One of the first people to comment on the Nature article has it right. The definition of "jargon" being used here is incorrect, so the article comes off, to me, as fussy straw man b.s. Terms that help you define, for example, a phenomenon specific to your discipline are not at all necessarily jargon. Jargon is calling your laboratory a "lab," or saying 'we did 17 "runs" of an assay to confirm our results.' Jargon refers to the terms you do not use when you publish a formal paper because -- they're informal.