I do not wish to cause offence, INT2, but there are a few pertinent points I wish to make.
First, I am an extremely experienced teacher. As such, I have heard your “voice” before. It is very familiar to me. It is over-confident. It makes sweeping generalisations etc, etc. I learned very quickly to associate it with poor students. So, take this as a friendly warning. I am not the only person experienced enough to know that this voice is a voice of weakness. In particular, I warn against going into the workplace with this voice. For example, being blasé about publishing scientific papers to any decent employer would betray ignorance and inexperience and to any employer that did listen to you, in a very short time s/he would be hot on your heals looking for the first of your publications. You should know that the vast majority of working scientists never publish anything at all – at least in the UK and in, probably, the rest of Europe. The situation is different in the USA. This makes the vast majority of scientists in the US a pain in the neck to every other scientist who has to wade through their, at best, trivial and pointless publications in order to ferret out the odd paper that does have some substance.
Now, if you wish any more information concerning scientific publications, do ask. OK, I am a teacher, but sitting right next to me is my sister who is a published physicist
Finally, I know that personally, even with my level of education, I would not understand a scientific paper (even if it were written by an articulate scientist, which is a rarity). Therefore I know perfectly well that you couldn’t. And as my sister says, she couldn’t understand most of the papers written in her own field because they were so badly written. She was called upon for peer review from time to time and in the light of how badly scientific papers are in general written, she used to have only the vaguest grasp of what was being presented but would make a rough judgement of the paper and grade it for the publishers. Again, the point I am making is that the vast majority of scientific papers are so badly written that it is hard to tell what they really are about except in the broadest of terms. The world of scientific publishing is not like sitting an exam and you pass or fail according to merit. No, not at all is it like that. It is a very complex world full of ins and outs and all sorts of pitfalls, and it comes with all the bad practices associated with any competitive sport.