| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Sometimes an abstract for a paper may be deliberately uninformative. The process for the external release of information in an industrial setting is ever changing and often frustrating. In some cases one may be able to wave something in front of people at a oral presentation which he or she would not be allowed to put into any form of writing. I know it sounds silly to you academic types, but industry is sometimes extremely paranoid about publication.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Jere H. Lipps
- Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:34 PM
- To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
- Subject: Re: paleonet The nature of abstracts
- Thanks for the examples. The second one is much better and I will use the two, if you don't mind, in my classes on scientific communication. Here's another example of an abstract I like to cite.
- Title: Is the San Andreas a right lateral slip fault?
- Abstract: Yes.
- Funny, but not very informative.
- Titles are another thing. They should also be informative and concise. Together with the abstract, titles can complete the goals of communication. Titles like: "Vollyballs or baseballs? Fossils from the Mesozoic" (I made it up) are also funny but not informative and possibly misinformative. Here's another example: "Rolling stones gather no moss". Is this about erosion, sediment transport, moss, weathering, or what? Useless. Remember that a large number of potential readers will now see your paper only as a title in some search engine. Even in the GSA Bulletin, for example, what would it mean?
- I, like most I understand, have no time to waste second guessing other authors, and I'd prefer titles and abstracts that go to the point and convey sufficient information for me to know to download it, turn to it, and to read it. We are not writing poetry, novels, newspaper articles, or columns in Natural History Magazine. We are trying to relate our results and conclusions to a select audience--busy scientists possibly interested in our work. Some may not even know your language very well. Make their job easier with clear, concise and simple titles, abstracts and words.
- JHL
- At 03:44 AM 11/11/2004, you wrote:
- Thanks for the discussion. Made me review some of my own abstracts, :-).
- Below are two recent examples, one with one without "is described".
- Quoting part of Landes (1951) again.
- "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."
- I agree, these terms are (almost) always avoidable (also in my first
- example) and the alternative generally better. But Landes speaks of abuse
- ("replete with..."). Should one turn that into a matter of black or white?
- Have fun,
- Niko
- Example 1)
- Early ontogeny of Jurassic bakevelliid bivalves and their
- bearing on bivalve evolution
- Larval and earliest postlarval shells of Jurassic Bakevelliidae are
- described for the first time and some complementary
- data are given concerning larval shells of oysters and pinnids. Two new
- larval shell characters, a posterodorsal outlet and
- shell septum are described. The outlet is homologous to the posterodorsal
- notch of oysters and posterodorsal ridge of
- arcoids. It probably reflects the presence of the soft anatomical character
- post−anal tuft, which, among Pteriomorphia, was
- only known from oysters. A shell septum was so far only known from
- Cassianellidae, Lithiotidae, and the bakevelliid
- Kobayashites. A review of early ontogenetic shell characters strongly
- suggests a basal dichotomy within the Pterio−
- morphia separating taxa with opisthogyrate larval shells, such as most (or
- all?) Praecardioida, Pinnoida, Pterioida
- (Bakevelliidae, Cassianellidae, all living Pterioidea), and Ostreoida from
- all other groups. The Pinnidae appear to be
- closely related to the Pterioida, and the Bakevelliidae belong to the stem
- line of the Cassianellidae, Lithiotidae,
- Pterioidea, and Ostreoidea. The latter two superfamilies comprise a well
- constrained clade. These interpretations are con−
- sistent with recent phylogenetic hypotheses based on palaeontological and
- genetic (18S and 28S mtDNA) data. A more
- detailed phylogeny is hampered by the fact that many larval shell characters
- are rather ancient plesiomorphies.
- Example 2
- CONSTRAINTS IN THE LIGAMENT ONTOGENY AND EVOLUTION OF PTERIOMORPHIAN
- BIVALVIA
- A study of ligaments of larval, postlarval and adult shells of fossil and
- recent pteriomorphian bivalves leads to following observations and
- hypotheses: (1) Ligament growth passively follows the general growth pattern
- of the mantle margin. No independent genetic information fixes the anterior,
- ventral, or posterior growth direction of the ligament. Further growth
- constraints relate to physical availability of space on the ligament area
- and to heterochronic processes. (2) The disjunct ligament and the repetition
- of fibrous or lamellar sublayers are phenotypic aspects of the same derived
- ligament Bauplan 1. All Pteriomorphia possess the ability to produce
- repetitive ligaments. This ability and space reductions of the ligament area
- in independent phylogenetic lineages are responsible for the iterative
- evolution of ligament grades. (3) Spondylidae and Plicatulidae are
- duplivincular, and the Ostreoidea are plesiomorphically multivincular. (4)
- Larval anterior-helical growth of the soft tissue produces opisthogyrate
- shells and possibly caused the evolution of the alivincular-multivincular
- grade. Duplivincular-alivincular and multivincular-alivincular grades can be
- distinguished if larval shell characters are known. (5) The taxonomic
- distribution of ligament grades as amended in this paper is largely
- consistent with modern phylogeny hypotheses based on genetic or morphologic
- or combined character sets. However, the resolution of early phylogenetic
- nodes requires more data on larval shells of Lower Palaeozoic taxa.
- ------------
- previous contributions
- ------------
- > I never accept abstracts as a teacher, reviewer or editor that have "is
- > discussed" in them in any context. This tells us nothing, and if you
- > discussed it, you can tell us what your discussion included or
- > concluded. An author must communicate the contents and conclusions to
- > make
- > the abstract useful. Landes is right. I give that paper to all my
- > students, some reviewers and some authors who obviously need
- > it. Remember, that the best research in the world is useless unless it
- > is
- > properly communicated and people read it. "Is discussed" is poor
- > communication, and forces a person to read the entire article if he/she
- > thinks it's worth pursuing. Most won't bother. And I don't blame
- > them. The author is the loser, not the reader. Write good abstracts,
- > whether it is for a meeting or a journal. It takes very little energy,
- > although some thought and practice, but it pays off highly.
- >
- > Jere
- >
- > At 03:11 AM 11/9/2004, Peter Paul Smolka wrote:
- > >On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Duncan McLean wrote:
- > >
- > > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:35:52 +0000
- > > > From: Duncan McLean <d.mclean@sheffield.ac.uk>
- > > > Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
- > > > To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
- > > > Subject: paleonet The nature of abstracts
- > > >
- > > > 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?
- > >
- > >Dear Duncan,
- > >
- > >an abstract contains "the publication in a nutshell".
- > >
- > >A publication contains one or mor main findings. These may or may
- > >not include a methodology.
- > >
- > >In addition it may or may include a discussion of related aspects
- > >beyond the main findings.
- > >
- > >Referring to these as "is discussed" I regard as acceptable in
- > >if above applies.
- > >
- > >Example:
- > >
- > >Main Finding: Earth is a sphere.
- > >
- > >Related aspects: Other models, such as ellipsoid, geoid-undulation,
- > >impact of inhomogenities in the earth mantle are discussed.
- > >
- > >That is: If the related aspects are not the most important for the paper
- > >but relevant to readers they might be mentioned so such readers know
- > >they should read the paper.
- > >
- > >Background of this example, formulated with a polite smile:
- > >
- > >A paper intended for an IT journal, were earth (on a CDROM or DVD)
- > >appears to the user normally as discoid.
- > > >
- > > > Regards,
- > > >
- > > > Duncan McLean
- > > >
- > > > Palynology Research Facility,
- > > > University of Sheffield,
- > >
- > >Best regards
- > >
- > >Peter Smolka
- > >
- > >
- > >**********************************************************************
- > >Dr. Peter P. Smolka
- > >University Muenster
- > >Geological Institute
- > >Corrensstr. 24
- > >D-48149 Muenster
- > >
- > >Tel.: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
- > >Fax: +49/251/833-3989 +49/2533/4401
- > >E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
- > >E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
- > >**********************************************************************
- >
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------
- cc: nikolaus.malchus@uab.es
- ---
- Dept. de Geologia/Unitat Paleontologia
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
- Campus, Edifici Cs
- 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalunya
- SPAIN
- ---
- Tel 34-93-581-1464
- Fax 34-93-581-1263
- --------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------BEGIN:VCARD
- VERSION:2.1
- ADR;WORK:;;Campus, Edifici Cs;Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès);;08193;Catalunya, Spain
- EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET;W:n.malchus@gmx.net
- FN:Nikolaus Malchus
- LABEL;WORK:Campus, Edifici Cs
- Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193
- Catalunya, Spain
- N:Malchus;Nikolaus;;Dr.;;
- NICKNAME:Niko
- ORG:Universitat Autònoma Barcelona;Dept. Geologia/Area Paleontologia
- TEL;WORK;FAX:xx34 93 581 1263
- TEL;WORK;VOICE:xx34 93 581 1464
- TITLE:Dr.
- REV:20041111T124424Z
- END:VCARD
Partial index: