Writing for Different Audiences

You need to describe the same kriging result, a nitrate hotspot near GW-14 with an 80% probability of exceeding the safety threshold, twice: once for a peer-reviewed methods appendix, and once for the town council's one-page summary. The facts don't change. The words have to.

A peer reviewer wants precision, methodology, and enough detail to evaluate or reproduce your work, they can tolerate, even expect, technical vocabulary. A policymaker wants the implication for a decision, stated plainly, with just enough method described to establish trust, not to teach the method.

Good scientific writing doesn't dumb down results for a general audience, it translates the same finding into the vocabulary and level of detail that audience actually needs to act on it correctly.

It is like explaining the same injury to a fellow doctor versus to the patient's worried parent. The doctor gets the precise medical term and the treatment protocol. The parent gets 'it's a small fracture, it will heal in six weeks, here's what to watch for.' Same injury, same honesty, different translation for what each listener actually needs.

Most research institutions now require a 'plain language summary' alongside technical publications for exactly this reason: technical accuracy and public comprehension are different skills, and a paper that satisfies peer reviewers often fails completely as public communication without a deliberate translation step.

Explain why a 'plain language summary' is not the same thing as 'dumbing down' a scientific result.