchers, and even seasoned scientists reading outside their narrow specialty, this experience is frustratingly familiar. You're not alone if you've ever felt overwhelmed, discouraged, or even stupid when trying to read scientific papers outside your immediate field 6 .
One analysis of over 700,000 scientific abstracts found that more than one-fifth were written at a level even college graduates would struggle to comprehend 6 .
The traditional scientific writing style creates a "linguistic wall" that hinders collaboration, innovation, and diversity in science 6 .
| Feature | Traditional Scientific Writing | Accessible Scientific Writing |
|---|---|---|
| Voice | Predominantly passive | Primarily active |
| Sentence Length | Long, complex sentences | Varied, with shorter sentences |
| Technical Terms | Extensive jargon without explanation | Minimal jargon, with plain-language definitions |
| Personal Pronouns | Avoided | "I," "we," and "you" used appropriately |
| Reader Experience | Often difficult and intimidating | Engaging and accessible |
| Primary Goal | Demonstrate objectivity and precision | Communicate ideas clearly to diverse audiences |
Third-year undergraduate science students participated 6
Scientific domains tested (Health, Physics, Social Sciences)
Writing style variations from "very difficult" to "very easy"
The researchers created a series of scientific abstracts based on real, recent publications across three diverse fields:
Social anxiety research
Solar cell technology
Populist politics
For each topic, they created four different versions of the abstract, systematically manipulating the writing style while keeping the actual scientific content and logical flow identical 6 .
How easy the abstract was to read (self-reported)
How confident readers felt about their understanding
Actual comprehension measured through multiple-choice questions 6
The findings were striking and consistent across all three scientific domains. Abstracts written in a more accessible style produced significantly better outcomes in all three measured areas compared to their traditional counterparts 6 .
| Writing Style | Readability Score (1-5) | Confidence Score (1-5) | Understanding Score (% Correct) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very Difficult (Traditional) | Lowest | Lowest | Lowest |
| Moderately Difficult | Low | Low | Low |
| Moderately Accessible | High | High | High |
| Very Accessible | Highest | Highest | Highest |
| Participant Characteristic | Details |
|---|---|
| Total Participants | 170 third-year undergraduate science students |
| Native English Speakers | 87.1% |
| Abstracts Assessed | 347 responses for readability/confidence, 628 for understanding |
| Topics Covered | Health sciences, physics, and social sciences |
| Experimental Design | Randomized assignment with multiple difficulty levels |
Understanding the science behind scientific communication requires familiarity with several key concepts and methodologies.
| Tool/Concept | Function in Research | Example/Application |
|---|---|---|
| Readability Metrics | Quantify how easily text can be read and understood | Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index |
| Jargon Density Measurement | Identify barriers to comprehension through technical term frequency | Counting field-specific terms per 100 words |
| Passive Voice Detector | Identify constructions that obscure responsibility and action | Software tools that flag passive constructions |
| Cognitive Load Assessment | Measure mental effort required to process information | Recall tests, secondary task performance |
| Structural Cohesiveness Analysis | Evaluate logical flow and organization of information | Tracking transitions and thematic development |
Try the IFRM approach: start with Implications of the research, then Findings, Results, and Methodology last 2 . This immediately hooks readers by answering "why does this matter?"
When jargon is unavoidable, provide plain-language definitions. For example, instead of just using "semelparous animals," add "animals that die after having sex" 2 .
Stories help us understand and remember information. Where possible, frame research as a story of discovery, including challenges and conflicts 5 .
Contrary to traditional conventions, using "we" and "I" makes writing more engaging and clear. Active voice puts the agents of action back into the narrative 2 .
The evidence is clear: when we make scientific writing more accessible, we don't sacrifice rigor—we enhance understanding.
The experiment detailed here demonstrates that accessible writing style significantly improves reader comprehension, confidence, and engagement across scientific disciplines 6 .
Clear writing removes barriers for non-native English speakers and researchers in adjacent fields.
When ideas flow freely across disciplines, new connections and breakthroughs emerge.
Accessible writing welcomes diverse perspectives and experiences into scientific discourse.
The words we choose to describe science can be just as important as the discoveries themselves. Let's choose words that invite everyone into the conversation.