Trends in the use of positive words as a form of rhetorical spin in the titles and abstracts of 73,049 PubMed-indexed psychiatry articles: a bibliometric study

Purpose: Overemphasizing or distorting a study’s findings through spin compromises the interpretation of research both within the academic community and among the public more broadly. However, large-scale analyses of the use of positive words as rhetorical spin in psychiatry have not yet been conducted.Methods: Titles and abstracts from articles published in 26 top-quartile general psychiatry journals between 2005 and 2024 were analyzed. PubMed searches identified the annual number of articles containing at least one positive, neutral, or negative word from a predefined list associated with rhetorical spin. Separate analyses compared authorship teams with and without at least one affiliation from countries where English is the primary national language (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States).Results: Positive words were used more frequently over time (τ=0.947, two-sided P<0.00001), with a 1.97-fold increase in the proportion of abstracts containing positive rhetoric from 2005 (9.80%) to 2024 (19.27%). Authorship teams from English-speaking countries were significantly more likely to employ positive rhetoric (χ2=213.63, df=1, P<0.00001). Authors increasingly described their studies as “novel,” “unique,” “promising,” and “robust.”Conclusion: Despite heightened awareness of its negative impact on scientific integrity, the use of rhetorical spin continues to grow within psychiatry. Greater efforts are necessary to promote intellectually humble and accurate reporting of research findings in psychiatric literature.