How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022

Clarity and conciseness
How to prepare the abstract
Preparing the text

Occasionally, a scientist omits something important from the abstract. By far, the more common faults, though, are ambiguous wording and inclusion of extraneous detail.

An abstract normally appears before the main text of the paper. Thus, during the review process, it generally is the first part that editors and reviewers encounter. (Indeed, editors often rely on it to identify main content and thus choose suitable reviewers.) Therefore, it is crucial that the abstract be written clearly and simply. If you cannot make a good and accurate impression in your abstract, your cause may be lost. Usually, a good abstract is followed by a good paper; a poor abstract is a harbinger of woes to come.

Most journals require abstracts. Likewise, conferences commonly require an abstract to accompany each presentation; often, the choice of presentations to include in a conference is based on abstracts of the proposed presentations. Therefore, scientists should master the basics of abstract preparation.

When writing the abstract, examine every word carefully. If you can tell your story in 100 words, do not use 200. Economically and scientifically, it doesn’t make sense to waste words. The total communication system can afford only so much verbal abuse. Of more importance to you, the use of clear, significant words will impress the editors and reviewers (not to mention readers), whereas the use of abstruse, verbose constructions might well contribute to a check in the “Reject” box on the review form.

In rough-drafting an abstract, though, do not be paralyzed by the need to be brief. Initially, just try to express your ideas. Then, if the abstract is too long and wordy, go back and condense it. For example, in the fictional abstract in Figure 9.1, the first sentence might initially have read “Individuals in the sciences must do a considerable amount of writing in order to be successful in their careers, but a relatively small proportion have received any formal education in how to write about science” (35 words). After condensation, it reads, “Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writing” (12 words).

Here’s an example of an especially brief abstract, which accompanied a paper by M. V. Berry and colleagues published in 2011 (J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44:492001). The title of the paper: “Can Apparent Superluminal Neutrino Speeds Be Explained as a Quantum Weak Measurement?” The abstract: “Probably not.” Should you write abstracts this short? Well, probably not. Normally, an abstract should be more informative than this one. But at least, unlike some meandering abstracts, this one answers the question that the research addressed.