This document discusses different types of abstracts and their proper structure and content. It describes informative abstracts, structured abstracts, and abstracts for descriptive papers. Informative abstracts should provide an overview and highlight key sections like purpose, methods, results, and significance. Structured abstracts use subheadings and are longer at 400 words. Descriptive paper abstracts include a background statement, description of findings, and conclusion. The document also discusses common problems like omitting elements, excessive length, or using the wrong abstract type.

1. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Chapter 14
Abstract

2. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Function of the Abstract
• Provides an overview of the paper
• Should attract the reader

3. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
• Informative Abstracts—for research papers
• Structured Abstracts—for research (clinical) papers
• Indicative Abstracts—for review articles or book chapters
• Conference Abstracts—for conferences
• Proposal Abstracts—for proposals
Types of Abstracts

4. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Use informative abstracts for research papers
•Obtain specific instructions from the target journal
•Abstract should be self-contained
•Use simple words and short sentences
•Avoid non-standard abbreviations
•Do not include references
Informative Abstract

5. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Include highlights from each section:
Question/purpose (not in descriptive papers)
Experiments/Approach
Results/description
Answer to the question
Optional: background information
significance
Content of an Informative Abstract

6. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Ribosomes, the site of protein synthesis, are a major target for
natural and synthetic antibiotics. …
To elucidate the structural basis of ribosome-antibiotic
interactions, we determined the high-resolution X-ray structures
of the 50S ribosomal subunit of the eubacterium D. radiodurans
complexed with the clinically relevant antibiotics
chloramphenicol, clindamycin, and the three macrolides:
erythromycin, clarithro-mycin, and roxithromycin. We found that
antibiotic binding sites are composed exclusively of segments of
23S rRNA at the peptidyl transferase cavity and do not involve
any interaction of the drugs with ribosomal proteins. Here we
report the details of antibiotic interactions with the components of
their binding sites. Our results also show the importance of Mg
ions for the binding of some drugs. This structural analysis should
facilitate rational drug design.
Schluenzen et al. Nature 413, 814-821
Background
Purpose/
Question
Approach
Results
Sample Abstract
Significanc
e

7. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Use structured abstracts for clinical reports
•Use subheadings (background, methods, results, and
conclusions)
•Content similar to that of informative abstract
•> informative abstracts (max. 400 words )
•May contain incomplete sentences
Structured Abstract

8. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Example of a Structured Abstract
Background In infants and children with maternally acquired
human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection,
treatment with a single antiretroviral agent has limited efficacy.
We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a three-drug regimen in a
small group of maternally infected infants.
Methods Zidovudine, didanosine, and nevirapine were administered
in combination orally to eight infants 2 to 16 months of age. The
efficacy of antiretroviral treatment was evaluated by serial
measurements of . . .
Results The three-drug regimen was well tolerated, without
clinically important adverse events . . .
Conclusions Although further observations are needed, it appears
that in infants with maternally acquired HIV-1 infection,
combined treatment with zidovudine, didanosine, and nevirapine
is well tolerated and has sustained efficacy against HIV-1.

9. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Content
Descriptive statement
Description of the new finding
Conclusion/significance
Abstract for Descriptive Paper

10. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Indirect radiative forcing of atmospheric aerosols by
modification of cloud processes poses the largest
uncertainty in climate prediction. We show here a trend of
increasing deep convective clouds over the Pacific Ocean
in winter from long-term satellite cloud measurements
(1984–2005). Simulations with a cloud-resolving weather
research and forecast model reveal . . . The intensified
Pacific storm track is climatically significant and
represents possibly the first detected climate signal of the
aerosol-cloud interaction associated with anthropogenic
pollution . . . .
Zhang et al., PNAS 104(13)
Example of Abstract for Descriptive Paper
Backgroun
d
Descriptive
statement
Significance
Description

11. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Signal the parts of an abstract
Signals in Abstracts
Question +
experiment
Results Answer/conclusion Implication
To determine
whether . . . ,
we . . .
We asked whether
. . .
To answer this
question, we . . .
X was studied
by . . .
We found . . .
Our results
show . . .
Here we
report . . .
We conclude that . . .
Thus, . . .
These results indicate
that . . .
These results
suggest that . . .
These results may
play a role in . . .
Y can be used
to . . .

12. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
• Omission/Obscuring of elements
• Excessive Length
• Wrong type of Abstract
Most Common Problems

13. Scientific Writing and Communication, 2e Angelika H. Hofmann Copyright © 2014 by Oxford University Press
Reasons for Rejection
• Lack of originality—you must write about something new or better
• Lack of context—you need to provide background
• Limited sample size—few samples in a study may not convince a
reviewer
• Lack of numbers
• Too many numbers/too much data—reviewers feel that they have
to interpret the results themselves.
• Lack of conformity—you should follow the instructions for authors
• Wrong style of abstract—differentiate between abstracts for
research papers and other abstracts
• Too many abbreviations