» Articles » PMID: 28792945

Automatic Jargon Identifier for Scientists Engaging with the Public and Science Communication Educators

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2017 Aug 10
PMID 28792945
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Personalized Jargon Identification for Enhanced Interdisciplinary Communication.

Guo Y, Chang J, Antoniak M, Bransom E, Cohen T, Wang L Proc Conf. 2025; 2024:4535-4550.

PMID: 39916934 PMC: 11801132. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.255.


Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

Lang I, King A, Boddy K, Stein K, Asare L, Day J J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e50862.

PMID: 39805102 PMC: 11773280. DOI: 10.2196/50862.


Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.

Gainey K, Smith J, McCaffery K, Clifford S, Muscat D BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e086464.

PMID: 39608994 PMC: 11603698. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086464.


Evaluating Expert-Layperson Agreement in Identifying Jargon Terms in Electronic Health Record Notes: Observational Study.

Lalor J, Levy D, Jordan H, Hu W, Smirnova J, Yu H J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e49704.

PMID: 39405109 PMC: 11522659. DOI: 10.2196/49704.


Closing the Dissemination Gap: Accessible Toolkits for the Rapid Replication of Evidence-Informed Interventions to Improve Health Outcomes Among People with HIV.

Goldhammer H, Marc L, Massaquoi M, Cancio R, Cahill S, Downes A AIDS Behav. 2024; .

PMID: 39375289 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-024-04511-y.


References
1.
Plaxco K . The art of writing science. Protein Sci. 2010; 19(12):2261-6. PMC: 3009394. DOI: 10.1002/pro.514. View

2.
Sharon A, Baram-Tsabari A . Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Underst Sci. 2013; 23(5):528-46. DOI: 10.1177/0963662512469916. View

3.
Bruine de Bruin W, Bostrom A . Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14062-8. PMC: 3752171. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212729110. View

4.
. Why researchers should resolve to engage in 2017. Nature. 2017; 541(7635):5. DOI: 10.1038/541005a. View

5.
McCool M, Wahl J, Schlecht I, Apfelbacher C . Evaluating Written Patient Information for Eczema in German: Comparing the Reliability of Two Instruments, DISCERN and EQIP. PLoS One. 2015; 10(10):e0139895. PMC: 4595422. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139895. View