The University of Washington researchers, led by Annie Hillier, a recent graduate of the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, and professors Ryan Kelly and Terrie Klinger, wondered whether this theory would hold up in the realm of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Remarkably, it did. As they report in PLOS ONE, the most highly cited papers tended to include elements like sensory language, a greater degree of language indicating cause-and-effect, and a direct appeal to the reader for a particular follow-up action.
“The results were especially surprising given that we often think of scientific influence as being driven by science itself, rather than the form in which it is presented,” Hillier says.
Perhaps even more surprising, the researchers note, was the finding that the highest-rated journals tended to feature articles that had more narrative content.
“We don’t know if the really top journals pick the most readable articles, and that’s why those articles are more influential, or if the more narrative papers would be influential no matter what journal they are in,” Kelly says.
The researchers used a crowdsourcing website to evaluate the narrative content of the journal articles. Online contributors were asked a series of questions about each abstract to measure whether papers had a narrative style, including elements like language that appeals to one’s senses and emotions.
The researchers hope this work might lead to advances in scientific communication, improving the odds that science might lead the way to better decisions in the policy realm.
Source: University of Washington