If the fundamental purpose of a scientific publication is an unbiased dissemination of useful knowledge, the scientific publishing industry is failing: miserably. And surprisingly? It’s understandable. In a world where researchers’ career progression and financial incentives are tied to the number of papers published in high impact factor journals, scientists face enormous pressure to skew the actual findings of their research to ensure publication.

 

Now: this might not be an issue if the paper’s audience were solely experts in the field, as they may have the necessary skills and knowledge needed to evaluate and interpret a study's results and findings objectively.  But they are not: science journalists, policymakers, clinicians, non-field specialist scientists, and the masses often read scientific journals to glean information.

 

However, the stilted language and jargon of laboratory conversations contained within pages and pages of the journal alienates, excludes, and most importantly – bores. This ultimately means that non-scientific audiences are likely to form an opinion, with glazed-over eyes, based on the paper’s possibly flawed discussion alone. Or worse, they might have been so put off that they simply get whatever they can from a single, summarizing sentence from the abstract section.

 

So – how can scientists ensure more accurate dissemination of scientific findings? Or, more specifically: better science communication? I believe there are two main ways.