abstract
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
abstract [2019/11/03 01:06] floyd created |
abstract [2019/11/03 03:38] (current) floyd |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| A good abstract is a clear summary of the article. A bad abstract is not clear, overly terse (rare) or overly wordy, or even misleading. | A good abstract is a clear summary of the article. A bad abstract is not clear, overly terse (rare) or overly wordy, or even misleading. | ||
| - | A misleading example is "The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize [...] were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. [...] Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, [...] Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; | + | Nature gives detailed guidelines for how to write a well crafted abstract. See their guide for an annotated abstract (https:// |
| + | - "One or two sentences providing a **basic introduction** to the field, comprehensible to a scientist in any discipline." | ||
| + | - "Two to three sentences of **more detailed background**, | ||
| + | - "One sentence clearly stating the **general problem** being addressed by this particular study." | ||
| + | - "One sentence summarizing the main result (with the words “**here we | ||
| + | show**” or their equivalent)." | ||
| + | - "Two or three sentences explaining what the **main result** reveals in direct comparison to what was thought to be the case previously, or how the main result adds to previous knowledge." | ||
| + | - "One or two sentences to put the results into a more **general context**." | ||
| + | - "Two or three sentences to provide a **broader perspective**, | ||
| + | In essence you start with a broad introduction, | ||
| + | |||
| + | A misleading example is "The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize [...] were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. [...] Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, [...] Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; | ||
| + | |||
| + | The results presented in the paper did not support these statements in the abstract. | ||
abstract.1572743195.txt.gz · Last modified: 2019/11/03 01:06 by floyd
Page Tools
