The term "jargon" is in itself jargon. Jargon is defined as "special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand." Both astronomers and oncologists use their own jargon, much of which sounds like gibberish to the other professional. Just think how it sounds to the general public.
Scientists at two Israeli universities have come up with something they call a De-Jargonizing program. In a nutshell, it automatically identifies words that are jargon, that is, that are likely to be unknown by the general population. Once identified, the buzz words can be replaced with more comprehensible language.
The best part about the de-jargonizer is that it is freely available to anyone at no charge. Go to this URL:
scienceandpublic.com
Upload your file or manually type in your passage. Press "Start" and you'll see what terms you'll have to edit.
The importance of de-jargonizing cannot be stressed enough. The study concluded that no more than 2% of the words in summaries should be classified as "jargon" if you want non-experts to understand. But the average abstract in PLOS Computational Biology, a peer-reviewed but open-access journal available online to the public, contained 10% jargon. Even the summaries intentionally written to communicate the study to non-expert audiences averaged 8% jargon, far above the recommended 2%. Other journals were even worse.
Using jargon in journal articles intended for other experts in the same field is both appropriate and necessary for precise communication of study details. But scientists today must also consider how the results of their study fit into the overall communication of important issues to the public. As this page has repeatedly noted, there are people and organizations who intentionally mislead the public by misrepresenting scientific research. Therefore, it is critical that all scientists ensure their study findings and methods are accurately reported. And for the policymakers, the media, and the public that means losing the jargon that confuses more than informs. The de-jargonizer can help you do that.
esearchers at the
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and HIT–Holon Institute of
Technology have created a program that automatically identifies terms
the average person may not know. In a recent paper published in PLOS One, the free of charge and scientist-friendly De-Jargonizer hosted at scienceandpublic.com is introduced.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp
esearchers at the
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and HIT–Holon Institute of
Technology have created a program that automatically identifies terms
the average person may not know. In a recent paper published in PLOS One, the free of charge and scientist-friendly De-Jargonizer hosted at scienceandpublic.com is introduced.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-de-jargonizing-decode-science.html#jCp
Thank you for the link, David. I ran my last, uncharacteristically technical article through the program and came up with a 5% "rare" vocabulary, and another 12% "mid-frequency". Perhaps I should attempt a re-write (though it may need to span several articles).
ReplyDeleteI've done a great deal of technical writing that was intended for consumption by para-professionals. Regardless, big ideas encourage abbreviation. But it's always important to consider the audience, and there's certainly no insult in admitting that we're not all "experts" at the same topics.
For technical articles it is appropriate to use the proper technical language. But I've seen way too many technical articles where the author squeezes so many multisyllabic buzzwords into sentences that they become gibberish. Because a sentence doesn't actually say anything they repeat the concept over and over using more and more cumbersome language. I've edited papers where a paragraph could have been more clearly and completely stated in one good sentence, and pages could have been communicated in a paragraph.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if your audience is the public, the jargon just has to go.