ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
The rise of promotional rhetoric in the Discussion Sections of an interdisciplinary field: a diachronic perspective.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, the growing competition to publish internationally has made the Discussion section increasingly promotional, as authors interpret and evaluate their findings to highlight research significance. However, this section also risks exaggerating a study's contribution with promotional discourse. The current study examines the diachronic changes of promotional strategies in Communication research articles (RAs) Discussion sections by analyzing two corpora from 1980 to 1981 and 2020-2021. Drawing on analytical frameworks for analyzing promotional steps and stance features, findings revealed a marked increase in the frequency of promotional steps and stance markers. The observed changes indicated a shift toward more implicit, subtle and strategical forms of persuasion. This study contributes to the study of promotional discourse in academic writing and calls for greater recognition of rhetorically modest and transparent writing practices as markers of scholarly credibility, encouraging editorial and review policies that reward integrity alongside visibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.