@article{vinkers_use_2015,
	title = {Use of positive and negative words in scientific {PubMed} abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis},
	volume = {351},
	copyright = {Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.},
	issn = {1756-1833},
	shorttitle = {Use of positive and negative words in scientific {PubMed} abstracts between 1974 and 2014},
	url = {https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467},
	doi = {10.1136/bmj.h6467},
	abstract = {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.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-11-08},
	journal = {BMJ},
	author = {Vinkers, Christiaan H. and Tijdink, Joeri K. and Otte, Willem M.},
	month = dec,
	year = {2015},
	pmid = {26668206},
	note = {Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group
Section: Research},
	pages = {h6467},
}

{"_id":"FxkTLEJs6DcvcQDnR","bibbaseid":"vinkers-tijdink-otte-useofpositiveandnegativewordsinscientificpubmedabstractsbetween1974and2014retrospectiveanalysis-2015","author_short":["Vinkers, C. H.","Tijdink, J. K.","Otte, W. M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis","volume":"351","copyright":"Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.","issn":"1756-1833","shorttitle":"Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014","url":"https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467","doi":"10.1136/bmj.h6467","abstract":"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.","language":"en","urldate":"2021-11-08","journal":"BMJ","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Vinkers"],"firstnames":["Christiaan","H."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Tijdink"],"firstnames":["Joeri","K."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Otte"],"firstnames":["Willem","M."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"December","year":"2015","pmid":"26668206","note":"Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Research","pages":"h6467","bibtex":"@article{vinkers_use_2015,\n\ttitle = {Use of positive and negative words in scientific {PubMed} abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis},\n\tvolume = {351},\n\tcopyright = {Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.},\n\tissn = {1756-1833},\n\tshorttitle = {Use of positive and negative words in scientific {PubMed} abstracts between 1974 and 2014},\n\turl = {https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmj.h6467},\n\tabstract = {Objective To investigate whether language used in science abstracts can skew towards the use of strikingly positive and negative words over time.\nDesign Retrospective analysis of all scientific abstracts in PubMed between 1974 and 2014.\nMethods 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.\nMain 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.\nResults 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.\nConclusions 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.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-11-08},\n\tjournal = {BMJ},\n\tauthor = {Vinkers, Christiaan H. and Tijdink, Joeri K. and Otte, Willem M.},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tpmid = {26668206},\n\tnote = {Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group\nSection: Research},\n\tpages = {h6467},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Vinkers, C. H.","Tijdink, J. K.","Otte, W. M."],"key":"vinkers_use_2015","id":"vinkers_use_2015","bibbaseid":"vinkers-tijdink-otte-useofpositiveandnegativewordsinscientificpubmedabstractsbetween1974and2014retrospectiveanalysis-2015","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/groups/4504479/items?key=BfP7bN7FF9dJwtyiLBORewdg&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["bb9wnMe4gzczbyaCs"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["use","positive","negative","words","scientific","pubmed","abstracts","between","1974","2014","retrospective","analysis","vinkers","tijdink","otte"],"title":"Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis","year":2015}