The fact that papers are written for the audience of critical reviewers hinders adoption: possible users are not aware of academic mores and will be discouraged by described limitations.
With adoption in this context, I mean that people outside of your direct group of colleagues and acquaintances will use your algorithm/tool/method. I pose that the way papers are written currently is not optimal to convince people to use it. Many aspects are irrelevant to people who simply want to use your idea. like related and future work and even references to some extent. But more important is the way the benefits are presented: lots of limitations are usually named as well as threats to the validity of the evaluation.
For someone simply looking for a good tool to do X or a method for Y, this might be off putting. Especially if you compare this to how products are normally being marketed. And not just in your local supermarket, this also holds for software:
“absolutely the best thing that happened to my inbox in recent months!” (Boomerang)
“Simple, fast and powerful media player.” (VLC)
“Google Chrome runs websites and applications with lightning speed.” (Chrome)
“Ubuntu is the world’s favorite free operating system, with more than 20 million people preferring it to commercial alternatives” (Ubuntu)
That makes me actually want to use and try it! And these are all (sort of) free software systems, so money making is not the incentive here.
The fact that we need to phrase our tools in a certain way in paper will not automatically attract users and I think this is something we need to be more aware of. So make a nice website for your tool or method, write a blog post on it and get it on Reddit.
Simply put: think about how to “sell” your research, even if you’re not selling it.
Note: Boomerang for Gmail happens to be the best thing that can happen to an inbox, but that is irrelevant here.