Work with structured abstracts—which contain sub-headings in a standard order—has suggested that such abstracts contain more information, are of a higher quality, and are easier to search and to read than are traditional abstracts. The aim of this article is to suggest that this work with structured abstracts can be extended to cover scientific articles as a whole. The article outlines a set of sub-headings—drawn from research on academic writing—that can be used to make the presentation of scientific papers easier to read and to write. Twenty published research papers are then analyzed in terms of these sub-headings. The analysis, with some reservations, supports the viability of this approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HartleyJ. and BenjaminM., An Evaluation of Structured Abstracts in Journals Published by the British Psychological Society, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68: 3, pp. 443–456.
2.
TaddioA.PainT.FassosF. F., Quality of Nonstructured 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 Journal, 150: 10, pp. 1611–1615, 1994.
3.
TrakasK.AddisA.KrukD., Quality Assessment of Pharmacoeconomic Abstracts of Original Research Articles in Selected Journals, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 31: 4, pp. 423–438, 1997.
4.
HarbourtA. M.KnechtL. S., and HumphreysB. L., Structured Abstracts in MEDLINE, 1989–91, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83: 2, pp. 190–195, 1995.
5.
HaynesR. B., More Informative Abstracts: Current Status and Evaluation, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46: 7, pp. 595–597, 1993.
6.
HartleyJ. and SydesM., Are Structured Abstracts Easier to Read than Traditional Ones?Journal of Research in Reading, 20: 2, pp. 22–136, 1997.
7.
HartleyJ.SydesM., and BlurtonA., Obtaining Information Accurately and Quickly: Are Structured Abstracts More Efficient?Journal of Information Science, 22: 5, pp. 249–356, 1996.
8.
BoothA. and O'RourkeA. J., The Value of Structured Abstracts in Information Retrieval from MEDLINE, Health Library Review, 14, pp. 157–160, 1997.
9.
HaynesR. B.MulrowC. D.HuthE. J., More Informative Abstracts Revisited, Annals of Internal Medicine, 113: 1, pp. 69–76, 1990.
10.
McIntoshN., Structured Abstracts and Information Transfer, R & D Report No. 6142, British Library, Boston Spa, United Kingdom, 1995.
11.
SkeltonJ., Analysis of the Structure of Original Research Papers: An Aid to Writing Original Papers for Publication, British Journal of General Practice, 44, pp. 455–459, October 1994.
12.
BeggC.ChoeM.EastwoodS., Improving the Quality of Reporting on Randomized Control Trial, Journal of the American Medical Association, 276: 8, pp. 637–639, 1996.
13.
GoldmannD. R., Medical Writings: A New Section for Annals, Annals of Internal Medicine, 126: 1, p. 83, 1997.
14.
DillonA., Readers' Models of Text Structures: The Case of Academic Articles, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35: 6, pp. 913–925, 1991.
15.
PedenB. F., Do Inexperienced and Experienced Writers Differentially Evaluate Ault's (1991) ‘What Goes Where’ Technique?Teaching of Psychology, 21: 1, pp. 38–40, 1994.
16.
BazermanC., Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1988.
17.
BerkenkotterC. and HuckinT. M., Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.
18.
Burrough-BoenischJ., Survey of EASE Conference Delegates Sheds Light on IMRAD Reading Strategies, European Science Editing, 24: 1, pp. 3–5, 1998.
19.
DillonA., J. Richardson and C. McKnight, Human Factors of Journal Usage and Design of Electronic Texts, Interacting with Computers, 1, pp. 183–189, 1989.
20.
van LoonA. J., Pros and Cons of the IMRAD Structure, European Science Editing, 55, pp. 15–16, 1995.
21.
JolliffeD. A. (ed.), Advances in Writing Research, Volume Two: Writing in Academic Disciplines, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1988.
22.
SwalesJ. M., Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
23.
SwalesJ. M. and FeakC. B., Academic Writing for Graduate Students, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994.
24.
American Psychological Association, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th Edition), American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1994.
25.
DavisM., Scientific Papers and Presentations, Academic Press, San Diego, 1997.
26.
DayR. A., How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (4th Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
27.
HeacockH.KoehoornM. and TanJ., Applying Epidemiological Principles to Ergonomics: A Checklist for Incorporating Sound Design and Interpretation of Studies, Applied Ergonomics, 28: 3, pp. 165–172, 1997.
28.
CampionM. A., Article Review Checklist: A Criterion Checklist for Reviewing Research Articles in Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, 46, pp. 705–718, 1993.
29.
HeffernanT. M., A Students' Guide to Studying Psychology, Psychology Press, Hove, United Kingdom, 1997.
30.
SmythT. R., Writing in Psychology, Wiley, New York, 1996.
31.
SternbergR. J., The Psychologist's Companion: A Guide to Scientific Writing for Students and Researchers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
32.
KemberD., Using Style Sheets, Templates and Features of Publishing Software to Facilitate the Development of Printed Study Materials, Educational Training and Technology International, 26: 1, pp. 72–78, 1989.
33.
WalshJ. P. and BaymaT., Computer Networks and Scientific Work, in Culture of the Internet, KieslerS. (ed.), Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 385–406, 1997.
34.
CharrowV. and RedishG., A Study of Standardized Headings for Warranties, Washington, D.C., American Institutes for Research, Document Design Project Technical Report No. 6, 1980.
35.
SwartsH.FlowerL. S., and HayesJ. R., How Headings in Documents Can Mislead Readers, Washington, D.C., American Institutes for Research, Document Design Project Technical Report No. 9, 1980.
36.
FlowerL. S.HayesJ. R., and SwartsH., Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle, in New Essays in Scientific and Technical Communication, AndersonP. V.BrockmannR. J., and MillerR. (eds.), Baywood, New York, pp. 41–58, 1983.
37.
HartleyJ., Captions for Tables and Figures, British Journal of Educational Technology, 22: 2, pp. 149–150.
38.
HartleyJ. (ed.), Technology and Writing: Readings in The Psychology of Written Communication. Jessica Kingsley: London, 1992.
39.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text (3rd Edition). Kogan Page: London, 1994.
40.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text for Older Readers: A Review, British Journal of Educational Technology, 25: 3, pp. 172–188, 1994.
41.
SydesM. and HartleyJ., A Thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the Unreliability of Computer-Based Readability Formulae, British Journal of Educational Technology, 28: 2, pp. 143–145, 1997.
42.
HartleyJ., Applying Psychology to Text Design: A Case History, International Forum for Information and Documentation, 22: 1, pp. 3–10, 1997.
43.
HartleyJ., Learning and Studying: A Research Perspective, Routledge: London, 1998.
44.
HartleyJ., What Does It Say? Text Design, Medical Information and Older Readers, in Processing of Medical Information in Ageing Patient, ParkD. C. (eds.), Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 233–247, 1999.
45.
HartleyJ., Return to Sender. Why Written Communications Fail, The Psychologist, 11: 10, pp. 477–480, 1998.
46.
HartleyJ., Can You Read This? Tools for Evaluating Text, in HartleyJ. and BranthwaiteA. (eds.), The Applied Psychologist (2nd Edition), Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999 (in press).
