Would it be possible for author of paper to include 2 versions of the research paper: one for common use, one for scientific community. Or with the improvements on internet speed, author can upload a short video in plain language for his research and leave a link on his paper ?

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev Yes, of course that's possible. Unfortunately it takes a lot of time, and traditional incentive mechanisms aren't super well set up to motivate people to actually go this extra mile. (there is also the more inconvenient truth that a lot of detailed research is simply not of much interest outside a specialist group of people, so making it accessible to a wide audience may objectively be a waste of time)

In my opinion, this will make it easy for researcher from other field to understand that this paper is exactly what he/she was looking for. Also, people who are not related to science and want to fact-check, they can get the clear understanding of the paper too.

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev I don't mean to throw rocks from the ivory tower, but these types of publications aren't really intended for the layperson. Someone without a science background may not have the expertise to fully understand the content of a manuscript, even if it were written in more plain language. In general, I don't think it's worthwhile to have non-scientists "fact checking" scientists - that step is normally conducted in the peer review phase by people with the appropriate background.

@NuclearWang I understand you point and I think you are right. But I can't keep noticing that when news channels tells some information based on a research paper, and when you read the paper, it states completely different conclusion. Like climate change.

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev In many fields, that second version is a press release. Even these have a habit of of being misunderstood or misinterpreted.

@origimbo I just wish there was a way for everyone to be able to fact-check information they receive. I saw my question as one of the solutions.

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev Some journals and funding agencies now ask for a “plain language summary” intended for lay readers. It’s usually just a paragraph or two though, not the whole document.

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev The right way to fact-check is to ask an independent expert, rather than trying to do it yourself. If something is written at a level that a layperson can understand, you can pretty much guarantee that there isn't enough detail for an expert to check it.

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev why do you expect most journalists, who write the press articles, to be capable of completely understanding a technical paper on particle physics for example...

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev You know, when you do one thing repeately for a long time you start to do it automatically. If you write and read hundreds of pages in scientific english, it becomes your mother tongue for writing and writing in regular english becomes very difficult to you. Your personal dictionary become biased towards the subject as well. English is not my mother tongue and I have problems to describe all nuances of "my field" in my mother tongue. Because I read/write 99% of materials in scientific english. And in the team, we discuss in english as well.

@SolarMike good point, maybe I expect too much from a journalist. Unfortunately, most of the population reads/watches about facts from journalists.

@Crowley Yes, as I understood, from comments more reading will help me to get familiar with type of language that researchers use.

@DonQuiKong Journalist have their own deadlines, and they are very very tight. So it is not surprising that they don't do it.

I have heard that there was a scientific paper about the topic "why are scientific papers so hard to read?". I have heard that the conclusion was that in most cases papers are written in a much more difficult language than needed even making the content more difficult to understand for the expert, not making it easier to understand as in your example. Unfortunately I don't have a reference.

@Zulfidin Khodzhaev: Doing a video of a paper is probably one of the worst ideas I've heard. Video (I mean a person speaking, not animated graphics) is just about the worst way of conveying information I can think of. Even well-trained professionals like actors and news presenters do it less effectively than mediocre writing. Take your average researcher witn no training in public speaking, and a good chance that their first language isn't English. Then add the fact that many people just aren't interested in putting their picture all over the place...

Sometimes scholars get so steeped in a particular subject, that they have a tough time explaining it to anyone outside that specialty. This is called the 'Curse of Knowledge'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge

@ZulfidinKhodzhaev Most media articles about non-research topics are wrong too. Why do you blame the researchers? You could try reading 'The Conversation', which exactly aims to avoid that problem.

Wikipedia, is to me, not a great source (esp. maths) entirely because of the over conciseness and narrowness of precision. For Wikipedia at least, adding a little of that introduction would help access. That said, for a technical paper, that precision, conciseness, and hopefully readability is appropriate - folk can look up the unknown terms in Wikipedia if they don't know them - oh, rabbit hole ahead...