Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2006:1–57. doi: 10.1007/3-540-31920-4_1

Guidelines

PMCID: PMC7170000

Abstract

An abstract is like the face of a person. It can tell one what to expect. It should give the gist of the paper in a short paragraph. Besides being a summary, it has another purpose. A showpiece, it beckons the reader into the paper. You do not want to compose an abstract so well devised the prospective reader after glancing at it will decide to skip the paper. But even worse, you want to avoid writing an abstract so discouraging as to turn the reader away from both the abstract and the paper itself.

Don’t compose an unreadable abstract. This would seem to go without saying. An opening sentence such as ”Fragments of polyketide synthase (PKS) genes were amplified from complementary DNA (cDNA) of the fusarin C producing filamentous fungi Fusarium monoliforme and Fusarium venetatum by using degenerate oligonucleotides designed to select for fungal PKS C-methyltransferase (CmeT) domains“ is impossible: Too technical, too dense, too complicated a syntax, heavy with acronyms.

Le’s start with translating and breaking down this sentence. How about, instead, ”Two species of filamentous fungi produce fusarin. Their complementary DNA serve to amplify fragments of polyketide synthase genes. We use for this purpose degenerate oligonucleotides, designed to select for the desired methyltransferase domains.“ Moreover, since the title of the paper starts with ”Fusarin C Biosynthesis“, don’t repeat it. The desired meaning of the above sentence is ”We have prepared oligonucleotide PCR primers selective for fungal polyketide synthase genes.“ Why not start the abstract thus?

Think of an abstract as a shop window. It requires elegance and attractiveness. The latter ought to be a reflection of the quality of the work, of the novelty of its approach, of the importance of its results. The former is exclusively a matter of word-craft, of style. It is not enough to whip out an abstract in five minutes, either before writing the paper or after having done so. A good abstract might be hours in the making. To invest time assembling such a jewel is not out of whack.

How can it be done? Write as if you were penning a postcard to a friend: use simple sentences, don’t get technical and utter a clean message in a maximum of 50 to 100 words.

Incapable of such a feat? In that case, take a printout of your completed paper and underline a dozen sentences you feel epitomize the work. Paste them together and tie them together with transitions. Now, edit this paragraph. Be merciless. Try to reduce it by a third. You should now have the first draft of your abstract. It only remains to turn it from decent into artful English. Do not hesitate to resort to a dictonary of synonyms and to use other tools such as a style manual. Read your abstract aloud, a crucial test. It will make you jettison multisyllabic unpronouncable words. It will make you focus on the genuine achievements of the paper. It will make you grab your reader by the sleeve: ”come inside, Mister, I have something truly marvellous I’d like to show you“. This is the message from a well-designed abstract.

Keywords: Gemini Surfactant, Electronic Publishing, AAPG Bulletin, Passive Voice, Opening Paragraph

Reference

  1. Landes K. K. Scrutiny of the abstract.1. AAPG Bulletin. 1951;35(7):1660. [Google Scholar]
  2. Day R. A. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 4th edn. Phoenix AZ: Oryx Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hanson K. T. The art of writing for publication. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  4. Young M. The technical writer’s handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  5. Givens D. B. The nonverbal dictionary of gestures, signs & body language cues. Spokane WA: Center for Nonverbal Studies Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alley M. The craft of scientific writing. 3rd edn. New York: Springer; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. Schneider G. P., Evans J., Pinard K. T. The Internet illustrated introductory. 4th edn. Boston M A: Course Technology; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  8. v. Emden J. Effective communication for science and technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  9. Turner M. The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Council of Biology, editor. Scientific style and format: the CBE manual for authors, editors, and publishers. 6th edn. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bachrach S., Berry R. S., Blume M., v. Foerster T., Fowler A., Ginsparg P., Heller S., Kestner N., Odlyzko A., Okerson A., Wigington R., Moffat A. Intellectual property: who should own scientific papers? Science. 1998;281(5382):1459–1460. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Manicas P. T. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge; 1998. Social science, history of philosophy. [Google Scholar]
  13. Tufte E. R. The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire CT: Graphics Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernstein T. M. The careful writer: a modern guide to English usage. New York: Atheneum; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zobel J. Writing for computer science. 2nd edn. New York N Y: Springer; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  16. Barrass R. Scientists must write. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nolan G. P. Tadpoles by the tail. Nature Methods. 2005;2:11–12. doi: 10.1038/nmeth0105-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Burbulis I., Yamaguchi K., Gordon A., Carlson R., Brent R. Using protein-DNA chimeras to detect and count small numbers of molecules. Nature Methods. 2005;2:31–37. doi: 10.1038/nmeth729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Verdaguer I. Making sense of neologisms. Forum. 1996;34(3):98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grafton A. The footnote. Cambridge M A: Harvard University Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  21. Whitesides G. M. Angew chem int edn engl. 2004;43:3632–3641. doi: 10.1002/anie.200330076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ruben M., et al. Angew chem int edn engl. 2004;43:3644–3662. doi: 10.1002/anie.200300636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gawande A. The bell curve. The New Yorker. 2004;6:82–91. [Google Scholar]
  24. Williams J. M. Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace. New York: HarperCollins; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  25. Glassick C. E., Huber M. T., Maeroff G. I. Scholarship assessed: an evaluation of the professoriate. Hoboken NJ: Jossey-Bass Publishers-Wiley; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zissner W. On writing well: an informal guide to writing non-fiction. 4th edn. New York: HarperCollins; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bachrach S., Berry R. S., Blume M., v. Foerster T., Fowler A., Ginsparg P., Heller S., Kestner N., Odlyzko A., Okerson A., Wigington R., Moffat A. Intellectual property: who should own scientific papers? Science. 1998;281(5382):1459–1460. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Tubbs S. L., Moss S. Human communication. 8th edn. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gartland J. J. Medical writing and communicating. Frederick MD: University Publishing Group; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wennerstrom A., Siegel A. F. Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes. 2003;36(2):77–107. doi: 10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Alley M. The craft of scientific writing. 3rd edn. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  32. Berntsen D., Kennedy J. M. Unresolved contradictions specifying attitudes — in metaphor, irony, understatement and tautology. Poetics. 1996;24:13–29. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(95)00013-A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Graves R., Hodge A. The use and abuse of the english language. New York: Paragon House; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tufte E. R. Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  35. Richards I. A. The meaning of meaning. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 1965. [Google Scholar]
  36. v. Dijck P. Information architecture for designers. Hove, East Sussex U K: RotoVision; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  37. Strunk W., Jr., White E. B. The elements of style. 4th edn. New York: Allyn & Bacon/Longman; 2000. [Google Scholar]

Other Reference

  1. Petitjean A., et al. Angew chem int edn engl. 2004;43:3695–3699. doi: 10.1002/anie.200353492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Wei J., Iglesia E. Angew chem int edn engl. 2004;43:3685–3688. doi: 10.1002/anie.200352703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Communicating Science are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES