From the “everything is robust” department.
We’ve long noted at WUWT that the word “robust” has seen a significant rise in usage in climate science papers, becoming a favorite word to use when statistical Spackle has been applied to climate data. Now there’s evidence from a new study suggesting that observation is spot-on.
From Nature:
‘Novel, amazing, innovative’: positive words on the rise in science papers
Analysis suggests an increasing tendency to exaggerate and polarize results.
Philip Ball
Scientists have become more upbeat in describing their research, an analysis of papers in the PubMed database suggests.
Researchers at the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands say that the frequency of positive-sounding words such as ‘novel’, ‘amazing’, ‘innovative’ and ‘unprecedented’ has increased almost nine-fold in the titles and abstracts of papers published between 1974 and 2014. There has also been a smaller — yet still statistically significant — rise in the frequency of negative words, such as ‘disappointing’ and ‘pessimistic’.
Psychiatrist Christiaan Vinkers and his colleagues searched papers on PubMed for 25 ‘positive’ words and 25 ‘negative’ words (which the authors selected by manually analysing papers and consulting thesaurus listings). The number of papers containing any of the positive words in their title or abstract rose from an average of 2% in 1974–80 to 17.5% in 2014. Use of the 25 negative words rose from 1.3% to 2.4% over the same period, according to the study, published in the British Medical Journal on 14 December1.
Rising hype
The most obvious interpretation of the results is that they reflect an increase in hype and exaggeration, rather than a real improvement in the incidence or quality of discoveries, says Vinkers. The findings “fit our own observations that in order to get published, you need to emphasize what is special and unique about your study,” he says. Researchers may be tempted to make their findings stand out from thousands of others — a tendency that might also explain the more modest rise in usage of negative words.
The word ‘novel’ now appears in more than 7% of PubMed paper titles and abstracts, and the researchers jokingly extrapolate that, on the basis of its past rise, it is set to appear in every paper by the year 2123.
…
But Vinkers and his colleagues think that the trend highlights a problem. “If everything is ‘robust’ and ‘novel’”, says Vinkers, then there is no distinction between the qualities of findings. “In that case, words used to describe scientific results are no longer driven by the content but by marketability.”
A BBC story here says the use of the word “robust” has gone up 15000% They write:
Despite working with facts, figures and empirical evidence, the world of science appears to have a growing addiction to hyperbole. Researchers at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands looked at four decades worth of medical and scientific publications, and found a significant upwards trend of positive words. We’ve all heard of those ”ground-breaking” studies or ”innovative” research projects. Dr Christiaan Vinkers – a psychiatrist at the Rudolf Magnus brain centre – was the main author of another ”very robust” report.
This tool used to analyse words, when selected for academic use, shows that indeed, “robust” is a favorite word of science:
Source: http://www.wordandphrase.info/academic/frequencyList.asp
And, this Ngram suggests that at least through 2008, the word “robust” has become vastly more popular in books. It’s almost like a hockey stick of robustness:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]
I am a scientist (not a climate scientist) and it is well known amongst more experienced scientists that hype and overselling are rife. Overinterpretation of results is also a major problem in the life sciences. This is in large part necessitated by the funding systems we have to deal with, and the grossly unfair metrics by which our ability as scientists is judged. The fact is, Vinkers is spot on when he says: “words used to describe scientific results are no longer driven by the content but by marketability”.
It all has to do with grant funding. If you are a researcher (as I am), your job depends on it. No grant, no job. Scientific honesty does not tend to get noticed. Exaggeration is encouraged, albeit unwittingly, by such exercises as a “Pathways to Impact Statement”, now a mandatory requirement for UK Research Council grant applications. To get noticed, you have to explain how your research will address an unmet medical need, or one of society’s “grand challenges” (as defined by a Research Council strategic plan document), etc etc. Funders seem more and more interested in giving grants which promise to result in a direct, quantifiable benefit to society in the short term. Everyone wants a shortcut, but nobody seems too keen on funding the nitty-gritty, basic level (or speculative) research which may actually lead to such improvements in the long term, and which (although the core of science) is getting sorely neglected. The consequences in the future may be dire.
The bottom line: scientific research and the system which surrounds it are in a mess. A lot of those involved know this very well. Funding is often more about marketability and salesmanship than anything else; and as the percentage of grants getting funded goes down with one cut after another, and people are scrambling to save their jobs or careers, hype goes up. Inevitably. I am not going to propose a solution (there are plenty of people doing that), but merely give my point of view. Whereas more investment would be welcome to reflect a considerable growth in the number of academic researchers doing science over the past 10 years or so, merely throwing more money at a faulty system is not the answer.
Observes Mark:
Definitely true in clinical research here in these United States, where funding tends to flow to those whose applications promise “more bang for the buck” in terms of evidentiary support for particular diagnostic and therapeutic methods, particularly those which reduce care-related costs while securing mensurable improvements in outcomes.