Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis.
Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.h6467
复制
发表时间：
2015-12-14
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Otte WM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vinkers CH;Tijdink JK;Otte WM
目的：调查科学摘要中使用的语言是否会随着时间的推移而倾向于使用显著的积极和消极的词语。设计：对PubMed在1974年至2014年期间的所有科学摘要进行回顾分析。方法对正词、负词、中性词(每类预选25个词)和随机抽取的100个词的年频度进行归一化处理。子分析包括个别词语的模式量化、选定的高影响力期刊的特殊性，以及以英语为官方主要语言的国内外作者从属关系的比较。频率模式与使用Google Books Ngram Viewer印刷和数字化的所有图书的4%进行了比较。主要结果衡量摘要中肯定词和否定词的出现频率与具有中性和随机内涵的词的出现频率的比较，以1980年以来的相对变化表示。结果：积极词的绝对使用频率从1974年至1980年的2.0%上升到2014年的17.5%，40年间相对增加了880%。所有25个单独的积极词都对这一增长做出了贡献，特别是“稳健”、“新颖”、“创新”和“史无前例”等词，其相对使用频率增加了15 000%。当将分析限制在选定的影响因子较高的期刊时，获得了可比但不那么显著的结果。隶属于非英语国家研究所的作者使用的积极词汇要多得多。负面词频从1974年至1980年的1.3%上升到2014年的3.2%，相对增加了257%。在同一时间段内，中性或随机词语的使用或出版书籍中积极词语的使用频率没有明显增加。我们的词典分析得出的结论表明，目前科学摘要的积极和消极词汇更多，并为科学写作的演变提供了洞察。显然，科学家们看到了研究结果光明的一面。但这种看法是否符合现实值得怀疑。
Objective To investigate whether language used in science abstracts can skew towards the use of strikingly positive and negative words over time. Design Retrospective analysis of all scientific abstracts in PubMed between 1974 and 2014. Methods The yearly frequencies of positive, negative, and neutral words (25 preselected words in each category), plus 100 randomly selected words were normalised for the total number of abstracts. Subanalyses included pattern quantification of individual words, specificity for selected high impact journals, and comparison between author affiliations within or outside countries with English as the official majority language. Frequency patterns were compared with 4% of all books ever printed and digitised by use of Google Books Ngram Viewer. Main outcome measures Frequencies of positive and negative words in abstracts compared with frequencies of words with a neutral and random connotation, expressed as relative change since 1980. Results The absolute frequency of positive words increased from 2.0% (1974-80) to 17.5% (2014), a relative increase of 880% over four decades. All 25 individual positive words contributed to the increase, particularly the words “robust,” “novel,” “innovative,” and “unprecedented,” which increased in relative frequency up to 15 000%. Comparable but less pronounced results were obtained when restricting the analysis to selected journals with high impact factors. Authors affiliated to an institute in a non-English speaking country used significantly more positive words. Negative word frequencies increased from 1.3% (1974-80) to 3.2% (2014), a relative increase of 257%. Over the same time period, no apparent increase was found in neutral or random word use, or in the frequency of positive word use in published books. 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. Apparently scientists look on the bright side of research results. But whether this perception fits reality should be questioned.