IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i8d10.1007_s11192-022-04453-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts

Author

Listed:
  • Ju Wen

    (Chongqing University
    Chengdu Jincheng College)

  • Lei Lei

    (Shanghai International Studies University)

Abstract

Writing in a clear and simple language is critical for scientific communications. Previous studies argued that the use of adjectives and adverbs cluttered writing and made scientific text less readable. The present study aims to investigate if the articles in life sciences have become more cluttered and less readable across the past 50 years in terms of the use of adjectives and adverbs. The data that were used in the study were a large dataset of 775,456 scientific texts published between 1969 and 2019 in 123 scientific journals. Results showed that an increasing number of adjectives and adverbs were used and the readability of scientific texts have decreased in the examined years. More importantly, the use of emotion adjectives and adverbs also demonstrated an upward trend while that of nonemotion adjectives and adverbs did not increase. To our knowledge, this is probably the first large scale diachronic study on the use of adjectives and adverbs in scientific writing. Possible explanations to these findings were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04453-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04453-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04453-z
    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/s11192-022-04453-z?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. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    2. Benjamin Freeling & Zoë A. Doubleday & Sean D. Connell, 2019. "Opinion: How can we boost the impact of publications? Try better writing," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(2), pages 341-343, January.
    3. Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    4. Lei Lei, 2016. "When science meets cluttered writing: adjectives and adverbs in academia revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1361-1372, June.
    5. James Hartley & James W. Pennebaker & Claire Fox, 2003. "Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398, July.
    6. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    7. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2013. "Cluttered writing: adjectives and adverbs in academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 679-681, September.
    8. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    9. James Hartley, 2016. "Erratum to: Is time up for the Flesch measure of reading ease?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2329-2329, December.
    10. Dolnicar, Sara & Chapple, Alexander, 2015. "The readability of articles in tourism journals," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 161-166.
    11. Michael Dowling & Helmi Hammami & Ousayna Zreik, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Post-Print hal-01958017, HAL.
    12. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    13. Omar Mubin & Dhaval Tejlavwala & Mudassar Arsalan & Muneeb Ahmad & Simeon Simoff, 2018. "An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1181-1201, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Xi Zhao & Li Li & Wei Xiao, 2023. "The diachronic change of research article abstract difficulty across disciplines: a cognitive information-theoretic approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Ju Wen & Lan Yi, 2023. "Comparing lay summaries to scientific abstracts for readability and jargon use: a case report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5791-5800, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Yongchao Ma & Ying Teng & Zhongzhun Deng & Li Liu & Yi Zhang, 2023. "Does writing style affect gender differences in the research performance of articles?: An empirical study of BERT-based textual sentiment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2105-2143, April.

    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. Xi Zhao & Li Li & Wei Xiao, 2023. "The diachronic change of research article abstract difficulty across disciplines: a cognitive information-theoretic approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    3. Shan Wang & Xiaojun Liu & Jie Zhou, 2022. "Readability is decreasing in language and linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4697-4729, August.
    4. Omar Mubin & Dhaval Tejlavwala & Mudassar Arsalan & Muneeb Ahmad & Simeon Simoff, 2018. "An assessment into the characteristics of award winning papers at CHI," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1181-1201, August.
    5. Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    6. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    7. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    8. Song, Ningyuan & Chen, Kejun & Zhao, Yuehua, 2023. "Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the IS-LS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    9. Burke, Matt & Fry, John, 2019. "How easy is it to understand consumer finance?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-4.
    10. Edoardo Magnone, 2014. "A novel graphical representation of sentence complexity: the description and its application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1301-1329, February.
    11. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    12. 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.
    13. Don Watson & Manfred Krug & Claus-Christian Carbon, 2022. "The relationship between citations and the linguistic traits of specific academic discourse communities identified by using social network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1755-1781, April.
    14. Feld, Jan & Lines, Corinna & Ross, Libby, 2024. "Writing matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 378-397.
    15. McCannon, Bryan C., 2019. "Readability and research impact," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 76-79.
    16. Tan Jin & Huiqiong Duan & Xiaofei Lu & Jing Ni & Kai Guo, 2021. "Do research articles with more readable abstracts receive higher online attention? Evidence from Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8471-8490, October.
    17. Amnah Alluqmani & Lior Shamir, 2018. "Writing styles in different scientific disciplines: a data science approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1071-1085, May.
    18. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    19. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    20. Andrés Marroquín & Julio H. Cole, 2015. "Economical writing (or, “Think Hemingway”)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 251-259, April.

    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:127:y:2022:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04453-z. 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.