Read on Twitter
Beware 'persuasive communication devices' in academic writing !
In this brief #OpenAccess article published in @eLife, we encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to reflect on the (mis)use of persuasive communication devices in #academicwriting 1/ 🧵
elifesciences.org/articles/88654
In this brief #OpenAccess article published in @eLife, we encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to reflect on the (mis)use of persuasive communication devices in #academicwriting 1/ 🧵
elifesciences.org/articles/88654
The article identifies 22 such persuasive tools, organized in four categories :
“Mischaracterizing the state-of-the-art”
... misleads the reader about the novelty or strength of the research by making inaccurate statements about the current state of scientific knowledge 2/
“Mischaracterizing the state-of-the-art”
... misleads the reader about the novelty or strength of the research by making inaccurate statements about the current state of scientific knowledge 2/
“Overselling”
... inflates the perceived importance of the research 3/
... inflates the perceived importance of the research 3/
“Smoke screening and deflection”
... contains devices that reduce transparency and prevent debate 4/
... contains devices that reduce transparency and prevent debate 4/
"Misuse of authority (and authors)”
... comprises a range of devices that rely on authority rather than sound arguments 5/
... comprises a range of devices that rely on authority rather than sound arguments 5/
Our intention in writing this article was to recognize how difficult it is to effectively and accurately convey one’s research to the scientific community and beyond, while at the same time encouraging self-reflection amongst authors, reviewers and editors 6/
We emphasize that the issues listed in this article do not necessarily arise from a deliberate intention on the part of the author to mislead the reader.
However, the use of these devices can be detrimental even when they are not implemented purposefully 7/
However, the use of these devices can be detrimental even when they are not implemented purposefully 7/
The list does not claim to be comprehensive. It does not state dogmatic dos and don’ts.
Its sole purpose is to encourage reflection on these writing issues 8/
Its sole purpose is to encourage reflection on these writing issues 8/
We urge authors to reflect on whether any article they are writing or reviewing (formally or informally) is fair, and will bring readers closer to truth, or is just as likely to steer them away from it 9/
We are most grateful for the amazing editorial work and guidance of @drpeterrodgers, the handling editor at @eLife 10/
And I thank my awesome co-authors for making this project such a nice and enlightening experience!
@brice_beffara @angryhacademic @openscicomm @EmmaHendersonRR @TheHandLab @ianhussey @hansijzerman @PsychRabble @LeonDLotter @PeterLush4 @jjodx @nichouta @fatresearchcat
- END
@brice_beffara @angryhacademic @openscicomm @EmmaHendersonRR @TheHandLab @ianhussey @hansijzerman @PsychRabble @LeonDLotter @PeterLush4 @jjodx @nichouta @fatresearchcat
- END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
