ArticleCommunications psychology2025
Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention.
Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerated use of artificial intelligence-associated vocabulary in Japanese surgical journals after 2023.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Credible is in.Communications psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers often use promotional language ("hyping") in scientific publications to draw attention to their findings. Here we examined whether promotional language is indeed associated with higher academic impact and public attention. A content analysis of over 130,000 abstracts published in three major interdisciplinary outlets (PNAS: 84,603; Science: 25,142; Nature: 26,870) between 1991 and 2023 showed that promotional language predicted more citations and more full-length paper views, more paper mentions in online media and higher Altmetric scores. Further, additional analyses by first and last author gender (first female author n = 15,368, first male author n = 32,873, last female author n = 10,218, last male author n = 46,606) showed that despite women being often advised to engage in more self-promotion, following this advice was not significantly associated with a smaller gender gap in impact indicators. If anything, promotional language predicted a larger gender gap with men (vs. women) receiving even more citations, paper views and mentions in the media. Our findings highlight the role of communication strategies in academic impact and public attention, as well as gender diversity in academia.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.