‘Our striking results demonstrate …’: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype

Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Successful National Institutes of Health Grant Applications, 1985-2020

“…Although prior studies have identified similar, but less pronounced, trends in biomedical research articles, our study differs from these in design and scale, and in addressing the language of funding applications vs the language of research reports. Specifically, previous research has relied on searching samples of research articles for hyping items selected a priori by the researchers.…”

“… 12 In a separate study during the same period, the authors also noted what they called a massive increase in the choice of words used to “promote, embellish, or exaggerate” various aspects of research reports. 13 Thus, more precise information is emerging regarding how authors use hype to achieve spin in research reports.…”

“…Concern has been expressed that “overestimation of research findings directly impairs the ability of science to find true effects and leads to an unnecessary focus on research marketability.” (p3) Even in a broad range of academic literature from 1965 to 2015, substantial increases have been demonstrated in writing strategies that could be used to impose judgments on the reader or instruct the reader on how they should interpret the authors’ writings . In a separate study during the same period, the authors also noted what they called a massive increase in the choice of words used to “promote, embellish, or exaggerate” various aspects of research reports . Thus, more precise information is emerging regarding how authors use hype to achieve spin in research reports.…”

Promotion and caution in research article abstracts: The use of positive, negative and hedge words across disciplines and rankings

“…Although the tone of science writing should be objective (Barrass, 2002; Zobel, 2004), Pérez‐Llantada (2003) argued that ‘technical communication does not only involve transcribing data in a clear and objective way but also convincing the audience of the validity of certain claims and proposals’ (p. 28). The myth of objectivity in science writing (Miller, 1969) has been studied under a wide range of rhetoric terms such as ‘hype’ (Hyland & Jiang, 2021; Millar et al, 2020), ‘promotion’ (Martín & Pérez, 2014; Wang & Yang, 2015), ‘marketing’ or ‘selling’ (Fraser & Martin, 2009; Moreno, 2021), and ‘boosting’ (Peacock, 2006), and so on. For example, boosting or boosters refer to ‘pragmatic devices for emphasising certainty’ by using linguistic expressions such as clearly and obviously (Peacock, 2006, p. 61).…”

To Err is Human; To Reproduce Takes Time

“…Thus, one of the Mertonian norms of good science is disinterestedness . This ethos can come into direct conflict with current metrics for evaluating the performance of researchers, which invariably affect how scientists conduct and present their work . Removing incentives for seeking publication in high-impact journals may reduce the tendency to select for false positives .…”