Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37227768›Full record

ArticleeLife2023

Beware 'persuasive communication devices' when writing and reading scientific articles.

Olivier Corneille, Jo Havemann, Emma L Henderson, Hans IJzerman, Ian Hussey, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Lee Jussim, Nicholas P Holmes, Artur Pilacinski, Brice Beffara and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Olivier CorneilleUCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4005-4372
Jo HavemannAccess 2 Perspectives, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6157-1494
Emma L HendersonUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5396-2321
Hans IJzermanUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0990-2276
Ian HusseyRuhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8906-7559
Jean-Jacques Orban de XivryKU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4603-7939
Lee JussimRutgers University, New Brunswick, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7218-3593
Nicholas P HolmesUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9268-4179
Artur PilacinskiRuhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3816-4372
Brice BeffaraUniversité d'Angers, Angers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0586-6650
Harriet CarrollLund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4998-4675
Nicholas Otieno OutaMaseno University, Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-4085-0398
Peter LushUniversity of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0402-1699
Leon D LotterResearch Center Jülich, Juelich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2337-6073

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Authors rely on a range of devices and techniques to attract and maintain the interest of readers, and to convince them of the merits of the author's point of view. However, when writing a scientific article, authors must use these 'persuasive communication devices' carefully. In particular, they must be explicit about the limitations of their work, avoid obfuscation, and resist the temptation to oversell their results. Here we discuss a list of persuasive communication devices and we encourage authors, as well as reviewers and editors, to think carefully about their use.

Indexed as

Persuasive CommunicationPublishingReadingWritingcitationhumanlanguageneurosciencepoint of viewreportingscientific publishingscientific writing

Identifiers

PMID37227768
PMCPMC10212555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.