| dc.contributor.author | Olivier Corneille, Jo Havemann, Emma L Henderson, Hans IJzerman, Ian Hussey, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Lee Jussim, Nicholas P Holmes, Artur Pilacinski, Brice Beffara, Harriet Carroll, Nicholas Otieno Outa, Peter Lush, Leon D Lotter | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-06-29T13:03:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-06-29T13:03:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023-05-25 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.maseno.ac.ke/handle/123456789/5755 | |
| dc.description | https://elifesciences.org/articles/88654#abstract | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Authors rely on a range of devices and techniques to attract and maintain the interest of readers, and to convince them of the merits of the author’s point of view. However, when writing a scientific article, authors must use these ‘persuasive communication devices’ carefully. In particular, they must be explicit about the limitations of their work, avoid obfuscation, and resist the temptation to oversell their results. Here we discuss a list of persuasive communication devices and we encourage authors, as well as reviewers and editors, to think carefully about their use. | en_US |
| dc.publisher | eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd | en_US |
| dc.title | Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
