Scientific reports are not very readable. That's the conclusion of Ralf Barkemeyer and colleagues, who conducted a linguistic analysis of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) documents that accompanied the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (page 311). In contrast, they found that most media reports on AR5 scored very well, according to their readability metric.

Although this finding is perhaps not surprising, it is potentially problematic. The SPM is supposed to translate the IPCC's headline findings into a usable language for those charged with cutting the world's greenhouse gas emissions. If they are unusually difficult to read, then they are arguably not performing their principal function — indeed, Barkemeyer et al. found that even seminal physics papers by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking had considerably higher readability scores.

The esoteric style of the SPM means that policymakers and the public are likely to go elsewhere for scientific information. That could be dangerous, as information is liable to get lost or be miscommunicated in translation. So, the argument goes, scientists should improve their communication skills, and ensure that documents such as the SPM are written in a manner that most people can understand.

But such calls for the democratization of science — whereby even the most complex findings are accessible to everyone — cuts both ways. The research by Barkemeyer et al. shows that the established process of scientific reporting is actually functioning reasonably well. Scientists report scientific research, and journalists translate this into digestible findings for the public.

If the concern is that those findings are miscommunicated, there is a good argument for raising levels of scientific literacy in general, as well as making the reports easier to read.

Currently, only 2 members of US Congress have natural science PhDs. In the UK, only 6 of 650 Members of Parliament have science degrees. If decision makers had higher levels of scientific literacy, the quality of the translations becomes less important. Likewise, if the public were more scientifically literate, then the readability of the SPM becomes less significant.

It may be wise to provide communications training for scientists, which is an idea that the IPCC is already exploring. But perhaps journalists and politicians should also be sent to science classes — teaching the skills to read science at its source should be a greater priority across the board. Everyone must take their share of responsibility in the march towards more accessible science.