Introduction: The Modern Communication Paradox
We live in a world drowning in information, but we’ve gotten really good at cutting through the noise. Think about it: recipe videos, TikTok clips, Instagram Reels; content that hooks you in seconds, gets straight to the point, and often inspires you to act right away. Studies even show that six-second ads can work almost as well as 30-second ones. Why? Because short, sharp messages don’t give us a chance to scroll away. Now compare that to scientific publishing. Instead of getting shorter and sharper, papers have grown heavier; seven or more figures, each packed with multiple panels, pages of dense text, endless supplementary files. Important insights are there, but buried under layers of data that only a few determined readers will dig through. It’s ironic: in a world that thrives on snappy communication, science, the very thing meant to spread knowledge, often feels inaccessible. Which makes us ask: is the way we publish today really helping us reach across fields and share discoveries with the people who need them most?
Historical Context: When Papers Were Short and Sharp
The concept of clear and concise science communication has been around for a long time. In the past, scientific papers were usually short, often just a few pages. They focused on the key findings and left the in-depth details for other resources like dissertations or lab notebooks. A great example is Watson and Crick's famous one-page paper on the DNA double helix, which shared a groundbreaking discovery in biology. However, as time went on, scientific writing became more detailed and lengthy. Peer review standards improved, and researchers had access to larger datasets, leading to longer articles filled with complex information. Supplementary sections became so extensive that they sometimes overshadowed the main findings, making it harder for non-experts to grasp the essential message. Today, we have access to digital platforms, preprint servers, and data-sharing sites that make it easy to find raw data and detailed methods. This brings up an important question: Why should the main article have to include every detail when concise, peer-reviewed summaries could effectively highlight the key points and make the research more accessible?
The Problem: Overload and Bias in Scientific Literature
Today’s publishing landscape has its fair share of challenges that go beyond just being inconvenient. Here are a few key issues:
- Information Overload: Research articles often cram in multi-panel figures and extensive datasets, making it hard for readers to grasp the main takeaway. Those short on time might skip over valuable insights that aren't front and center.
- Citation Bias: Studies show that researchers tend to favor citing well-known papers while overlooking equally important but less visible ones. This cycle is often reinforced by review articles, which can distort how we perceive progress in a field.
- Limited Reach of Incremental Insights: Not every study makes groundbreaking discoveries, but those smaller, incremental findings are crucial for overall progress. When they get lost in complexity, fewer people learn about them.
- Missed Interdisciplinary Connections: Scholars from other fields might struggle to engage with complex, data-heavy articles due to time constraints or lack of expertise. A more concise format could help these discoveries reach a wider range of disciplines.
By addressing these issues, we can make scientific literature more accessible and impactful!
The Bigger Picture: Citation Distortion and Its Effects
We often hear about information overload, but there's another issue lurking beneath the surface: citation distortion. As discussed by Greenberg in a notable analysis, the way citations are used can create biases, often favouring popular studies while leaving out important but less recognized findings. When a paper catches fire and gets cited a lot, it can overshadow other equally valid research that deserves attention. This creates a cycle: the papers that are already well-known get cited even more, while those lesser-known studies struggle to be seen. The traditional long-form publishing model doesn't help either; papers can be so dense that many researchers only read abstracts or rely on reviews that highlight the most prominent work. This results in a feedback loop where citation biases mask the true state of scientific discussions and slow down the acceptance of new, vital discoveries.
The Matthew Effect in Science
This is what sociologist Robert K. Merton called the Matthew Effect; basically, “the rich get richer.” In science, it shows up when famous researchers or already well-known papers get most of the attention, while equally solid but less visible work is overlooked. Once a study starts racking up citations, momentum takes over, and it keeps getting noticed; often, regardless of whether it’s actually the most groundbreaking. Put together, citation distortion and the Matthew Effect reveal how publishing can quietly tilt the playing field, shaping what counts as “important” science. One of the simplest ways to balance this would be to provide short, standardized, peer-reviewed summaries for every paper. With that, even small, niche, or cross-disciplinary studies would have a fairer shot at being found, cited, and woven into future discoveries.
Existing Attempts and Their Limits
Journals have tried to make science easier to digest, but most of these fixes feel like half-measures. They’re scattered, optional, or treated like decoration instead of being part of the core paper.
Graphical Abstracts
Supposed to be a quick visual “at-a-glance” summary. Sounds great, right? But in reality, they’re hit or miss. Some look clean and professional, others look like a rushed PowerPoint slide. And because they’re rarely peer-reviewed, they’re often ignored. I’ve made plenty myself, never once got a single reviewer comment.
Video Summaries
A few publishers let you upload a short video to explain your work. These can be engaging, especially for non-specialists. But they’re optional, not standardized, and usually live on YouTube or buried on a journal page. They don’t count as part of the paper, can’t be cited, and often get overlooked.
Brief Reports and Short Communications
Some journals have space for “short reports.” Useful, yes. But they’re standalone papers, not companions to the main article. So they don’t actually solve the problem of making a dense, 15-page paper easier to access.
Toward a New Discussion on Scientific Publishing Formats
So far, attempts at making papers more accessible, graphical abstracts, video summaries, have been just that: attempts. They’re optional, unevenly applied, and usually sit outside the main peer-reviewed record. They hint at change but don’t add up to real transformation. What’s needed now isn’t just another add-on format, but a broader, global conversation about how scientific papers themselves should evolve. How do we design manuscripts that are efficient, direct, and clear without sacrificing rigour? This discussion shouldn’t just include researchers and publishers, but also reviewers, funders, and even readers beyond academia. Some questions worth asking: Should papers include a structured “core findings” section that’s peer-reviewed? Should every study feature a short, citable “essence statement” designed for both humans and AI tools? Should we separate exhaustive data dumps into repositories and let the paper itself focus on significance and story? There are no simple answers, but we need to start asking these questions. Science has already adapted to open access, preprints, and digital repositories. The next step is rethinking the very shape of the paper itself, so that rigour and clarity can finally coexist in an age of short attention spans, AI-driven discovery, and information overload.
Conclusion: A Call for Global Discussion
Everywhere else, advertising, recipes, social media, communication is getting sharper and shorter. Science, meanwhile, has gone the other way: more figures, more supplements, denser text. Ironically, decades ago, papers were far more succinct. Now, with digital repositories and AI tools at our disposal, we have the chance to combine clarity with rigour better than ever before. Optional extras like graphical abstracts or videos aren’t enough. What we need is a serious, international conversation about new publishing formats; formats that fit the realities of modern communication while still upholding scientific standards.
As AI reshapes how we discover and read literature, and as interdisciplinary work becomes ever more essential, one question looms large: Should we look into a new format for scientific publishing to evolve with the age of short attention and AI?
References
- Mountain Research (2023). Creative Analysis: Ad Length Impact on Attention is Minimal, but Content Tips the Scales.
https://research.mountain.com/creative-analysis/ad-length-impact-on-attention-is-minimal-but-content-tips-the-scales/ - WARC (2022). The length of ad attention needed depends on desired outcomes.
https://www.warc.com/content/feed/length-of-ad-attention-needed-depends-on-desired-outcomes/9641? - Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.
- MIT Press Reader (2020). Unintended Consequences: The Perils of Publication and Citation Bias.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/perils-of-publication-and-citation-bias - EBSCO Research Starters (2023). Matthew Effect.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/matthew-effect - Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2016). The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Nature, 489, 201–204. `
- Hug, T. (2017). Learning in the Flow: Microlearning as a New Pedagogical Challenge. In: Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Springer.
- Boston Digital (2022). The Shrinking Attention Span & What It Means for Marketers.
https://www.bostondigital.com/insights/shrinking-attention-span-what-it-means-marketers?