As I try to read scientific articles, it's a rare thing that I'm able to read an article where I fully understand the article. Part of it is that I'm not schooled in biochemistry and I try to overcome that lack of formal schooling on the subject by educating myself on terms using the different tools available on the web - Khan Academy, wikipedia, and some of the ebooks that I come across on this forum.
However, even if I were to encounter some subject matter that's not so foreign to me, I still have difficulty understanding the writing. Some times it's just poor proofing by the writer all the way to the editor, and sometimes it's just poor grammar, and sometimes it's simply intentionally meant to be ambiguous , I think, so that the editor can be confused enough to just the article pass through for publication.
I end up on a rut, and wasting my time for ever getting started on reading an article, and just stop reading, in disgust. I've never tried asking anyone in the forum how they go about gaining understanding when they encounter such a roadblock, and I've never heard of anyone in this forum complaining about this. And I've not encountered anyone reaching out to this forum for help, either.
I'm quite certain I'm not alone here feeling this way. I wonder if I could start a thread for those of us who feel the same way I do. My purpose is not to complain about the poor English in scientific journals. My purpose is to get suggestions from you how such an individual could get help in such a situation. Not necessarily in this forum. It could be from an online paid service that charges, if such a service that exists, or if not online, a service that is available via email, or even by phone.
Here's an example:
From this article : https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/7/E1550.full.pdf
Platelets release pathogenic serotonin and return to circulation after immune complex-mediated sequestration
There is a growing appreciation for the contribution of platelets to immunity; however, our knowledge mostly relies on platelet functions associated with vascular injury and the prevention of bleeding. Circulating immune complexes (ICs) contribute to both chronic and acute inflammation in a multitude of clinical conditions. Herein, we scrutinized platelet responses to systemic ICs in the absence of tissue and endothelial wall injury. Platelet activation by circulating ICs through a mechanism requiring expression of platelet Fcγ receptor IIA resulted in the induction of systemic shock. IC-driven shock was dependent on release of serotonin from platelet-dense granules secondary to platelet outside-in signaling by αIIbβ3 and its ligand fibrinogen. While activated platelets sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin. Unexpectedly, platelets returned to the blood circulation with emptied granules and were thereby ineffective at promoting subsequent systemic shock, although they still underwent sequestration. We propose that in response to circulating ICs, platelets are a crucial mediator of the inflammatory response highly relevant to sepsis, viremia, and anaphylaxis. In addition, platelets recirculate after degranulation and sequestration, demonstrating that in adaptive immunity implicating antibody responses, activated platelets are longer lived than anticipated and may explain platelet count fluctuations in IC-driven diseases.
Here is the sentence that escaped the proofreading by the editor:
While activated platelets sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin.
Try as hard as I can, I couldn't make sense of this non-sentence. What is missing in this sentence? Is it "are?" to wit:
While activated platelets are sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets are also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin.
It is a sentence alright, but now it doesn't seem to make sense. How can platelets be sequestered in the lungs? How can platelets be sequestered in the first place?
While at it, let's see if anyone here can unravel the meaning of the non-sentence.
However, even if I were to encounter some subject matter that's not so foreign to me, I still have difficulty understanding the writing. Some times it's just poor proofing by the writer all the way to the editor, and sometimes it's just poor grammar, and sometimes it's simply intentionally meant to be ambiguous , I think, so that the editor can be confused enough to just the article pass through for publication.
I end up on a rut, and wasting my time for ever getting started on reading an article, and just stop reading, in disgust. I've never tried asking anyone in the forum how they go about gaining understanding when they encounter such a roadblock, and I've never heard of anyone in this forum complaining about this. And I've not encountered anyone reaching out to this forum for help, either.
I'm quite certain I'm not alone here feeling this way. I wonder if I could start a thread for those of us who feel the same way I do. My purpose is not to complain about the poor English in scientific journals. My purpose is to get suggestions from you how such an individual could get help in such a situation. Not necessarily in this forum. It could be from an online paid service that charges, if such a service that exists, or if not online, a service that is available via email, or even by phone.
Here's an example:
From this article : https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/7/E1550.full.pdf
Platelets release pathogenic serotonin and return to circulation after immune complex-mediated sequestration
There is a growing appreciation for the contribution of platelets to immunity; however, our knowledge mostly relies on platelet functions associated with vascular injury and the prevention of bleeding. Circulating immune complexes (ICs) contribute to both chronic and acute inflammation in a multitude of clinical conditions. Herein, we scrutinized platelet responses to systemic ICs in the absence of tissue and endothelial wall injury. Platelet activation by circulating ICs through a mechanism requiring expression of platelet Fcγ receptor IIA resulted in the induction of systemic shock. IC-driven shock was dependent on release of serotonin from platelet-dense granules secondary to platelet outside-in signaling by αIIbβ3 and its ligand fibrinogen. While activated platelets sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin. Unexpectedly, platelets returned to the blood circulation with emptied granules and were thereby ineffective at promoting subsequent systemic shock, although they still underwent sequestration. We propose that in response to circulating ICs, platelets are a crucial mediator of the inflammatory response highly relevant to sepsis, viremia, and anaphylaxis. In addition, platelets recirculate after degranulation and sequestration, demonstrating that in adaptive immunity implicating antibody responses, activated platelets are longer lived than anticipated and may explain platelet count fluctuations in IC-driven diseases.
Here is the sentence that escaped the proofreading by the editor:
While activated platelets sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin.
Try as hard as I can, I couldn't make sense of this non-sentence. What is missing in this sentence? Is it "are?" to wit:
While activated platelets are sequestered in the lungs and leaky vasculature of the blood–brain barrier, platelets are also sequestered in the absence of shock in mice lacking peripheral serotonin.
It is a sentence alright, but now it doesn't seem to make sense. How can platelets be sequestered in the lungs? How can platelets be sequestered in the first place?
While at it, let's see if anyone here can unravel the meaning of the non-sentence.