News Release

eLife’s standard wording to describe scientific articles does not fit well with people's intuitions

Peer-Reviewed Publication

PLOS

eLife’s standard wording to describe scientific articles does not fit well with people's intuitions

image: 

Responses to each phrase on the importance/significance dimension as kernel density distributions with the 25th, 50th (i.e., median), and 75th quantiles represented by black vertical lines and the 25th–75th quantile region (i.e., interquartile range) highlighted in blue.

view more 

Credit: Hardwicke TE et al., 2024, PLOS Biology, CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Research articles published by eLife are accompanied by statements that use prescribed phrases to evaluate importance and strength of support. This study uses an online repeated-measures experiment to gauge whether the eLife phrases were interpreted as intended, finding that most participants’ implied ranking did not match the intended ranking.

#####

In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper in PLOS Biology:   http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002645 

Article Title: An empirical appraisal of eLife’s assessment vocabulary

Author Countries: Australia

Funding: This study was supported by funding awarded to to SV and TEH from the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.