IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i1d10.1007_s11192-024-05208-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the academic book reviewing of language studies: a text-mining analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xueying Liu

    (Huazhong University of Science and Technology)

  • Haoran Zhu

    (Huazhong University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Previous studies found an increasing trend of linguistic positivity in academic texts. That is, there is a tendency towards using more positive language than negative language in academic writing. However, most of these studies included research articles as the corpus data. Little is known about whether such a trend exists in book reviews, an important academic genre that features evaluative language. Thus, this paper presents a pilot study on the features and temporal dynamics of the positive/negative language of book reviews in the discipline of linguistics. Based on a corpus of 1550 book reviews published between 1990 and 2020, it was found that book reviews have experienced a significant upward trend in terms of both positive words and sentiment scores. Possible reasons and implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05208-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05208-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05208-8
    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/s11192-024-05208-8?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. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang & Star X. Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2016. "Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1435-1455, June.
    2. P�ivi Oinas & Samuli Lepp�l�, 2013. "Views on Book Reviews," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1785-1789, November.
    3. James Hartley, 2006. "Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(9), pages 1194-1207, July.
    4. Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2002. "The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 129-140, December.
    5. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Amare Tesfie Birhan, 2021. "An exploration of metadiscourse usage in book review articles across three academic disciplines: a contrastive analysis of corpus-based research approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2885-2902, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Alesia Zuccala & Maarten Someren & Maurits Bellen, 2014. "A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(11), pages 2248-2260, November.
    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. Yaoyu Wei & Weiwei Fan, 2018. "A study of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI journals by researchers from five countries: 2006–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 637-654, May.
    2. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang & Star X. Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2016. "Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1435-1455, June.
    3. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    4. Weishu Liu & Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu, 2017. "Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 355-364, January.
    5. Zhou, Qingqing & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2021. "Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    6. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    7. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    11. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    12. 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.
    13. Wang, Kai & Liu, Xiaojuan & Han, Yutong, 2019. "Exploring Goodreads reviews for book impact assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 874-886.
    14. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    15. Qingqing Zhou, 2024. "Evaluating book impacts via integrating multi-source reviews," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6931-6946, November.
    16. Eleonora Dagienė, 2024. "Mapping scholarly books: library metadata and research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5689-5714, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    19. Ugo Fratesi, 2017. "Classic books in regional studies: an introduction to the 50th Anniversary Book Review Collection," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(2), pages 346-347, February.
    20. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:130:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05208-8. 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.