deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index a06182c..a65d966 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\textbf{So you actually want your research read...}  Every year in science, tech, and medicine,something  on the order of \textbf{2 million papers papers}  are published}. published.  That's a lot of papers.  Even for a physician's field area  of expertise, it is projected they must read about \textbf{20 papers a day} to remain relevant. current.  Given the growing "scourge" of \href{https://www.authorea.com/users/3/articles/21489/_show_article}{cross-disciplinary science} and the interconnectivity of life, our world, and everything, 20 papers a dayhonestly  seems like a low number. low.  How is it that an average journal article is \href{http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/prof-no-one-reading-you-20150411}{only read by 10 people or only 20\% of \textit{cited} papers are were even  actually read}?\\ Maybe it has to do with the overextension of researchers (see Alberto's post above for massive discipline-spanning lists).  Or maybe it has to do with the way papers are presented. They're long, \href{https://twitter.com/albertopepe/status/256470400777728000/photo/1}{follow \href{https://twitter.com/albertopepe/status/256470400777728000/photo/1}{in  archaic formats}, and areoften  only accessible if youalready  have a background in their the  given discipline. Why can't we - scientists/communicators of knowledge/sharers of discoveries - agree to write clearer, concise, clearly, concisely,  and for broadest broad  impact and appeal? Many universities and other research institutions have press offices to interface with the public. This is critical as institutions' research and resources help attract more funding and, more nobly, should be shared with the world.  The problem?