Why are scientific publications generally not in cartoon, video, or other forms different from paper documents?

Question

The advantage of looking at scientific publications is that they tend to be the most reliable source of information as they are produced using the scientific process. I think the disadvantage of scientific publications is that they are at least generally in the form of a paper document, which while it doesn’t impact their accuracy I think it makes them more boring to read and harder to understand, and might partly explain why a lot of lay people end up trying to learn from less reliable sources of information.

I think if a scientific publication was in a different form, such as a cartoon, or video it would make it easier to be motivated to study it might also make it easier to understand it without sacrificing accuracy. Also on the face of it it would seem like it would be possible to have a scientific publication in cartoon or video form be as accurate as one in paper document form provided that it went through the same peer review process.

Is the reason for scientific publications generally being in paper document form as opposed to something like cartoon or video form just tradition or is there a more practical reason they have the form they do?

Answer 1

Scientists make written documents because the purpose is to be an archive of knowledge, with very precise meaning of words, notation, and figures/tables. Other forms of expression like videos and cartoon are not so appropriate for archival, specially over a large period of time. Video in particular is a relatively new technology that was not available in 1800s for example. And you do not know if a video will be watchable in the future. Technology rots.

One thing that people forget is that writing is one of humanity's greatest achievements, that is how we know of ancient civilizations and their records, we barely know about of human history before the invention of writing systems.

And more importantly, scientists are the ones that produce the knowledge, but its not the final form, there are other people in society that can interpret a scientific publication and provide videos, cartoons, etc. This is clearly exemplified with many youtube channels that specialize on describing papers. Scientists often do not have training to present knowledge directly to the public.

Answer 2

You can get a good idea what scientists communicating their work through videos would look like from scientific talks at conferences, colloquia, etc.

Almost every scientist I ever talked to about this agrees with me that a high percentage of such talks are a waste of time to them, and the only reason this format still exists are the remaining good ones. One of the main problems is that these talks are impossible to follow because they assume too much familiarity with the subject, central things are not explained, the speaker is not intelligible¹, etc. And talks have the advantage that you can ask questions when something is unclear. In videos, you can rewind hoping that the information is there somewhere, which has its pros and cons compared to talks, but then this is clearly easier in text.

Moreover, even the best scientific talks only give you a summary of a piece of work. For most papers, a talk that is equivalent in information would take hours (and would not be accessible to lay people at all). While the same applies to thoroughly reading the corresponding paper, in many cases, scientists engaging with a paper don’t do that at first. They want get a quick overview whether it contains the information they need, either by glossing over it or searching for certain terms of interest. They may also only ever read a particular result or a particular passage that is hopefully sufficiently self-contained. Now, you might say that we can make good automated transcripts of videos that allow for searching, etc., but then everybody is working with transcripts all the time such that we might as well make those the main format – and we are at papers again.

Now, what are the underlying reasons for this?

• A good and clear audiovisual representation requires more work and skills than writing. This particularly applies if it should be accessible to lay people.
• Text is much easier to consume at different intensities, from a thorough reading for peer review to skimming for an overview. You can only speed up a video that much.
• Writing is much easier to navigate.
• Writing depends much less on the English skills of the speaker and consumer.

---

¹ And I am in a scientific community, where most people have little problems with the listening comprehension of English.

Answer 3

Most scientists can write adequately. Only few scientists can create videos or cartoons adequately. Only very few people can create good videos or cartoons that get hard facts across.

So aside from all the problems that having information in moving pictures brings, it is generally just not practical to create them in the first place.

Answer 4

One might argue that many journals and publishers do support hybrid formats if you add multimedia content:

• eg. PNAS embeds supplementary videos directly in the HTML version at the place in the manuscript where they are referenced.
• a number of journals encourage video abstracts (e.g. IoP or Cambridge University Press)
• there is also JoVE, which tried to establish peer-reviewed video content, but I don't think it really took off. Partly, as argued by other posters here, because making videos is hard: part of JoVE's package was to handle the video production and hardly anyone in academia has money for that.

Answer 5

Let me add an example. There was a "popularizer of science", Carl Sagan, who had a knack for making difficult concepts accessible to non-professionals. His talks were informative, for the lay audience, and were usually good introductions to the fields and the concepts he discussed. He had previously made his reputation in the advancement of science (writing papers) and so had credibility in addition to showmanship.

His talks make good videos and would be amenable to a cartoon presentation, either video or print.

But, he didn't present new ideas in that way and he wasn't speaking primarily to professionals. He wasn't, in those talks, advancing the state of scientific knowledge with the required precision, but explaining what was already well known in the field.

Different formats are appropriate for different things. The printed word (along with equations) seems best for presentation of new scientific (and other scholarly) ideas. But it wouldn't work very well for Tom & Jerry or Calvin & Hobbes.

And, at scientific conferences, it is fairly common for some attendees to take notes on the talk, perhaps even writing those notes on a printed copy of the paper that underlies the talk. Those who only require an overview probably won't bother, but those with an intense interest will want some things captured in print.

Moreover we learn to read and write from a young age and are comfortable with it. Creation of videos or even artwork in cartoons is a different skill, mastered by fewer people, and probably a distraction to a scholar.

If it worked, we would use it, but print "feels" right for presentation of new and difficult concepts.