How to Write a Scholarly Abstract: A Reviewer's Perspective

by Craig J. Hartley, Ph.D.

Introduction

Performing good science is only part of the role of a scientist or engineer. An equally important part is communicating your work to other people. Submitting an abstract to a scientific meeting is the first experience that a graduate student or fellow may have in this regard. The scientific abstract is too often given little effort and is thrown together at the last minute to meet a deadline. The justification is that the "real effort" will go into the oral presentation or the poster. But for most attendees of a meeting and for anyone else, including potential employers, the abstract is the only thing they will ever see about your work. Thus, it is important to do a careful job with the abstract because it will follow you for a long time. The abstract should be written like a short paper, should stand by itself, should describe your project, and should never describe or refer to the oral presentation or poster with statements such as "a new device is (or will be) described", or "results will be presented". Even when the abstract is part of a full paper, it should stand alone so that an interested reader can read the abstract and understand why and what you did, what you found, and what it means.

Organization

If possible, write a draft of an abstract before you do the experiments. Introduce the topic, describe your methods, hypothesize what the results will be, and discuss their potential meaning. This preliminary abstract will serve as an experimental protocol and remind you of what you need to accomplish and what you must document with data and illustrations when you write the final abstract or scientific paper.

Length and form

Follow any directions carefully including any margins, word count, and/or font limitations. Always try to use all or most of the space allowed. Nothing looks as sad as a two sentence abstract at the top of an otherwise blank page.

Structure

An abstract should be written like a short paper and include all the standard sections including: title, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. If possible each section should be in a separate paragraph with a label. If space is at a premium, each section may only be one or two sentences long, but all sections should be included. The title should be short and descriptive and should not use any abbreviations or jargon terms. The introduction should give a brief background and tell the reader why you did the study in simple terms. The methods section should briefly explain how and what you did. The results should document what you found with numbers and statistics if possible. The discussion should interpret the results, explain what they mean, and summarize the important conclusions. Even design and methods abstracts or those reporting computer models or software should use the standard form given above. Explain why you designed it, how you built it, how you tested or validated it, what the results of the tests were, what it is good for, and how it can be used or applied.

Tense

Each section will have its own verb tense. In general, the introduction gives the background, tells what is known or has been shown, and should use the past tense. The methods tell what you did and is written in the past tense. The results tell what you found and is usually written in past tense. The discussion tells what the results mean and can use the present tense.

Summary

Keep your audience in mind when choosing wording and emphasis. Keep your abstract simple and focussed, avoid or define all abbreviations, and remember that most readers will not be familiar with the jargon used your laboratory. Always err toward simplicity and the use of common language and away from complexity and the use of jargon. Proof read your abstract and ask yourself and others: "Have I clearly and concisely introduced the problem, described the experiments, reported the results, and discussed how the results have solved or illuminated the problem?"

Adapted from: Gregory D. Lapin in IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 13: 584-585, 1994.