Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI & Society

aiqbench analysis

This study analyzes 21.4 million scientific papers, revealing that the use of militaristic language in abstracts has surged by nearly half since 2010, with computer science and engineering driving much of this growth alongside large-language model adoption. The research demonstrates a causal link between war-framing rhetoric and reduced credibility, lower funding willingness, and diminished policy support among readers.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

War in the Abstract: The Rise and Consequences of Militarized Language in Scientific Communication

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2606.23462v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment ($N = 801$; 32{,}040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48\% in OpenAlex and 32\% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database $r = 0.96$, $p < 10^{-8}$). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; $r = 0.77$-$0.84$), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also accelerated the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift $-0.176$ Likert units, 95\% CI $[-0.21, -0.14]$; $d_z = -0.28$, $p < 10^{-20}$), funding willingness ($d_z = -0.12$) and policy support ($d_z = -0.08$), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency ($d_z = +0.07$). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

Abstract:Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment ($N = 801$; 32{,}040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48\% in OpenAlex and 32\% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database $r = 0.96$, $p < 10^{-8}$). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; $r = 0.77$-$0.84$), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also accelerated the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift $-0.176$ Likert units, 95\% CI $[-0.21, -0.14]$; $d_z = -0.28$, $p < 10^{-20}$), funding willingness ($d_z = -0.12$) and policy support ($d_z = -0.08$), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency ($d_z = +0.07$). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Digital Libraries (cs.DL)

arXiv:2606.23462 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2606.23462v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.23462 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words

Related coverage