the 'requirements' that are being referred to go well beyond objective rules (e.g., no more than 4 journal formatted pages) and include things like lingo, citation standards, ordering of sections, and general academic writing voice.
Written communication of science is hard, especially when you are new to it. I think a good 50% of what I have learned as a PhD student was how to more effectively communicate through writing. And that builds on me (honestly) being in the top quartile of writers in my program when I walked in the door. I have worked with many co-authors who have had great work rejected by journals for writing reasons. It isn't about scholarly snobbery - a lot of it just isn't understandable to anyone but the author. Writing advertising copy / business plans / anything related to startups I worked with was orders of magnitude easier.
In a strict sense its gate keeping, in a more realistic sense its about norming. These standards/expectations often develop organically and are sometimes hard to write down in the sense you are asking for.
In my own experience, I once wrote a paper in a much more casual and approachable style. I had what I felt was the same scientific rigor around the experiments and data, but tried to make the text more generally readable. I had Simpson's references sprinkled here and there, that sort of thing. The response was generally negative. The paper was accepted for the mid-tier conference I submitted it to, but on the condition that I revise to take care of reviewer concerns, many of which boiled down to "you should write with a more appropriate tone". No one complained that the paper was imprecise as a result. They just didn't like that it didn't read in the standard passive and bland academic voice. I found that somewhat depressing.
> I had Simpson's references sprinkled here and there, that sort of thing.
I should offer to read your paper before criticising it, but I can't even begin to understand why you would think that references to a TV programme would help make a paper more readable. What if you don't happen to watch the Simpsons? Is the paper then even more opaque because none of the references mean anything?
I quite like the bland academic voice - because it lets me focus on what I came for which is the science. I don't want to be amused, and I don't want academics wasting time trying to be witty or fit in references to whatever TV programme is fashionable.
I want just the science, please! Delivered as clearly and simply as possible.
There are parts of the standard academic paper that aren't really necessary for understanding it. You typically have background on the problem, for example. I can't say for certain I didn't lose a reader, but none of the references detracted from meaning in my view.
I totally TOTALLY agree. I was trying to stay away from offering value judgement and be a little more descriptive. it is not necessarily effective, but, it is.
I have done similar things, with similar reactions. I think such approaches in fact negatively impact science...especially through the public's engagement with it. Perhaps my 'favorite' was trying to do a conference session about active learning using...active learning. Got told that it was unprofessional and that those listening were 'peers not students'.
There was a really wonderful paper on academia I read not long ago[1] that basically made the argument that a darwinian biology framework basically explained all this. It basically asked the question what is a defense that arose to solve a problem, and has now transformed into what looks like a defect...and how do we separate those (or should we) from actual defects. Today I stumbled across a similar article which discussed
[1] Lohmann, S. (2004). Darwinian medicine for the university. Governing Academia: Who Is in Charge at the Modern University, 71-90.
[2] ...and of course I can't re-find it. I'll update if I do.
Written communication of science is hard, especially when you are new to it. I think a good 50% of what I have learned as a PhD student was how to more effectively communicate through writing. And that builds on me (honestly) being in the top quartile of writers in my program when I walked in the door. I have worked with many co-authors who have had great work rejected by journals for writing reasons. It isn't about scholarly snobbery - a lot of it just isn't understandable to anyone but the author. Writing advertising copy / business plans / anything related to startups I worked with was orders of magnitude easier.
In a strict sense its gate keeping, in a more realistic sense its about norming. These standards/expectations often develop organically and are sometimes hard to write down in the sense you are asking for.