Tracing the Evolution of Reviews and Research Articles in the Biomedical Literature: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Abstracts

IF 4.6 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Publications Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.3390/publications12010002

S. Guizzardi, M. Colangelo, P. Mirandola, C. Galli

引用次数: 0

Abstract

We previously examined the diachronic shifts in the narrative structure of research articles (RAs) and review manuscripts using abstract corpora from MEDLINE. This study employs Nini’s Multidimensional Analysis Tagger (MAT) on the same datasets to explore five linguistic dimensions (D1–5) in these two sub-genres of biomedical literature, offering insights into evolving writing practices over 30 years. Analyzing a sample exceeding 1.2 million abstracts, we observe a shared reinforcement of an informational, emotionally detached tone (D1) in both RAs and reviews. Additionally, there is a gradual departure from narrative devices (D2), coupled with an increase in context-independent content (D3). Both RAs and reviews maintain low levels of overt persuasion (D4) while shifting focus from abstract content to emphasize author agency and identity. A comparison of linguistic features underlying these dimensions reveals often independent changes in RAs and reviews, with both tending to converge toward standardized stylistic norms.

查看原文本刊更多论文

追溯生物医学文献中评论和研究文章的演变：摘要的多维分析

此前，我们使用 MEDLINE 的摘要语料库研究了研究文章 (RA) 和综述手稿叙事结构的异时空变化。本研究在相同的数据集上使用了 Nini 的多维分析标记 (MAT)，探索了生物医学文献这两个子类型中的五个语言维度（D1-5），为 30 多年来不断演变的写作实践提供了见解。通过分析超过 120 万份摘要样本，我们发现在RA和Review中，信息性、情感疏离的语气（D1）得到了共同强化。此外，我们还发现了一种逐渐远离叙事手段（D2）的趋势，同时与上下文无关的内容也在增加（D3）。RA 和评论都保持了较低水平的公开劝说（D4），同时将重点从抽象内容转移到强调作者的作用和身份上。对这些维度的语言特点进行比较后发现，RA 和评论的变化往往是独立的，两者都趋向于向标准化的文体规范靠拢。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Publications Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences

CiteScore

6.50

自引率

1.90%

发文量

审稿时长

11 weeks

期刊介绍： The scope of Publications includes: Theory and practice of scholarly communication Digitisation and innovations in scholarly publishing technologies Metadata, infrastructure, and linking the scholarly record Publishing policies and editorial/peer-review workflows Financial models for scholarly publishing Copyright, licensing and legal issues in publishing Research integrity and publication ethics Issues and best practices in the publication of non-traditional research outputs (e.g., data, software/code, protocols, data management plans, grant proposals, etc.) Issues in the transition to open access and open science Inclusion and participation of traditionally excluded actors Language issues in publication processes and products Traditional and alternative models of peer review Traditional and alternative means of assessment and evaluation of research and its impact, including bibliometrics and scientometrics The place of research libraries, scholarly societies, funders and others in scholarly communication.