Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are publicly known. But I would say most paper requirements are "necessarily complicated", simply because science is hard. Writing a scientific paper requires both solid science (both good results and good scientific practices) and solid writing skills to convey an important idea in a clear and precise way. Mastering both aspects requires time and effort. An academic author is a person who made a job out of it.…
>Writing a scientific paper requires both solid science (both good results and good scientific practices) and solid writing skills to convey an important idea in a clear and precise way. The only person who would read a journal paper and say that the the author has good writing skills is another academic. No one outside of the research community would look at a typical journal paper and claim that the writing skills…
To address point (3) a common route is to add an appendix or supplementary material. This is commonly done in deep learning for derivatives of novel functions so that others can implement the backward pass. Whether you can get it past a supervisor is another issue entirely! A blog post or accompanying website is an easy option.
(4) is another tricky one. How many times have you read "Deep learning has revolutionised " followed by the usual citing of Hinton, Le Cun, Krizhevsky et al.? The spiel is identical in every paper, how many ways can you describe this stuff after all? At some point you just have to assume that the reader is familiar with the background, but you still have to cite everyone to keep the reviewers happy.
Again, if you need exposition, write a blog post about it.
(This isn't just for deep learning - every field I've worked in suffers from the same copy-pasta introduction.)
This also depends again on field anyway - some journals are much more approachable than others. Nature and Science, controversy aside, generally publish very readable papers.