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.
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.
However, I would like to pose another suggestion that may play a role in this effect.
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).
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:
1) Paper is novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, publication (weight=1).
2) Paper is novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).
3) Paper is not novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, no publication (weight=0).
4) Paper is not novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).
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.
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."
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").
How do you bring that complexity down so that someone coming out of highschool can avoid having to learn a lot about it first, and still transmit something useful to other specialists? Otherwise, what we'd get is another episode of NOVA
Give a big picture overview, categorize similar things, focus (omit unnecessary detail), mention similarities to known systems, don't assume highly specialized knowledge just to save a little space - the usual techniques to explain things!
Edit: If you look at a text, you can easily see whether or not the author can or wants to make themselves clear. Papers from after roughly 1980 just don't give that impression anymore. You also know the difference between good and bad software documentation when you see it, if that is closer to your area of expertise. I think your explanation is plausible, but wrong.
I have been told that a good paper is simple and concise but the best paper passes the "Norwegian Test" whereby we suppose that if you were handed only the abstract and plots in your paper you could understand the entire development presented within the paper.
The complexities reality contain do not necessitate the complexity of the details or developments as presented by a single paper.
I've always favored summary books assembled from smaller papers as opposed to large and extremely complicated papers.
Survey papers are worth mentioning. They are somewhere between original research papers and textbooks. For these, readability does still seem to be important, so if there is no textbook, you'll want to start with a survey paper.
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.
However, I would like to pose another suggestion that may play a role in this effect.
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).
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:
1) Paper is novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, publication (weight=1).
2) Paper is novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).
3) Paper is not novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, no publication (weight=0).
4) Paper is not novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).
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.
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."
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").
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206540