Discussions of the relative merit of academia's current state, and specifically the publication process, pop up from time to time around here, so I won't rehash those points here.<p>Additionally, I think the article's author (and other neighboring posts here) bring up valid points regarding the escalating complexity of science and potential correlations between that complexity and the written complexity required to communicate it. I think the article about the ABC conjecture [0] posted earlier today [1] is a perfect example of this.<p>However, I would like to pose another suggestion that may play a role in this effect.<p>It is easy to see how a paper's acceptance in a journal or conference serves as an evolutionary pressure on the author's style; in other words, one of the reward functions for a paper's style is defined by its ability to be published (since higher publication count correlates with higher funding availability, for better or for worse).<p>With such a function in place, it makes sense that papers will start to exhibit evolutionary traits (styles) that promote survival irrespective of their practical or functional benefits. Let us also consider the committee review process as part of our environment: several humans must decide whether your paper will be published or not, based on its domain novelty. There are 4 possible outcomes:<p>1) Paper is novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, publication (weight=1).<p>2) Paper is novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).<p>3) Paper is not novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, no publication (weight=0).<p>4) Paper is not novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).<p>Therefore, if you're publishing something, and either (A) you know it's not very novel, or (B) you're not sure how novel other people will think it will be, it's in your interest to obfuscate your paper as much as possible.<p>Additionally, for Cases 2 & 4, the weights probably trend even higher. Human vanity may produce an outcome closer to "I don't understand it, therefore it may be over my head; I will therefore convince myself it is a good paper. Weak recommend!" at a higher rate than "I don't understand it; I will ask for clarification from the author or the rest of the committee, at the risk of appearing foolish in front of my colleagues."<p>If these interpretations are true, then the parent's article's results are not particularly surprising, just depressing (from the perspective of "academia as human progress engine").<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture</a>
[1]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206540" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206540</a>