Marketing data: Has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article?

Abstract

The language of science should be objective and detached and should place data in the appropriate context. The aim of this commentary was to explore the notion that recent trends in the use of language have led to a loss of objectivity in the presentation of scientific data. The relationship between the value-laden vocabulary and impact factor among fundamental biomedical research and clinical journals has been explored. It appears that fundamental research journals of high impact factors have experienced a rise in value-laden terms in the past 25 years.

Promoting science with linguistic devices: A large‐scale study of positive and negative words in academic writing

“…Although it is difficult to 'sell' a story without a 'hyping' effect (Rinaldi, 2012), the promotional language reflects the subjective stance of the authors more than the value it promotes (Wang & Yang, 2015). Therefore, similar to Fraser and Martin (2009), we argue for a fair use of such linguistic devices in order to convey the fidelity of the knowledge claim. Probably, language instructors may play a role to address the problem.…”

“…Although journal impact was found to be very weakly correlated with the use of positive and negative words in both the abstracts and full texts, the growing reliance on the grandiloquence in scientific writing must be considered in conjunction with the rising influence of journal impact. The JIF may play a role and serve as an evaluation indicator of promotion, tenure, and grant applications on the part of researchers (Fraser & Martin, 2009). Given the publication pressure, researchers may intend to use positive or negative words in their writing in order to get it published in journals of higher impact.…”

“…Given the publication pressure, researchers may intend to use positive or negative words in their writing in order to get it published in journals of higher impact. However, the promotion in their writing in terms of positive or negative words, on the one hand, should be tolerable to the editors and reviewers (Millar et al ., 2019) of journals of higher impact as the acceptance or rejection of articles is a matter of the interest to audience (Fraser & Martin, 2009). On the other hand, publication in journals of higher impact should not be determined by linguistic devices such as promotion of the work in terms of such words.…”

Communicating science in international English: scholarly journals, publication praxis, language domain loss and benefits

“…Findings stressed the decreasing presence of these chunks in scholarly abstracts over a forty-year period and were interpreted as a stylistic shift towards the selective discussion of positive data. The third survey (Fraser & Martin, 2009) These four studies confirm a shift from the standard of scientific objectivity. They also attest the increasing incidence of a strategy designed to meet the compelling necessity of grabbing readers' attention because authors encounter growing publication pressures epitomized by the "publish or perish" saying.…”

Mimicry in science?

“…The study by Fraser and Martin (2009) was able to detect an increased use of biased words (e.g. pivotal, crucial, and essential) in scientific papers.…”