Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014

Vinkers, C. H., Tijdink, J. K., & Otte, W. M. (2015). Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2015

Volume

351

DOI

10.1136/bmj.h6467

DOI registrant

BMJ

Link

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467

Cited from

communication_media_studies

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Summary Substance Divergence
  • In scientific publishing it is abstract versus paper, abstracts overstating effect size or generality relative to the results that the methods and limitations sections moderate.

    This sourceDocuments rising positive/overstated language in abstracts over time, evidence that the summary surface (abstract) drifts toward overstatement relative to the substance.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Establishes that PubMed abstracts use increasingly positive (and negative) words 1974-2014; it evidences drifting summary language, not abstracts overstating effect size or generality relative to their papers' results.

    “CONCLUSIONS: Our lexicographic analysis indicates that scientific abstracts are currently written with more positive and negative words, and provides an insight into the evolution of scientific writing.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:62014fbaad6a · see in the full table