paleonet The nature of abstracts

[Duncan McLean <d.mclean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paleonet,

A recent posting  reminded me of many hours arguing with students over what an
abstract should contain. Whenever "is discussed" appears in an abstract I have
red flags popping up. I was eventually saved by discovering a largely
ignored(or so it seems) short comment by Landes (1951) which clearly argues the
case for informative abstracts, and to which I would refer you all.

LANDES , K.K., 1951. A scrutiny of the abstract. Bulletin of the American
Association of Petroleum Geologist, 35, 1660.

Though, as life is short, I have reproduced his abstract below:

"ABSTRACT The behavior of editors is discussed. What should be covered by an
abstract is considered. The importance of an abstract is described. Dictionary
definitions of "abstract" are quoted. At the conclusion a revised abstract is
presented."

His conclusion is:

"ABSTRACT The abstract is of utmost importance, for it is read by 10 to 500
times more people than hear or read the entire article. It should not be a mere

recital of the subjects covered, replete with such expressions as "is discussed"
and "is described." It should be a condensation and concentration of the
essential qualities of the paper."

Much current practice indicates that there is another view contrary to that held
by Landes and me. Perhaps some out there in Paleonet Land would care to defend
it?

Regards,

Duncan McLean

Palynology Research Facility,
University of Sheffield,
Dainton Building,
Brook Hill,
Sheffield,
S3 7HF, UK