IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i11d10.1007_s11192-022-04515-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou-min Yuan

    (Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications)

  • Mingxin Yao

    (Nanjing University)

Abstract

Academic writing is developing to be more positive. This linguistic positivity bias is confirmed in academic writing across disciplines and genres. The current research adopted sentiment analysis and examined the diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the full texts of 2,556 research articles published in Science in 25 years. The results showed that academic writing in research articles in the journal Science has become significantly more positive in the past 25 years. The findings of this study confirm linguistic positivity bias in academic writing based on empirical data from Science. Reasons for the increasingly positive language use in science articles might include the popularization of science, the growing number of researchers, and the difficulty of publishing in high-impact journals. Finally, this study discussed the implications of our findings for researchers, editors, and peer reviewers.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou-min Yuan & Mingxin Yao, 2022. "Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6191-6207, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04515-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04515-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04515-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-022-04515-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Bradley & Richard J. E. James, 2019. "How are major gambling brands using Twitter?," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 451-470, September.
    2. Claudio Nicolini & Fabrizio Nozza, 2008. "Objective assessment of scientific performances world-wide," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 527-541, September.
    3. Kerry Dwan & Carrol Gamble & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham & the Reporting Bias Group, 2013. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-37, July.
    4. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & H. -J. Czerwon, 1999. "An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 427-439, March.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    6. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mingxin Yao & Ying Wei & Huiyu Wang, 2023. "Promoting research by reducing uncertainty in academic writing: a large-scale diachronic case study on hedging in Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4541-4558, August.
    2. Yongchao Ma & Ying Teng & Zhongzhun Deng & Li Liu & Yi Zhang, 2023. "Does writing style affect gender differences in the research performance of articles?: An empirical study of BERT-based textual sentiment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2105-2143, April.
    3. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wei Du & Raymond Yiu Keung Lau & Jian Ma & Wei Xu, 2015. "A multi-faceted method for science classification schemes (SCSs) mapping in networking scientific resources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2035-2056, December.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Christoph Neuhaus & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2009. "A new reference standard for citation analysis in chemistry and related fields based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(2), pages 219-229, February.
    4. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    6. Antonio J. Gómez-Núñez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2011. "Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 741-758, December.
    7. Staša Milojević, 2020. "Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1301-1315, June.
    8. Xiaoyu Cai & Tao Han, 2020. "Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1077-1094, November.
    9. Sjögårde, Peter & Ahlgren, Per, 2018. "Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 133-152.
    10. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.
    11. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    12. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    13. András Schubert, 2015. "X-centage: a Hirsch-inspired indicator for distributions of percentage-valued variables and its use for measuring heterodisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 307-313, January.
    14. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "The iceberg hypothesis revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 443-461, November.
    15. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    16. Jamie J Kirkham & Kerry M Dwan & Anette Blümle & Erik von Elm & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight: Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-8, June.
    17. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    18. Sungbin Youk & Hee Sun Park, 2019. "Where and what do they publish? Editors’ and editorial board members’ affiliated institutions and the citation counts of their endogenous publications in the field of communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1237-1260, September.
    19. Mingyang Wang & Zhenyu Wang & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Which can better predict the future success of articles? Bibliometric indices or alternative metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1575-1595, June.
    20. Loizides, Orestis-Stavros & Koutsakis, Polychronis, 2017. "On evaluating the quality of a computer science/computer engineering conference," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 541-552.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04515-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.