Abstracts in research papers: Original documents rather than excerpted passages

Once effort, time and knowledge has been devoted to research conduction as well as to a Research Article’s (RA) elaboration, arousing an intended audience’s interest seems to become indispensable if such paper is to achieve its final goal: be worth reading it through. This appears to be the reason why abstracts would play a crucial role in academic articles. Regarded as a self-contained, synoptic, and powerful section of RAs, an abstract is likely to give readers the possibility of evaluating the paper’s significance; thus, determining whether the document is readable or not (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In the light of this, being aware of specifications related to abstracts’ characteristics and structure might be considered essential if participation in the academic world is seeked for.
As the discussion above suggests, awareness on issues such as abstracts’ content, layout, type as well as linguistic features would be regarded as fundamental. However, since abstracts’ components may vary according to discipline, a contrastive analysis of such sections in four different articles might prove fruitful. Hence, abstracts from three research papers developed in the field of medicine and one with educational implications are to be critically analysed and findings stated through the present piece writing.
As far as abstracts’ types are concerned, it might be argued that authors have opted for including informative ones in the four articles; that is, writers present all the main arguments as well as the important results and evidence to be found deeply explained in the complete paper. Nonetheless, despite being true that researchers describe what has been done in the four studies, there appear to be certain differences regarding quantity of data, on the one hand; and verb tense used to describe such data, on the other. It is worth noting that such differences seem be due to discipline variation.
Whereas the amount of information presented in the papers belonging to the medicine field could be said to be heavy; the quantity of data included in the abstract of the educational article appears to be lower. It deserves being stated that such difference is particularly significant when results are summarised. To illustrate this point, Beckett et al. (2008), Wijeysundera et al. (2010) and Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010), in their medical documents, utilize varied and numerous percentages, symbols as well as digits to present main findings. However, Almerich et al. (2005) just make use of text arranged in a single sentence to synthesize results in their educational study.
Though it is true that abstracts tend to refer to the past (Pintos & Crimi, 2010), this appears not to be that case for all the articles under anlaysis. While the medical papers seem to adhere to such characteristic, authors of the document within the education discipline have decided to develop their abstract alluding to the present. By illustration, Beckett et al. (2008) explain “[w]e randomly assigned 3845 patients (...)” (p. 1887); Wijeysundera et al. (2010) point out “[p]atients aged 40 years or older who underwent specific elective (...)” (p. 1); also, Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) claim “we found a mortality decline of 1% per year (...)” (p. 1). In turn, Almerich et al. (2005) state “[t]he results (...) indicate that the variable gender is the one that most influences in the knowledge (...)” (p. 127).
Moreover, abstracts could be classified into structured or unstructured. As for the last ones, basically consisting of long, unbroken paragraphs, would provide the framework to include the abstract in Almerich et al.’s (2005) article into such category. Conversely, the abtracts in the papers with medical implications are highly likely to be regarded as structured ones. Evidence of this are the specifications regarding headings such as bolded ones, as in Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) as well as Wijeysundera et al.’s (2010) abstracts, or italicized subtitles, as in Beckett et al.’s (2008), that identify the main sections in the RAs. In the light of this, it may be argued that the discipline to which a paper belongs to is very likely to determine its abstract’s structure.
As for abstracts’ linguistic features, there appear to be certain particular characteristics shared by the four RAs under analysis. To start with, full sentences have been used to construct them all. Additionally, the impersonal passive is frequently used. For instance, Almerich et al. (2005) claim “it is analyzed how gender, age and type of (...)” (p. 127); Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) explain “(...) in areas where screening was used (...)” (p. 1); Wijeysundera et al. (2010) state “[a]fter propensity score methods were used to reduce (...)” (p. 1); similarly, Beckett et al. (2008) observe “[f]ewer serious events were reported (...)” (p. 1887). Last but not least, the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon turns to be another common pattern.
By the same token, the absence of negative statements is likely to be regarded as another specific feature in abstracts. In turn, writers resort to resources such as prefixes that denote negation. This appears to be the case in the articles of the medicine discipline where authors have decided to make use of words such as “the treatment of (...) is unclear” and “nonfatal stroke” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887); or “non-invasive cardiac stress testing” (Wijeysundera et al., 2010, p. 1); as well as “in the non-screened areas” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1). Otherwise, Almerich et al. (2005) have not included negative sentences in their paper’s abstract.
As stated before, there are occasions when headings differenciate subsections in abstracts, as in structured ones; whereas there are other abstracts’ types, unstructured, in which subtitles signalling the article’s divisions are not included. Consequently, researchers use introductory phrases in each sentence that allow readers to identify such subsections. For example, Almerich et al. (2005) state their article’s main objective by claiming: “[i]n this paper, it is analysed how gender, age and type of (...) influence teacher’s knowledge (...)” (p. 127); similarly, they explain the methods after they start : “[t]he study is based in a survey design” (p. 127); additionally, writers present results by synthesising “[t]he results indicate that the variable gender is the one that (...)” (p. 127); last but not least, they conclude “[t]herefore, the personal and contextual factors influence in (...)” (p. 127).
When developing their opening statements, as well as results and conclusions summaries, writers tend to utilize distinctive features, such as the personal pronoun “we”. Although the impersonal passive such as “testing was associated with (...)” (Wijeysundera et al., 2010, p. 1) or “it is analyzed how (...)” (Almerich et al., 2005, p. 127) would be rather desirable, the presence of expressions such as “[w]e were unable to find (...)” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1) as well as [w]e randomly assigned 3845 patients (...)” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887) are highly probable to be found.
As far as tense movement in abstracts is concerned, it might be claimed that verb tenses tend to vary according to the data being presented. Broadly speaking, the studies are introduced by means of using the present. Except for Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) and Wijeysundera et al.’s (2010) asbtracts, where the infinitive has been used to introduce the research’s objectives; statements in the present tense have been applied to develop opening sentences in the other two papers. By illustration, Almerich et al. (2005) point out “[t]he integration of Information and Communication Technologies in education supposes that (...)” (p. 127); moreover, Beckett et al. (2008) begin their abstract by observing “[w]hether the treatment of (...) is beneficial is unclear” (p. 1887).
On the contrary, results are likely to be summarised making use of past tenses. With the exception of the paper in the education field, findings are stated referring to the past in the abstracts of the articles from the medicine discipline. For instance, Beckett et al. (2008) declare “[t]he active-treatment group and the placebo group were well matched” (p. 1887); Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (2010) note “there was a decline of 2% in mortality per year” (p. 1); also, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) explain “testing was associated with harmin low risk patients” (p. 1). Contrary to expectations, Almerich et al. (2005) continue using the present when introducing key findings as they claim “[t]he results indicate that (...)” (p. 127).
With the probable primary aim of conveying a contemporary relevance effect, the four abstracts’ conclusions have been developed with a clear predominance of the present tense. To document this coincidence, the following quotes might prove effective: “the personal and contextual factors influence in the knowledge of (...)” (Almerich et al., 2005, p. 127), “[t]he results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with (...) is beneficial” (Beckett et al., 2008, p. 1887), “[t]he reductions in breast cancer mortality (...) are more likely explained by (...)” (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010, p. 1), similarly, Wijeysundera et al. (2010) conclude “[p]reoperative non-invasive cardiac stress testing is associated with improved one year survival and (...)” (p. 1).
All in all, differences according to articles’ field of procedence are likely to surpass similarities among the abstracts under analysis. Hence, being aware of such issues as well as putting the knowledge gained after contrasting RAs from different disciplines into practice would be regarded as crucial if participation in the academic world is to be achieved. In other words, RP’s writers need to grasp the idea that abstracts are neither reviews nor evaluations of the work being abstracted; rather, they are to be considered original pieces of writing. To conclude, writing efficient abstracts seems to demand hard work, but it would repay authors with increased impact on intended audiences by enticing people to read the whole publication.











References

Almerich, J., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R., & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnológicos en profesores a partir del género, edad, y tipo de centro. RELIEVE, 11 (2), 127-142. Retrieved 17th May from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5750

Beckett, N. S., Peters, R., Fletcher, A. E., Staessen, J. A., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., et al. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (18), 1887-1898. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Jorgensen, K. J., Zahl, P.H., & Gotzsche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ, 340 (c1241), 1-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241


Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4: Research articles: abstracts. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved 17th May, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526