Qiu Huilian Sophie, Peng Hao, Fosse Henrik Barslund, Woodruff Teresa K, Uzzi Brian
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Northwestern University Institute on Complex Systems, Evanston, Illinois.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Dec 2;7(12):e2448696. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48696.
Scientific writing is critical for successfully showing the merits of innovative ideas to funding agencies, colleagues, and practitioners, and it has evolved over time, particularly in the increased use of promotional words.
To evaluate whether promotional language in biomedical grant writing is associated with receipt of funding and to assess who uses promotional language in their grant applications, after accounting for principal investigators (PIs), grants, and other confounders.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study uses previously collected data on 2439 funded and rejected National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications from 2007 to 2019 and 9096 funded and rejected Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF) biomedical grant applications from 2015 to 2022, bibliographic data on the publications of each PI from OpenAlex, and fixed-effects regression analysis.
Promotional language was measured using a validated dictionary of 139 science-specific terms. Grant application success was modeled as a binary outcome and was based on the percentage of promotional words, controlling for variables including characteristics of grants and PIs. The level of promotional words was modeled on the PI's grant-related characteristics.
Of the 11 535 grants included in this study, the percentage of promotional words was positively associated with the probability of receiving funding (NNF grants: odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.25-1.71]; NIH grants: odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.10-2.11]). Younger PIs used more promotional language than the oldest PIs (1.2% vs 0.8%), men generally used more promotional language than women (1.0% vs 0.9%), and those requesting the highest funding amounts used more promotional language than those requesting the lowest funding amounts (1.1% vs 0.9%).
This study found that the percentage of promotional language used in medical science grants was positively associated with receiving funding after accounting for PI, grant, and year confounds and that younger PIs, men PIs, and PIs requesting higher amounts of funding generally used more promotional language in their grants. These can patterns inform research strategies for communicating the merits of good ideas to funding agencies and other researchers.
科学写作对于成功地向资助机构、同行和从业者展示创新想法的优点至关重要，并且随着时间的推移不断演变，尤其是在促销性词汇使用的增加方面。
在考虑主要研究者（PI）、资助项目和其他混杂因素之后，评估生物医学资助申请中的促销性语言是否与获得资助相关，并评估谁在其资助申请中使用促销性语言。
设计、背景和参与者：这项横断面研究使用了先前收集的数据，包括2007年至2019年美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）2439项获得资助和被拒绝的资助申请，以及2015年至2022年诺和诺德基金会（NNF）9096项获得资助和被拒绝的生物医学资助申请，来自OpenAlex的每个PI的出版物的书目数据，以及固定效应回归分析。
使用经过验证的包含139个特定科学术语的词典来衡量促销性语言。将资助申请的成功建模为二元结果，并基于促销性词汇的百分比，同时控制包括资助项目和PI特征在内的变量。促销性词汇的水平根据PI与资助相关的特征进行建模。
在本研究纳入的11535项资助项目中，促销性词汇的百分比与获得资助的概率呈正相关（NNF资助项目：优势比，1.47 [95%置信区间，1.25 - 1.71]；NIH资助项目：优势比，1.51 [95%置信区间，1.10 - 2.11]）。较年轻的PI比较年长的PI使用更多的促销性语言（1.2%对0.8%），男性通常比女性使用更多的促销性语言（1.0%对0.9%），并且申请最高资助金额的人比申请最低资助金额的人使用更多的促销性语言（1.1%对0.9%）。
本研究发现，在考虑PI、资助项目和年份混杂因素后，医学科学资助申请中使用的促销性语言百分比与获得资助呈正相关，并且较年轻的PI、男性PI以及申请更高资助金额的PI在其资助申请中通常使用更多的促销性语言。这些模式可为向资助机构和其他研究人员传达好想法的优点的研究策略提供参考。
