ArticlePloS one2017
Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- A conceptual methodological approach for addressing complex interdisciplinary challenges.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- What Happens When Undergraduate Biology Students Meet with Professional Scientists to Discuss Research? An Exploratory Investigation into Scientific Discourse, Motivation, and Sense of Belonging.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Article
- Evaluating Expert-Layperson Agreement in Identifying Jargon Terms in Electronic Health Record Notes: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Closing the Dissemination Gap: Accessible Toolkits for the Rapid Replication of Evidence-Informed Interventions to Improve Health Outcomes Among People with HIV.AIDS and behavior · 2024Article
- Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2024Article
- Personalized Jargon Identification for Enhanced Interdisciplinary Communication.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. North American Chapter. Meeting · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for scientists engaging in science communication.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- COVID-19, Framing and Naming a Pandemic: How What Is Not in a Disease Name May Be More Important than What Is.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.The patient · 2023Article
- Role of jargon in the patient-doctor communication in the dental healthcare sector-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Review
- Article
- Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water.Technology in society · 2022Article
- How to design an art-science program? Self-reported benefits for artists and scientists in the VI4 artist-in-residence program.PloS one · 2022Article
- Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Ten simple rules for open human health research.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Words matter: jargon alienates readers.Nature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon. However, because they are trained to speak with highly specialized language, avoiding jargon is difficult for scientists, and there is no standard to guide scientists in adjusting their messages. In this research project, we present the development and validation of the data produced by an up-to-date, scientist-friendly program for identifying jargon in popular written texts, based on a corpus of over 90 million words published in the BBC site during the years 2012-2015. The validation of results by the jargon identifier, the De-jargonizer, involved three mini studies: (1) comparison and correlation with existing frequency word lists in the literature; (2) a comparison with previous research on spoken language jargon use in TED transcripts of non-science lectures, TED transcripts of science lectures and transcripts of academic science lectures; and (3) a test of 5,000 pairs of published research abstracts and lay reader summaries describing the same article from the journals PLOS Computational Biology and PLOS Genetics. Validation procedures showed that the data classification of the De-jargonizer significantly correlates with existing frequency word lists, replicates similar jargon differences in previous studies on scientific versus general lectures, and identifies significant differences in jargon use between abstracts and lay summaries. As expected, more jargon was found in the academic abstracts than lay summaries; however, the percentage of jargon in the lay summaries exceeded the amount recommended for the public to understand the text. Thus, the De-jargonizer can help scientists identify problematic jargon when communicating science to non-experts, and be implemented by science communication instructors when evaluating the effectiveness and jargon use of participants in science communication workshops and programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.