Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators

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.

Science communication in online media: influence of press releases on coverage of genetics and CRISPR

“…As PRs are associated with the majority of science communication, their use of words could influence online media uptake. Two measures of wording known from the literature were employed to evaluate PRs: the intensity of scientific jargon (Rakedzon et al, 2017) and presence of promotional keywords (Maat, 2007). There was low correlation between jargon scores and popularity among online media (Pearson's r = 0.168, p<.05, Supplementary Fig 5) and no significant correlation between promotional words and popularity (Pearson's r = 0.085, p = 0.15, Supplementary Fig 6).…”

Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists

“…While scientists write mostly for their peers to share, promote and advance scientific research, reporters aim to inform, alert and encourage public debate on topics that are thought to be on the public agenda or even purely entertaining (33–35). Whereas scientists are trained to write to other experts using a traditional, well accepted format of the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) (20,36–38) and use scientific jargon abundantly, journalists use different genres and vocabulary to address non-expert audiences (20,36–40).…”

How to leverage the language: A guide for medical writers in India

“…The authors can subsequently revise their documents to make it more acceptable to the reader, in general. [6]…”