Persuasion in Scientific Journal Articles: Exploring Persuasiveness and Informativeness among Authors and Readers

Scientific communication is often assumed to prioritize objectivity, yet persuasive strategies may subtly distort research interpretation. While the spread of errors in research is often attributed to methodological or statistical biases (Świątkowski & Dompnier, 2017), rhetorical strategies are less often considered questionable research practices, although they can be (Corneille et al., 2023). This study empirically investigates how authors and external readers perceive persuasiveness across different sections of scientific articles (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion). Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed 15 authors of selected articles and 42 external researchers, asking them to rate paragraphs on persuasiveness and informativeness. No significant differences emerged between authors' and readers' perceptions (two-tailed t-tests), perhaps suggesting a shared awareness of persuasive strategies. However, significant section-based differences were observed: Abstracts and Introductions were rated as more persuasive than Methods, whereas Discussions were perceived as more persuasive than Results and Methods sections (p < .05). Participants also evaluated whether specific devices (e.g., spin, selective reporting, overgeneralization) constituted attempts to persuade. Six of the nine devices were identified as persuasive by over 80% of respondents (“Yes” or “Sometimes”). These findings, along with the overlap between persuasive devices and questionable research practices, raise questions about their ethical implications for research reliability and transparency.