Do you ever wonder what the authors of research papers are really saying with all that stilted jargon? Here's a handy translation reference.

Credit goes to: Hodge, M. H., "A key to scientific research literature", American Psychologist, March 1962, p. 54.

WHAT THEY SAID WHAT THEY MEANT
It has long been known that... I haven't bothered to look up the original reference, but...
Of great theoretical and practical importance... Interesting to me...
While it has not been possible to provide definitive answers to these questions... The experiment didn't work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it.
The operant conditioning technique was chosen to study the problem... The guys in the next lab already had the equipment set up...
Three of the data sets were chosen for detailed study... The results of the others didn't make sense.
Typical results are shown... The best results are shown...
Agreement with the predicted curve is excellent. Agreement with the predicted curve is fair.
Agreement with the predicted curve is good. Agreement with the predicted curve is poor.
Agreement with the predicted curve is satisfactory. Agreement with the predicted curve is doubtful.
Agreement with the predicted curve is fair. Agreement with the predicted curve is imaginary.
It is suggested that...
It is believed that...
It may be that...		 I think.
It is generally believed that... A couple of other guys think so too.
It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding... I don't understand it.
Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these results has not been formulated. I can't think of one and neither can anyone else.
Correct within an order of magnitude. Wrong.
Thanks are due to Josephine Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussion. Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant.