IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v5y2017i2p11-d97400.html

Thirteen Ways to Write an Abstract

Author

Listed:
  • James Hartley

    (School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK)

  • Guillaume Cabanac

    (Computer Science Department, University of Toulouse, 31062 Toulouse, France)

Abstract

The abstract is a crucial component of a research article. Abstracts head the text—and sometimes they can appear alone in separate listings (e.g., conference proceedings). The purpose of the abstract is to inform the reader succinctly what the paper is about, why and how the research was carried out, and what conclusions might be drawn. In this paper we consider the same (or a similar) abstract in 13 different formats to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.

Suggested Citation

  • James Hartley & Guillaume Cabanac, 2017. "Thirteen Ways to Write an Abstract," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-7, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:2:p:11-:d:97400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/11/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/11/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Hartley & John Cowan & Cynthia Deeson & Peter Thomas, 2016. "Book reviews in time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2123-2128, December.
    2. James Hartley & Lucy Betts, 2009. "Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(10), pages 2010-2018, October.
    3. repec:aen:journl:ej37-4-br is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weishu Liu & Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu, 2017. "Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 355-364, January.
    2. Ligorio, Lorenzo & Venturelli, Andrea & Caputo, Fabio, 2022. "Tracing the boundaries between sustainable cities and cities for sustainable development. An LDA analysis of management studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Abderahman Rejeb & Karim Rejeb & Andrea Appolloni & Horst Treiblmaier & Mohammad Iranmanesh, 2025. "Uncovering the themes and trends in crowdfunding research using Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 2033-2066, September.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Markus Wolf & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2012. "Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: how far do comments differ in language use?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 843-856, June.
    5. Harley D. Dickinson & Willa Liu & Paul J. Graham & Wei Chen, 2018. "Food Safety in China: The Structure and Substantive Foci of an Emerging Field of Social Science Research," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-14, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:5:y:2017:i:2:p:11-:d:97400. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.