Dude, read this paper. https://psyarxiv.com/2uxwk/
@briannosek This is awesome, super fun to read, very accessible (to me).
Two questions I wonder about:
Is this style of writing more/less accessible to people from other language backgrounds?
Is this style more/less durable across time for people with modern English as a mother tongue?
I suspect the answers might be less & less
What do people think?
@bwyble @briannosek compared to the average paper in say Psych Science, i would say this is much more accessible.
@bwyble @briannosek there is less jargon, more clarity and repetition than in a typical academic paper. Just like i think it is uncontroversial to say that the NYTimes is more accessible than JEP:General, this is more accessible.
To me? Absolutely. I understand almost exactly what this means and it's a clever phrasing:
"we think it’s safe to send our original hypothesis to that big farm upstate".
My question is will it be accessible to someone in 100 years? Or to someone who is reads this as an ESL learner in another country?
@bwyble
That phrase "big farm upstate" on its own is idiomatic and thus "cleverer" than it needs to be. But that phrase is part of a section saying "we were wrong"... so i think you might be overly concerned about a little bit of idiomatic english in a paper that is quite clear overall.
@jerlich @briannosek But more accessible to whom exactly? I think it's a hard question to answer.
Another thing to remember is that even if the writing style seems easier/more engagin , this doesn't mean that it's more effective in communicating concrete details. e.g. 5 people could read it and come to a wider range of opinions compared to a typical science style.
(Not saying this is so, just trying to disentangle what "accessible" means)