• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

科学文献的可读性随着时间的推移而降低。

The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Elife. 2017 Sep 5;6:e27725. doi: 10.7554/eLife.27725.

DOI:10.7554/eLife.27725
PMID:28873054
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5584989/
Abstract

Clarity and accuracy of reporting are fundamental to the scientific process. Readability formulas can estimate how difficult a text is to read. Here, in a corpus consisting of 709,577 abstracts published between 1881 and 2015 from 123 scientific journals, we show that the readability of science is steadily decreasing. Our analyses show that this trend is indicative of a growing use 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.

摘要

报告的清晰性和准确性是科学过程的基础。可读性公式可以估计文本的阅读难度。在这里,在一个由 1881 年至 2015 年间从 123 种科学期刊发表的 709,577 篇摘要组成的语料库中,我们表明科学的可读性在稳步下降。我们的分析表明,这种趋势表明普遍使用科学行话的情况越来越多。这些结果不仅对科学家,而且对更广泛的公众都令人担忧,因为它们会影响研究结果的可重复性和可及性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0886ca20c8b1/elife-27725-fig6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/f53e533afb78/elife-27725-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4283d29d2538/elife-27725-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0369f9a3e0fd/elife-27725-fig2-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/af5aa5116984/elife-27725-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/475a0ff9f32e/elife-27725-fig3-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/e0d76a2e955b/elife-27725-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0f0f0c451d58/elife-27725-fig4-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4fd30e833bf3/elife-27725-fig4-figsupp2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/fc3f83e373d4/elife-27725-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4f9e04bdff80/elife-27725-fig5-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0886ca20c8b1/elife-27725-fig6.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/f53e533afb78/elife-27725-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4283d29d2538/elife-27725-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0369f9a3e0fd/elife-27725-fig2-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/af5aa5116984/elife-27725-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/475a0ff9f32e/elife-27725-fig3-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/e0d76a2e955b/elife-27725-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0f0f0c451d58/elife-27725-fig4-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4fd30e833bf3/elife-27725-fig4-figsupp2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/fc3f83e373d4/elife-27725-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/4f9e04bdff80/elife-27725-fig5-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/947e/5584989/0886ca20c8b1/elife-27725-fig6.jpg

相似文献

1
The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time.科学文献的可读性随着时间的推移而降低。
Elife. 2017 Sep 5;6:e27725. doi: 10.7554/eLife.27725.
2
Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators.面向与公众互动的科学家和科学传播教育工作者的自动术语识别工具。
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 9;12(8):e0181742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181742. eCollection 2017.
3
Jargon use in papers over three decades.三十多年来论文中的行话使用情况。
Public Underst Sci. 2020 Aug;29(6):644-654. doi: 10.1177/0963662520940501.
4
Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement.超越表面特征:一种针对健康文本的新可读性测量方法。
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007 Oct 11;2007:418-22.
5
Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication.衡量晦涩难懂的术语:对科学传播中术语使用情况的初步量化分析
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jul;23(5):528-46. doi: 10.1177/0963662512469916.
6
Comparison of the readability of lay summaries and scientific abstracts published in CF Research News and the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis: Recommendations for writing lay summaries.《囊性纤维化研究新闻》和《囊性纤维化杂志》上发表的通俗易懂的总结与科学摘要的可读性比较:撰写通俗易懂的总结的建议
J Cyst Fibros. 2022 Jan;21(1):e11-e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2021.09.009. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
7
Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.不同健康信息读者适用的语言:考科蓝系统评价文本摘要格式的多特质-多方法内容分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x.
8
Text characteristics of clinical reports and their implications for the readability of personal health records.临床报告的文本特征及其对个人健康记录可读性的影响。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1117-21.
9
Readability of the 100 Most-Cited Neuroimaging Papers Assessed by Common Readability Formulae.采用通用可读性公式评估100篇被引次数最多的神经影像学论文的可读性。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Aug 14;12:308. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00308. eCollection 2018.
10
Lay abstracts and summaries: writing advice for scientists.非专业摘要与总结:给科学家的写作建议。
J Cancer Educ. 2014 Sep;29(3):577-9. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0570-1.

引用本文的文献

1
Regional disparities in US media coverage of archaeology research.美国媒体对考古学研究的区域差异报道。
Sci Adv. 2025 Jul 4;11(27):eadt5435. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adt5435. Epub 2025 Jul 2.
2
Individuals Frequently Search Google With Questions About the Management of Meniscal Tears and the Indications for and Technical Details of Surgery but the Quality of the Information Is Suboptimal.人们经常在谷歌上搜索有关半月板撕裂治疗、手术适应症及技术细节的问题,但信息质量欠佳。
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 Dec 9;7(2):101061. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.101061. eCollection 2025 Apr.
3
Effectiveness of various general large language models in clinical consensus and case analysis in dental implantology: a comparative study.

本文引用的文献

1
Chasing 60% of maternal deaths in the post-fact era.在事后时代追踪60%的孕产妇死亡情况。
Lancet. 2016 Oct 15;388(10054):1864-1865. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31793-7.
2
Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics.评估经济学实验室实验的可重复性。
Science. 2016 Mar 25;351(6280):1433-6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0918. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
3
Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis.1974年至2014年间科学类PubMed摘要中正负性词汇的使用:回顾性分析
各种通用大语言模型在牙种植学临床共识和病例分析中的有效性:一项比较研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025 Mar 26;25(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12911-025-02972-2.
4
Fundamental questions in meiofauna research highlight how small but ubiquitous animals can improve our understanding of Nature.小型底栖生物研究中的基本问题凸显了这些虽小但无处不在的动物如何能增进我们对自然的理解。
Commun Biol. 2025 Mar 17;8(1):449. doi: 10.1038/s42003-025-07888-1.
5
Do Manuscripts by Female Evolutionary Biologists Spend Longer Under Review?女性进化生物学家撰写的手稿审稿时间会更长吗?
Mol Biol Evol. 2025 Mar 5;42(3). doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaf054.
6
Readability of paediatric participant information leaflets in research studies.研究中儿科受试者信息手册的可读性。
Pediatr Res. 2025 Feb 22. doi: 10.1038/s41390-025-03943-z.
7
Personalized Jargon Identification for Enhanced Interdisciplinary Communication.用于加强跨学科交流的个性化术语识别
Proc Conf. 2024 Jun;2024:4535-4550. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.255.
8
Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.健康研究简明语言摘要中的术语与可读性:横断面观察性研究
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jan 13;27:e50862. doi: 10.2196/50862.
9
Large Language Models May Help Patients Understand Peer-Reviewed Scientific Articles About Ophthalmology: Development and Usability Study.大语言模型可能有助于患者理解关于眼科的同行评审科学文章:开发与可用性研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 24;26:e59843. doi: 10.2196/59843.
10
What Happens When Undergraduate Biology Students Meet with Professional Scientists to Discuss Research? An Exploratory Investigation into Scientific Discourse, Motivation, and Sense of Belonging.本科生物学专业学生与专业科学家会面讨论研究时会发生什么?对科学话语、动机和归属感的探索性调查。
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2025 Mar 1;24(1):ar6. doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-08-0209.
BMJ. 2015 Dec 14;351:h6467. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6467.
4
SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.科学标准。促进开放的研究文化。
Science. 2015 Jun 26;348(6242):1422-5. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374.
5
Opinion: Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication.观点:需要通俗易懂的总结来加强科学传播。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Mar 24;112(12):3585-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500882112.
6
Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research.科学可重复性:提高基础和临床前研究的标准。
Circ Res. 2015 Jan 2;116(1):116-26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819.
7
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?科学2.0的公众传播:通过在线“新媒体”进行的科学传播是一场真正的变革,还是换汤不换药?
EMBO Rep. 2014 Jul;15(7):749-53. doi: 10.15252/embr.201438979. Epub 2014 Jun 11.
8
Reproducibility.可重复性
Science. 2014 Jan 17;343(6168):229. doi: 10.1126/science.1250475.
9
Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training.向公众进行科学传播:为何我们需要将此技能作为本科生和研究生正规科学训练的一部分来教授。
J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013 Oct 15;12(1):E6-E10. eCollection 2013.
10
The sciences of science communication.科学传播学。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):14033-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213273110. Epub 2013 Aug 13.