Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101976›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2023

Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact.

Xueying Liu, Haoran Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xueying LiuHuazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, China.
Haoran ZhuHuazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have investigated the use of positive/negative language in academic discourse, and have found a tendency toward using more positive language in academic writing. However, little is known about whether the features and dynamics of linguistic positivity vary across disciplines. In addition, the relationship between linguistic positivity and research impact deserves further evaluation. To address these issues, the present study investigated linguistic positivity in academic writing from a cross-disciplinary perspective. Based on a 111-million-word corpus of research article abstracts collected from the Web of Science, the study examined the diachronic trends of positive/negative language in eight academic disciplines, and explored the relationship between linguistic positivity and citation counts. The results demonstrated that the increase in linguistic positivity is a common phenomenon across the examined academic disciplines. In addition, hard disciplines showed a higher and faster-growing degree of linguistic positivity compared with soft disciplines. Last, a significant positive correlation was identified between citation counts and the degree of linguistic positivity. Reasons for the temporal dynamics and disciplinary variation of linguistic positivity were explored, and implications for the scientific community were discussed.

Indexed as

Disciplinary variationLinguistic positivityResearch impactSentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID37101976
PMCPMC10028756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.