|Submited on :||Tue, 13th of Feb 2018 - 23:25:48 PM|
|Post ID :||7xa3y5|
|Post Name :||t3_7xa3y5|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2tk95|
I felt that "elucidate" is a bit overused in science publications, but I decided to look at the occurrences in pub med. I obtained the data using their api and my query would look like this for cell only.
(cell[Title/Abstract]) AND ("1978"[Date - Publication] : "1979"[Date - Publication])
I also limited the search to the pubmed database by including the term "db=pubmed". I created a python script to make the query for the range of years. I included the term 'cell' to get some measure for relative number of publications compared to the usage of elucidate.
The plots were generated with gnuplot.
I think these plots show a lot of articles about cells use the word elucidate, so cell biology is very clear now.
It's pretty graphs, however, you have to consider and account for the growth of scientific papers overall. I remember a ballpark figure being that "research papers double in volume every 10 years" which seem to correlate reasonable well with both of your keywords.
An update to this analysis would have to include inflation adjusted growth. My gut feeling is that elucidate is just as overused now as it was 40 years ago.