01572nas a2200373   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042653001300057653001300070653001800083653001400101653002600115653002300141100002200164700001600186700002100202700001800223700001500241700003200256700001500288700002200303700002100325700001800346700002000364700002500384700001500409700001800424245009500442856004000537300001100577490000700588520058900595022001401184       2023                            d  c2023-05-2510acitation10aLanguage10apoint of view10areporting10aScientific publishing10ascientific writing1 aOlivier Corneille1 aJo Havemann1 aEmma L Henderson1 aHans IJzerman1 aIan Hussey1 aJean-Jacques Orban de Xivry1 aLee Jussim1 aNicholas P Holmes1 aArtur Pilacinski1 aBrice Beffara1 aHarriet Carroll1 aNicholas Otieno Outa1 aPeter Lush1 aLeon D Lotter00aBeware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles  uhttps://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88654  ae886540 v123 aAuthors 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.  a2050-084X