The Science of Clear Academic Prose: What "Write Clearly" Actually Means

Writing Skills
Quick Takeaways
  • Scientific abstracts now require graduate-level education to comprehend, declining since 1960
  • Clarity is quantifiable through validated metrics: Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG Index, lexical density
  • Excessive hedging reduces funding probability; grants with certainty language receive ~$372 more per certainty word

The Clarity Crisis in Academic Writing

More than one-fifth of scientific abstracts currently demand education beyond undergraduate level for comprehension. Analysis of over 700,000 abstracts spanning 123 journals demonstrates declining readability since 1960, primarily driven by "general scientific jargon" rather than necessary technical terminology.

Research

In 1960, 14% of scientific texts scored below zero on the Flesch Reading Ease scale. By 2015, this figure rose to 22%. The readability decline spans 134 years.

What "Clear" Actually Means (The Metrics)

Readability Formulas

Three validated formulas measure text difficulty:

  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: U.S. grade level needed for comprehension; academic writing typically scores 12-16+
  • Flesch Reading Ease: 0-100 scale where higher equals easier; academic work averages 20-30 ("very difficult")
  • SMOG Index: Focuses on polysyllabic words; predicts education needed for complete comprehension with 0.985 reliability

Lexical Density: Measures content words versus function words. Academic writing ranges 40-70%.

Comparison table of readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (12-16+ for academic), Flesch Reading Ease (20-30 for academic = 'very difficult'), SMOG Index (0.985 reliability), and Lexical Density (40-70% for academic)
Four validated metrics for measuring text clarity: each provides different insights into prose accessibility

Why Academic Writing Is (Necessarily) Hard to Read

Research

Coh-Metrix analysis of 200+ linguistic features

Features making text harder predict higher quality ratings. Higher-rated essays contained linguistic features associated with text difficulty, NOT features facilitating comprehension.

The three most predictive quality factors:

  1. Syntactic complexity
  2. Lexical diversity
  3. Word frequency (less common words)

The Precision-Clarity Trade-off: Complex language serves legitimate purposes—precision, qualification, and efficiency for expert readers. The goal involves eliminating unnecessary complexity that obscures rather than clarifies.

Hedging: The Hidden Clarity Killer

Words like "might," "possibly," "suggests," and "appears" pervade academic writing. Some hedging appropriately reflects uncertainty; excessive hedging obscures meaning.

Research

Analysis of 11,535 grant applications

Grants in the top quartile of promotional language showed 53% higher funding probability. NSF proposals with more verbal certainty received approximately $372 more per certainty word.

Effective Hedging Strategies
  • Use probability language over vague modals
  • Hedge claims, not methods
  • Front-load confidence before stating limitations
  • Limit hedge density to two per paragraph maximum

Example Revision:

Vague: "The results might possibly suggest that there may be some relationship."

Precise: "The results suggest a moderate relationship (r = 0.42, p < .01)."

Side-by-side comparison showing vague hedging versus precise hedging. Vague: 'might possibly suggest there may be some relationship' vs. Precise: 'suggest a moderate relationship (r = 0.42, p < .01)' with arrows showing the transformation
Effective hedging uses precise probability language rather than stacking vague modals

Cohesion and How Ideas Connect

Types of Cohesion

  • Lexical cohesion: Repeating key terms or synonyms
  • Referential cohesion: Using pronouns and demonstratives
  • Conjunctive cohesion: Explicit transitions signaling relationships

Critical Finding: Cohesion's impact depends on reader expertise. For low-domain-knowledge readers, high cohesion significantly improves comprehension. For experts, high cohesion can impair performance by slowing automatic gap-filling.

The Given-New Contract

Place familiar information at sentence beginnings, new information at endings.

Violates given-new: "Working memory overload results from attempting complex sentence construction while simultaneously generating ideas."

Follows given-new: "Writers often attempt complex sentence construction while simultaneously generating ideas. This dual demand creates working memory overload."

Practical Interventions for Measurable Improvement

Systematic Revision Process
  • Step 1: Diagnose — Use free tools (Word readability, Hemingway Editor) to measure current metrics
  • Step 2: Target Worst Offenders — Longest sentences, nominalization chains, hedge clustering
  • Step 3: Separate Revision Passes — Sentence length, nominalization, hedging, cohesion

Revision Example

Before (51 words, Grade Level 22.1):

"The implementation of the intervention resulted in the production of improvements in the participants' writing that might possibly be attributed to the utilization of the strategies that were taught, although there may be other factors that could potentially have contributed to these outcomes."

After (22 words, Grade Level 11.8):

"The intervention improved participants' writing. These gains likely stem from the strategies taught, though other factors may have contributed."

Match Style to Audience

  • Grant applications: Optimize for non-specialist reviewers with increased cohesion and reduced jargon
  • Journal articles: Match target journal's readability norms
  • Public-facing work: Aim for Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8-10
Share