Why do scientific studies have such poor user experience?
Partly because they're written to pass peer review, not to inform practitioners or the public.
I want to know one main thing before I read your study - Why should I believe your study? That is: what is the sample size, did you pre-register methods, who funded the study, what type of study is it, etc.
Studies are written for paper publications, but that hasn't been the main distribution method for years.
> Why do scientific studies have such poor user experience?
> Partly because they're written to pass peer review, not to inform practitioners or the public.
Neither you nor the public nor practicioners should be reading "scientific studies". Please remember that the actual value of any one scientific study is practically _zero_. They are only useful to big companies and/or national scientific bodies which actually may have the resources to even try to reproduce them.
This is a very pertinent point, and i speak from experience when I say that if less laymen (and women) tried to read scientific papers on their conditions, real or imagined, the job of a doctor would be easier
Partly because they're written to pass peer review, not to inform practitioners or the public.
I want to know one main thing before I read your study - Why should I believe your study? That is: what is the sample size, did you pre-register methods, who funded the study, what type of study is it, etc.
Studies are written for paper publications, but that hasn't been the main distribution method for years.