IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i12d10.1007_s11192-023-04864-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presence and consequences of positive words in scientific abstracts

Author

Listed:
  • Moritz Edlinger

    (University of Graz)

  • Finn Buchrieser

    (University of Graz)

  • Guilherme Wood

    (University of Graz
    BioTechmed)

Abstract

Abstracts are the showcase of scientific studies, crafted to make an impression on the reader within a limited space and to determine the amount of attention each study receives. Systemic conditions in the sciences may change the expressive norm and incentive scientists to hype abstracts to promote their work and career. Previous studies found that terms such as “unprecedented”, “novel” and “unique” have been used increasingly in recent history, to describe one’s own research findings. The present study investigates the use of valence-loaded scientific jargon in the abstracts of scientific articles. Sentiment analysis with dictionaries specifically attuned to detect valence-loaded scientific jargon was employed to analyze more than 2,300,000 MEDLINE abstracts from the fields of psychology, biology, and physics. Results show that over the last four decades, abstracts have contained an increasing amount of valence-loaded scientific jargon, as previously observed in earlier studies. Moreover, our results reveal that the positive emotional content of abstracts is increasing in a way that cannot be accounted for by the increase in text length, which has also been observed in the same time period. There were small differences between scientific disciplines. A detailed analysis of the distribution of valence-loaded scientific jargon within abstracts reveals a strong concentration towards the end of the text. We discuss these results in light of psychological evidence relating positive emotions with the propensity to overestimate the value of information to inform judgment and the increase in the competition for attention due to a pressure to publish.

Suggested Citation

  • Moritz Edlinger & Finn Buchrieser & Guilherme Wood, 2023. "Presence and consequences of positive words in scientific abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6633-6657, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04864-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04864-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04864-6
    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/s11192-023-04864-6?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. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Xi Niu & Bradley M. Hemminger, 2012. "A study of factors that affect the information‐seeking behavior of academic scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 336-353, February.
    3. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    4. Xi Niu & Bradley M. Hemminger, 2012. "A study of factors that affect the information-seeking behavior of academic scientists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 336-353, February.
    5. Kendall Powell, 2015. "The future of the postdoc," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7546), pages 144-147, April.
    6. François Brischoux & Frédéric Angelier, 2015. "Academia’s never-ending selection for productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 333-336, April.
    7. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Willem M Otte & Christiaan H Vinkers & Philippe C Habets & David G P van IJzendoorn & Joeri K Tijdink, 2022. "Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0081871 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    14. Amélie Yavchitz & Isabelle Boutron & Aida Bafeta & Ibrahim Marroun & Pierre Charles & Jean Mantz & Philippe Ravaud, 2012. "Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dengsheng Wu & Huidong Wu & Jianping Li, 2024. "Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4275-4293, July.
    2. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    3. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Fabo, Brian & Jančoková, Martina & Kempf, Elisabeth & Pástor, Ľuboš, 2021. "Fifty shades of QE: Comparing findings of central bankers and academics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-20.
    5. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2025. "The diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the academic book reviewing of language studies: a text-mining analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(1), pages 133-157, January.
    6. Qian Wang & Guangwei Hu, 2024. "Expressions of confusion in research articles: a diachronic cross-disciplinary investigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 445-471, January.
    7. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    10. Joeri K Tijdink & Anton C M Vergouwen & Yvo M Smulders, 2013. "Publication Pressure and Burn Out among Dutch Medical Professors: A Nationwide Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    11. Marcel A L M van Assen & Robbie C M van Aert & Michèle B Nuijten & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, January.
    12. Aguinis, Herman & Banks, George C. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Cascio, Wayne F., 2020. "Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 27-35.
    13. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0172792 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Steffen Lemke & Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters, 2021. "Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(6), pages 777-792, June.
    16. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A Practical Guide to Registered Reports for Economists," Post-Print halshs-03897719, HAL.
    17. Joost Winter, 2024. "Can ChatGPT be used to predict citation counts, readership, and social media interaction? An exploration among 2222 scientific abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2469-2487, April.
    18. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    19. Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Mahmood Khosrowjerdi & Anneli Sundqvist & Katriina Byström, 2020. "Cultural Patterns of Information Source Use: A Global Study of 47 Countries," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(6), pages 711-724, June.
    21. Elizabeth Martín-Mora & Shari Ellis & Lawrence M Page, 2020. "Use of web-based species occurrence information systems by academics and government professionals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-41, July.

    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:128:y:2023:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04864-6. 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.