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

Scientific language is a central infrastructure of knowledge production, but it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) are altering not only how scientists write, but also how scientific knowledge is communicated and accessed. Here we analyze 21.36 million scientific abstracts published between 2020 and 2024, together with historical records from major journals, to trace recent changes in the language of science. We identify a marked turning point in 2024, when scientific writing shows a sharp increase in lexical complexity alongside a decline in syntactic complexity. This shift is pervasive across disciplines and journal tiers, and is more pronounced in texts by scholars working in non-native English contexts, especially those from language backgrounds that differ more typologically from English. Controlled polishing experiments confirm that LLMs reproduce this pattern by favoring more lexically dense and syntactically compressed expression. We further show why this linguistic shift matters: it may widen the distance between scientific discourse and public-facing language, while also helping scholars in non-native English contexts navigate English-language publishing requirements. These findings suggest that LLMs may broaden participation in scientific authorship while narrowing the accessibility of scientific communication, making them a new force in the linguistic infrastructure of science.

Excess vocabulary, a word's frequency above its pre-2023 trend, is how the change in scholarly English after 2022 has been measured. We adapt it to Korean with morphological units on 398,296 KCI abstracts (2018-August 2026), with 47,165 Vietnamese abstracts for comparison. Placebo floors are 0.1-2.2 points for the single-word statistic and at most 2.9 for the re-selected split-half set statistic. Korean abstracts show nothing in 2023, onset in late 2024, a rise through 2025 flattening in mid-2026: sisahada "suggest" appears in 21.4% of 2026 abstracts against 5.3% expected; plain verbs like araboda "look into" fall to a quarter of trend. Under stated assumptions the single-word conditional lower bound on LLM-processed abstracts is 3.5%, 10.5% and 16.1% for 2024-2026 and a split-half set bound 7.8%, 20.6% and 33.0%. Holzwarth et al.'s estimator under the same discipline gives 41.9% and 72.1% for 2025-2026. Subject-matter controls reduce but do not remove it: restricting the set to lemmas three language-model annotators all call style leaves 14.7 of the 33.0 points, and pairing each 2026 abstract with its journal's closest base-period abstract leaves 34.1. Tested translation routes do not explain it: the surface marks of translated Korean fall as the markers rise. In the same articles' English abstracts the excess appears a year earlier; where the English side carries none, the Korean shift persists at 30 to 66% of the rate where it does. Control abstracts from three providers reproduce the rising words, with marker turnover consistent with model generations; implied prevalences are scenario-dependent.

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.