1887
image of The Covid infodemic
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Covid-19, the greatest global health crisis for a century, brought a new immediacy and urgency to international bio-medical research. The pandemic generated intense competition to produce a vaccine and contain the virus, creating what the World Health Organization referred to as an ‘infodemic’ of published output. In this frantic atmosphere, researchers were keen to get their research noticed. In this paper, we explore whether this enthusiasm influenced the rhetorical presentation of research and encouraged scientists to “sell” their studies. Examining a corpus of the most highly cited SCI articles on the virus published in the first seven months of 2020, we explore authors’ use of hyperbolic and promotional language to boost aspects of their research. Our results show a significant increase in hype to stress certainty, contribution, novelty and potential, especially regarding research methods, outcomes and primacy. Our study sheds light on scientific persuasion at a time of intense social anxiety.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20160.hyl
2021-02-25
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen-Mills, T., & Gregory, A.
    (2020, July26). Bit by bit, British scientists are building an anti-Covid arsenal. Sunday Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-vaccine-bit-by-bit-british-scientists-are-building-an-anti-covid-treatment-arsenal-t5ngcv2w5
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2019) AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.
    (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brainard, J.
    (2020) Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. Can new tools keep them afloat?Sciencehttps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/scientists-are-drowning-covid-19-papers-can-new-tools-keep-them-afloat
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, Y-Y.
    (2006, June22–23). How do well-established scholars cite themselves over their academic careers? Six stories of six well-established scholars [Paper presentation]. Conference in Honour of John Swales, Ann Arbor, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  7. Daston, L.
    (2020) Ground zero empiricism. Critical Inquiry. https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/04/10/ground-zero-empiricism/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dinis-Oliveira, R. J.
    (2020) COVID-19 research: Pandemic versus “paperdemic”, integrity, values and risks of the “speed science”. Forensic Sciences Research, 5(2), 174–187. 10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fairclough, N.
    (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168. 10.1177/0957926593004002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W.
    (2007) Does self-citation pay?Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437. 10.1007/s11192‑007‑1777‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J., Pálfy, M., & Coates, J.
    (2020) Preprinting a pandemic: The role of preprints in the COVID-19 pandemic. BioRxiv. doi:  10.1101/2020.05.22.111294
    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraser, V., & Martin, J.
    (2009) Marketing data: Has the rise of impact factor led to the fall of objective language in the scientific article?Respiratory Research, 10, 35. doi:  10.1186/1465‑9921‑10‑35
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-10-35 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner, D., & Davies, M.
    (2013) A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. 10.1093/applin/amt015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilbert, G. N., & M. Mulkay
    (1984) Opening Pandora’s box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientific Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heimstadt, M.
    (2020) Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/03/between-fast-science-and-fake-news-preprint-servers-are-political/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Horbach, S.
    (2020) Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19. bioRxiv2020.04.18.045963; doi:  10.1101/2020.04.18.045963
    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, K.
    (1999) Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. InCandlin, C. & Hyland, K. (Eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices (pp.99–121). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2003) Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259. 10.1002/asi.10204
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, K., & Jiang, K.
    (2019) Academic Discourse and Global Publishing: Disciplinary Persuasion in Changing Times. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429433962
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433962 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M.
    (2018) The STM Report 5th ed. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnston, J. E., Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W.
    (2006) Measures of effect size for chi-squared and likelihood-ratio goodness-of-fit tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103(2), 412–414. 10.2466/pms.103.2.412‑414
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.103.2.412-414 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindeberg, A.-C.
    (2004) Promotion and Politeness: Conflicting Scholarly Rhetoric in Three Disciplines. Åbo Akademi University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. London, A. J., & Kimmelman, J.
    (2020) Against pandemic research exceptionalism. Science, 368(6490), 476–477. 10.1126/science.abc1731
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1731 [Google Scholar]
  25. LSE Public Policy Group
    LSE Public Policy Group (2011) Maximizing the Impacts of your Research: A Handbook for Social Scientists (Consultation draft 3). LSE Public Policy Group. eprints.lse.ac.uk/35758/1/Handbook_PDF_for_the_LSE_impact_blog_April_2011.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McCarthy, M.
    (2015) Superlatives are commonly used in news coverage of cancer drugs, study finds. British Medical Journal, 351, h5803.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F., & Budgell, B.
    (2019) “It is important to reinforce the importance of .”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 139–151. 10.1016/j.esp.2019.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nature Index
    Nature Index (2020) COVID-19 research update: How many pandemic papers have been published?Nature Index. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/how-coronavirus-is-changing-research-practices-and-publishing
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pichappan, P., & Sarasvady, S.
    (2002) The other side of the coin: The intricacies of author self-citations. Scientometrics, 54(2), 285–290. 10.1023/A:1016070029935
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016070029935 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rayson, P.
    (2016) Log-likelihood spreadsheet. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Redden, E.
    (2020) Rush to publish risks undermining COVID-19 Research. Inside Higher Ed. June8 2020 https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/08/fast-pace-scientific-publishing-covid-comes-problems
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Samraj, B.
    (2016) Research articles. InK. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (pp.403–415). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Shehzad, W.
    (2010) Announcement of the principal findings and value addition in computer science research papers. Iberica, 19, 97–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Swales, J. M., & Najjar, H.
    (1987) The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 2(4), 175–192. 10.1177/0741088387004002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088387004002004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Tsigaris, P. & Erfanmanesh, M.
    (2020) Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19. Scientometrics (2020) doi:  10.1007/s11192‑020‑03675‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03675-3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tingley, K.
    (2020) Coronavirus is forcing medical research to speed up. New York Times Magazine. April21 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/magazine/coronavirus-scientific-journals-research.html
    [Google Scholar]
  37. UNESCO
    UNESCO (2017) Science Report: Towards 2030. https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Vinkers, C. H., Tijdink, J. K., & Otte, W. M.
    (2015) Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis. British Medical Journal, 351, h6467.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Waite, M.
    (2009) Oxford Thesaurus of English (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, W., & Yang, C.
    (2015) Claiming centrality as promotion in applied linguistics research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 162–175. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wellcome Trust
    Wellcome Trust (2020) Publishers make coronavirus (COVID-19) content freely available and reusable. Wellcome Trust. https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/publishers-make-coronavirus-covid-19-content-freely-available-and-reusable
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wheatley, D.
    (2014) Drama in research papers. European Science Editing, 40(1), 14–16.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20160.hyl
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20160.hyl
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: hype; academic persuasion; Covid research; scientific writing
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error