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

citation human language neuroscience point of view reporting scientific publishing scientific writing

Journal

eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 05 2023
Historique:
received: 17 04 2023
accepted: 16 05 2023
medline: 29 5 2023
pubmed: 25 5 2023
entrez: 25 5 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37227768
doi: 10.7554/eLife.88654
pii: 88654
pmc: PMC10212555
doi:
pii:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023, Corneille et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

OC, IH, JO, LJ, NH, AP, BB, HC, PL, LL No competing interests declared, JH Director of Access 2 Perspectives, which provides training and consultancy in the area of open science and scholarly writing, EH Member of the Registered Reports Steering Committee, which is supported by the Center for Open Science, HI Director of the Annecy Behavioral Science Lab, which provides training and consultancy for the corporate and non-profit sectors in open science, measurement, and qualitative research, NO Director of Writing Hub Africa, which provides training and consultancy in open science and scholarly writing

Références

Am Psychol. 2023 Feb 23;:
pubmed: 36821363
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Nov;17(6):1556-1565
pubmed: 35713980
Sci Adv. 2021 May 21;7(21):
pubmed: 34020944
Psychol Med. 2018 Nov;48(15):2453-2455
pubmed: 30070192
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2(3):196-217
pubmed: 15647155
Sci Data. 2021 Jul 27;8(1):192
pubmed: 34315906
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4
pubmed: 9676661

Auteurs

Olivier Corneille (O)

UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Jo Havemann (J)

Access 2 Perspectives, Berlin, Germany.

Emma L Henderson (EL)

University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.

Hans IJzerman (H)

Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France.

Ian Hussey (I)

Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Lee Jussim (L)

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, United States.

Nicholas P Holmes (NP)

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Artur Pilacinski (A)

Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Brice Beffara (B)

Université d'Angers, Angers, France.
Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.

Harriet Carroll (H)

Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

Peter Lush (P)

University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Leon D Lotter (LD)

Research Center Jülich, Juelich, Germany.

Articles similaires

Phonology facilitates deeply opaque logographic writing.

Mio Yokoi, Kouji Takano, Kimihiro Nakamura
1.00
Humans Phonetics Writing Male Female

Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis.

João Phillipe Cardenuto, Daniel Moreira, Anderson Rocha
1.00
Paper Scientific Misconduct Publications Humans Publishing
Humans Writing Cross-Sectional Studies Students, Medical Artificial Intelligence

Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.

Per Sandin, Patrik Baard, William Bülow et al.
1.00
Authorship Humans Citizen Science Heuristics Guidelines as Topic

Classifications MeSH