Is it bad form to use the word exciting in a paper, when discussing other people's results?

Question

When writing a paper with a collaborator, they didn't like that I used the word "exciting" in the abstract since they said that they don't like when people use personal qualifiers in writing papers. In particular, my sentence was

With these exciting results in mind, we study...

(where the 'results' I am referring to are from a few recent experimental papers which I had nothing to do with). I initially wrote it in this way to emphasize that the recent results are interesting. Is this truly something that should be avoided?

Note: If it makes any difference I work in physics.

Answer 1

An established rule on proper writing demands to "show, don't tell". This does not mean that your results can be left to "speak for themselves", but it suggests that rather than simply claiming that your results are exciting, you should demonstrate and argue why they are. The onus is on your interpretation.

Moreover, the attribute "exciting", just as "interesting", is particularly trite because it is over-used and terribly vague. It begs the question as to what it is that is so exciting.

Answer 2

In mathematics, it is not uncommon to attach emotionally charged adjectives to theorems. For example, nobody would raise an eyebrow at phrases such as "beautiful theorem". It goes without saying that such praise is only appropriate when truthful: it would be bad form to call a result "exciting" simply because you happend to be proving it's generalisation. Also, modesty requires that you should never say such things about your own work.

I personally find such language quite helpful. It is useful to know if a given result is something to get excited about or not. Sometimes, results speak for themselves, but this is not always the case (and there isn't always space to explain the reasons properly, especially if you just mention a result to provide context).

I'm not sure to what extent these rules extend to other fields.

Answer 3

Describing your own work as "exciting" is crass and inappropriate. People do not appreciate being told how to feel and the reader will decide for themselves whether your work is exciting. If they think it's exciting, they didn't need you to tell them; if they don't, you look like an idiot for hyping it so much. Looking like an idiot hurts your credibility.

It may be appropriate to describe somebody else's work as "exciting": that comes across more as a very enthusiastic recommendation, rather than as telling the reader what to think. But it should be used sparingly: again, you lose credibility if you describe anything but the very best in such glowing terms.

Answer 4

The word "exciting" is a bit too dramatic for my taste. How about: important, remarkable, noteworthy, worthwhile, beneficial?

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Exciting, intriguing, etc. These are great terms that, when used in moderation, can add some enthusiasm to your writing. To give you a fake example, you could say in an abstract for a Review article something like this:

"This article summarizes some of the recent and exciting developments in the field of cardiovascular medicine, with a particular emphasis on animal models of coronary artery disease."

OR if you are forming your rational within the introduction of a research article, it could look something like this:

"While the latter findings from Jackson et al. are exciting in the context of biopharmaceutical research, there is still a significant gap in our understanding of X.....Y.....Z....etc. Therefore, this study sought to examine...."

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about these minor details. Writing is important, but at the end of the day, the science (your data) should speak for itself.