Article Commentary: Whose literature is science?

Abstract

For as long as there has been a scienti c literature, scientists have complained about it. R easons for complaint are easy to nd; not only is the literature, as John M addox, a former Editor of N ature, described it, 'impenetrable, often to its users',1 it has increased steadily in specialisation2 and grown overwhelmingly in volume3 and in its demands on users.4 Yet despite the regular cycle of complaints, the problems persist, which, as well as frustrating, is puzzling. If the literature is so obviously broken, why don't we x it?The challenge of writing well