Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science.

Ann Hillier,Ryan P. Kelly,Terrie Klinger,Gary S. Bilotta

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167983

Abstract

Peer-reviewed publications focusing on climate change are growing exponentially with the consequence that the uptake and influence of individual papers varies greatly. Here, we derive metrics of narrativity from psychology and literary theory, and use these metrics to test the hypothesis that more narrative climate change writing is more likely to be influential, using citation frequency as a proxy for influence. From a sample of 732 scientific abstracts drawn from the climate change literature, we find that articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often. This effect is closely associated with journal identity: higher-impact journals tend to feature more narrative articles, and these articles tend to be cited more often. These results suggest that writing in a more narrative style increases the uptake and influence of articles in climate literature, and perhaps in scientific literature more broadly.

Highlights

Climate change is among the most compelling issues confronting science and society, and climate science as a research endeavor has grown over the past decade
From a sample of 732 scientific abstracts drawn from the climate change literature, we find that articles with more narrative abstracts are cited more often
Evidence from psychology and literary theory suggests that audiences better understand and remember narrative writing in comparison with expository writing [2,3], and new evidence from neuroscience has revealed a specific region in the brain that is activated by stories [4]

Summary

Introduction

Climate change is among the most compelling issues confronting science and society, and climate science as a research endeavor has grown over the past decade. It is increasingly important that individual articles be presented in a way that facilitates the uptake of climate science and increases the salience of their individual research contributions. Evidence from psychology and literary theory suggests that audiences better understand and remember narrative writing in comparison with expository writing [2,3], and new evidence from neuroscience has revealed a specific region in the brain that is activated by stories [4]. Narrative writing tells a story through related events [5], whereas expository writing relates facts without much social context. Presenting the same information in a more narrative way has the potential to increase its uptake—an especially attractive prospect in the context of climate science and scientific writing generally—and narratives are widely recognized as powerful tools of communication [2,6]

Methods

Results

Conclusion