| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Is this in reference to meetings abstracts or abstracts as part of a publication? The two can be quite different and serve different purposes. Meeting abstracts typically are not reviewed and serve to give a general idea of the work, typically in progress, to be presented to a limited and transient audience, while publication abstracts are parts of a larger work, typically completed, that can be seen at any time for all time. In addition, meeting abstracts are usually given space constraints while publication abstracts are not. I agree that phrases like "is discussed" are red flags but may merely signal a lack of space, not a lack of work. Jim Mickle 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 >********************************************************************** > > >
Partial index: