Objectivity in the grant application process is of utmost importance. Applicants carefully choose words to effectively communicate their research strategy and have their best chance to get funded. But what happens to research objectivity if promotional language creeps in? Promotional language, also known as hype or spin, is the use of subjective terms to sway or emphasize a reader.
In a recent publication in the JAMA Network journal, Open, researchers evaluated the change in use of promotional language in NIH abstracts published in NIH RePORTER from 1985 to 2020. Adjectives were labeled as hype if removing or replacing them in a sentence would not alter the information within the sentences.
In total, 139 adjectives were judged to function as hype. Briefly, the prevalence of hype language in abstracts of funded NIH applications increased from 1985 to 2020. The words novel, critical, and key experienced the greatest absolute increases in the years studied. Major, detailed, and important had the largest absolute decreases.
I have many questions: Did hype language really increase? If so, why? Should it increase? The data collected in this study date back to 1985, which is fairly close to the time that I laid eyes on my first R01, written by my undergraduate thesis advisor. In my own anecdotal experience as a researcher and a grantwriter, the increase in so-called hype language during this period of time has been unequivocal.
Why has it increased? I’m sure there are many reasons. For example, back around 2009, NIH implemented Significance and Innovation as scored criteria. I would say that there was certainly an uptick in sales-y pitch language after that, as applicants struggled to understand how to score well in these sections that have no corollary in manuscript writing. In addition, I theorize that reviewers themselves have used more language like this in their critiques, as they demand more novelty, details, and importance. One would imagine that we all continue to include such language in grant applications because we find that it plays well at review.
As I reflect on what is now, unbelievably, closing in on almost forty years in this field, I would say that there has been a definite trend toward biomedical researchers needing to be highly skilled at “selling” their research. You could be doing the world’s greatest science, but unless you are adept at selling it in different formats to a wide array of audiences, you will struggle professionally now in a way that I think was not true when I began my career. What do you think?
A big thank you to my friend Karina Boehm Frassrand MPH for putting this article on my radar!
We encourage you to read the complete publication for the complete study results.
