We really need to talk about research papers.

(Most) research is important. And broadcasting findings to the academic community (and beyond) is important too. I fully understand that.

But we have to do something because my eyes and brain can’t take it anymore.

The need to broadcast research findings is absolutely clear, and the reasons for doing it are obvious… I hope.

The current (and historical) vaccine debacle is proof enough of the need for research to be clearly communicated to the public.

I will leave the whole ‘publishing in HE is a ridiculous game that we’re all stuck playing’ for another day. This isn’t about that.

This is about the work that we DO publish (or try to publish).

We're stuck. In my field at least, we are slaves to a completely anachronistic style of communicating research findings

It’s become a never ending, self-congratulatory [I can't use this phrase on twitter] of research outputs.

The world has changed and a 15-page article, tucked away in a specialist journal, only accessible to other academics (and sometimes behind a frikkin paywall… I mean come on) cannot be the best way to share our work.

Side note: I recently published a paper in a journal that my university doesn't subscribe to, so I can't actually access my own paper.

But we don't write to share work with anyone apart from other academics*… which sort of misses the point of doing it, does it not?

Perhaps that’s how we’ve got to the point where Barbara from Facebook is the go to source for vaccine information.

*I know that's not strictly true, but that's more or less the end result unless...

...we broadcast findings in a user friendly way. We could write a book (with all our spare time), or a blog (that no-one reads), or go on TV (seriously, what % of academics actually share their research that way?), or just reach out to those our research is meant to benefit.

AND there are some great resources out there for summarising and packaging research findings, like the @ResearchDigest. I'm sure such things exist for other fields too.

Anyway, we could do better than this. But we don’t have time.

Because we have to write MOAAARRRRR PAPERS!

Anyway, back to my original point (sorry, I've finished marking and this has been on my mind), I've just lost patience with the research we're publishing.

Methods sections have become unhealthily long. Yes it’s essential to describing procedures in replicable detail.

But for the love of Tino Asprilla, do we need to know that “convenient times and locations were arranged for interviews” or can we just figure that out for ourselves?

I’ve never once read a paper where that wasn’t specified and thought, “I bet all those interviews were conducted at 3 o’clock in a morning disused warehouse, 178 miles from the participants house."

No I just assumed that as fully functioning adults, some process of arranging interviews probably took place that was satisfactory to all parties involved, and then I thought no more of it.

I love Braun and Clarke, but do we need to read their six stages of thematic analysis for the 61304648th time, or can we just go look that up if it’s the first time we’ve come across it or if we need to remind ourselves?

And for who’s benefit is the language we use? Possession of a comprehensive lexicon is naught to be discomfited about... but at the same time, can we not just write simply and clearly – who are we trying to impress?

It’s just silly.

And we all know it.

And we still do it.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I'm going with this, so here's a GIF to finish.

You know what, there's *loads* of typos in this thread, so I'm just of to pretend it never happened.

See you later!

HOW HAVE I MANAGED A TYPO IN THAT ONE AS WELL!?

GOOD GRIEF!