In science, promotional language ('hype') is increasing and can undermine objective evaluation of evidence, impede research development, and erode trust in science. In this paper, we introduce the task of automatic detection of hype, which we define as hyperbolic or subjective language that authors use to glamorize, promote, embellish, or exaggerate aspects of their research. We propose formalized guidelines for identifying hype language and apply them to annotate a portion of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application corpus. We then evaluate traditional text classifiers and language models on this task, comparing their performance with a human baseline. Our experiments show that formalizing annotation guidelines can help humans reliably annotate candidate hype adjectives and that using our annotated dataset to train machine learning models yields promising results. Our findings highlight the linguistic complexity of the task, and the potential need for domain knowledge and temporal awareness of the facts. While some linguistic works address hype detection, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to approach it as a natural language processing task.

How are the merits of innovative ideas communicated in science? Here we conduct semantic analyses of grant application success with a focus on scientific promotional language, which has been growing in frequency in many contexts and purportedly may convey an innovative idea's originality and significance. Our analysis attempts to surmount limitations of prior studies by examining the full text of tens of thousands of both funded and unfunded grants from three leading public and private funding agencies: the NIH, the NSF, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation, one of the world's largest private science foundations. We find a robust association between promotional language and the support and adoption of innovative ideas by funders and other scientists. First, the percentage of promotional language in a grant proposal is associated with up to a doubling of the grant's probability of being funded. Second, a grant's promotional language reflects its intrinsic level of innovativeness. Third, the percentage of promotional language predicts the expected citation and productivity impact of publications that are supported by funded grants. Lastly, a computer-assisted experiment that manipulates the promotional language in our data demonstrates how promotional language can communicate the merit of ideas through cognitive activation. With the incidence of promotional language in science steeply rising, and the pivotal role of grants in converting promising and aspirational ideas into solutions, our analysis provides empirical evidence that promotional language is associated with effectively communicating the merits of innovative scientific ideas.