Relative prolixity in journals with different citation impact values: an evidence-based scientific writing assessment

Abstract

Background: Scientific writing guidelines recommend that a scientific text should be straightforward, without prolixity, and informative, without obscurity. However, the extent to which researchers follow these recommendations is unknown. Considering that the most cited journals provide more detailed instructions for authors, we aimed to investigate the degree of relative prolixity (i.e., length versus amount of information) among journals with different citation impact scores. Methods: We analyzed journals whose articles follow the classic Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion structure, written in English and with a CiteScore value ≥ 0.01 classified in the ‘Pharmaceutical Science’ area. Relative prolixity was calculated as the ratio between the number of characters and the number of citations contained in the introductory section of original articles. Additionally, we collected the number of paragraphs and words. Results: The number of characters, words and citations in the Introduction section were significantly higher in the journals with higher CiteScore values. The median number of paragraphs in the Introduction was not affected by the citation impact of the journals. The degree of relative prolixity in the Introduction section of the articles was negatively correlated with the CiteScore values. Conclusions: Articles published in journals with higher CiteScore values have lower degrees of relative prolixity (i.e., shorter texts to transmit a certain amount of information) and obscurity.