Background: most of the recent research into abstracts conducted by the information science (IS) community has had little practical implication in terms of improvement and quality. A possible explanation of this is the lack of connection with the real problems that the poor quality of abstracts may pose in the 'real' context of researchers accessing information.
Purpose: the types of problem abstracts may pose for potential users have been studied, and then classified and compared with current IS research into the quality of abstracts.
Method: 62 interviews were held with researchers from six European universities to ascertain the opinions of potential users. These participants commented on a set of database abstracts in the areas of Education and Agriculture.
Results: the participants pointed out different types of problem which were classified under the following headings: terminology, over-condensation, lack and excess of information, expectations and coherence, structure, register and layout.
Conclusion: the problems described were at variance with those commonly dealt with in the literature on the subject, thus suggesting new areas of research.
M. Pinto Molina and F.W. Lancaster , Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery , Library Trends48(1) (1999) 234–248 .
2.
M. Pinto Molina , Abstracting/abstract adaptation to digital environments: research trends , Journal of Documentation59(5) (2003) 581–608 .
3.
C. Tenopir and P. JacsÛ , Quality of abstracts , Online17(3) (1993) 44–55 .
4.
C.J. Armstrong and A. Wheatley , Writing abstracts for online databases: results of an investigation of database producers' guidelines , Program32(4) (1998) 359–371 .
5.
J. Hartley and M. Benjamin , An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychology Society , British Journal of Educational Psychology68 (1998) 443–456 .
6.
J. Hartley , Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts , British Journal of Educational Psychology64 (1994) 331–342 .
7.
J. Hartley and M. Sydes , Structured Abstracts in the Social Sciences: Presentation, Readability and Recall ( British Library Research and Development Department, London , 1995).
8.
J. Hartley and M. Sydes , Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones?Journal of Research in Reading20(2) (1997) 122–136 .
9.
J. Hartley , M. Sydes and A. Blurton , Obtaining information accurately and quickly , Journal of Information Science22(5) (1996) 349–356 .
10.
R. King , A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source document , Journal of the American Society for Information Science27 (March–April 1976) 118–121 .
11.
A. Bailin and A. Grafstein , The linguistic assumption underlying readability formulae: a critique , Language and Communication21 (2001) 285–301 .
12.
J. Hartley , Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: the case for structure , Science Communication24(3) (2003), 366–379 .
13.
H.R. Tibbo , Abstracting, Information Retrieval and the Humanities. Providing Access to Historical Literature ( American Library Association, Chicago/London , 1993).
14.
J. Hartley , Current findings from research on structured abstracts , Journal of the Medical Library Association92(3) (2004) 368–371 .
15.
J. Hartley , Do structured abstracts take more space? And does it matter?Journal of Information Science28(5) (2002) 417–422 .
16.
J. Hartley , Clarifying the abstracts of systemic reviews , Bulletin of the Medical Library Association88(4) (2000) 332–337 .
17.
J. Hartley , Are structured abstracts more or less accurate than traditional ones? A study in the psychological literature , Journal of Information Science26(4) (2000) 273–277 .
18.
Ad Hoc Working Group For Critical Appraisal Of The Medical Literature , A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles , Annals of Internal Medicine106 (1987) 598–604 .
19.
M.B. Heller , Structured abstracts: a modest dissent , Journal of Clinical Epidemiology44(8) (1991) 739–740 .
20.
P. Froom and J. Froom , Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts , Journal of Clinical Epidemiology46(7) (1993) 591–594 .
21.
A. Taddio , T. Pain , F.F. Fassos , H. Boon , A.L. Ilersich and T.R. Einarson , Quality of non-structured and structured abstracts of original research articles in The British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association Journal150 (1994) 1611– 15 .
22.
K. Khosrotehrani , A. Dupuy , C. LebbÈ , M. Rybojad and P. Morel , QualitÈ des rÈsumÈs des articles publiÈs dans les Annales de Dermatologie, Annales de Dermatologie et de VÈnÈrÈologie, 129 (2002) 1271–1275 .
23.
A. Dupuy , K. Khosrotehrani , C. LebbÈ , M. Rybojad and P. Morel , Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals , Archives of Dermatology139 (May 2003) 589–593 .
24.
R.M. Pitkin , M.A. Branagan and L.F. Burmeister , Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles , Journal of the American Medical Association281(12) (1999) 1110–1111 .
25.
R.M. Pitkin and M.A. Branagan , Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions?Obstetrics and Gynecology280(3) (1998) 267–269 .
26.
A.M. Harbourt , L.S. Knecht and B.L. Humphreys , Structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989–1991 , Bulletin of the Medical Library Association83(2) (1995) 190–195 .
27.
D.B. Cleveland and A.D. Cleveland , Introduction to Indexing and Abstracting( Libraries Unlimited, Englewood , 2001).
28.
M. De Jong and P.J. Schellens , Reader-focused text evaluation. An overview of goals and methods , Journal of Business and Technical Communication11(4) (1997) 402–432 .
29.
K.A. Schriver , Dynamics in Document Design( Wiley Computer Publishing, New York , 1997).
30.
M. De Jong and P.J. Schellens , Toward a document evaluation methodology: what does research tell us about the validity and reliability of evaluation methods? , IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication43(3) (2000) 242–260 .
31.
J. Hartley , Typographic settings for structured abstracts , Journal of Technical Writing and Communication30(4) (2000) 355–365 .
32.
J. Hartley and M. Sydes , Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts , Journal of Information Science22(1) (1996) 27–37 .
33.
T. Brandhorst (ed.), ERIC Processing Manual, Section VI: Abstracting/Annotating( Educational Resources Information Centre, Maryland , 1992).
34.
F.W. Lancaster , Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice( Facet, London , 2003).
35.
M. Pinto Molina , El resumen documental. Paradigmas, modelos y mètodos( Fundación Germá;n Sánchez Ruipèrez, Madrid , 2001).
36.
J. Rowley , Abstracting and indexing ( Clive Bingley, London , 1988).
37.
A. Wheatley and C.J. Armstrong . A Survey of the Content and Characteristics of Electronic Abstracts ( Joint Information Systems Committee, London , 1997).
38.
G.B. Dronberger and G.T. Kowitz , Abstract readability as a factor in information systems , Journal of the American Society for Information Science26 (March–April 1975) 108–111 .
39.
R. Fidel , The possible effect of abstracting guidelines on retrieval performance of free-text searching , Information Processing and Management22(4) (1986) 309–316 .
40.
R. Fidel , Writing abstracts for free-text searching , Journal of Documentation42(1) (1986) 11–21 .
41.
R. Fidel , Who needs controlled vocabulary?Special Libraries83(1) (1992) 1–9 .
42.
H.R.Tibbo, Abstracting across the disciplines: a content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval , Library and Information Science Research14 (1992) 31–56 .
43.
International Organization for Standardization ,ISO 214-1976: Documentation – Abstracts for publications and documentation( ISO, Geneva , 1976).
44.
National Information Standards Organization , ANSI/ NISO Z39.14-1997. Guidelines for Abstracts( NISO Press, Bethesda, USA , 1997).
