Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: The case for structure

Science Communication

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 366-379

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abstracts; Information clarity; Readability; Structured writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037244299     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250301     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. American Psychological Association. 2001. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Berkenkotter, C., and T. N. Huckin. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Blair, D. C., and S. O. Kimbrough. 2002. Exemplary documents: A foundation for information retrieval design. Information Processing and Management 38:363-79.
4. Booth, A., and A. J. O'Rourke. 1997. The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE. Health Library Review 14:157-66.
5. British Psychological Society. 2001. Centenary annual conference: Final programme and abstracts. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
6. _. 2002. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society 10 (2): 37-131.
7. Dronberger, G. B., and G. T. Kowitz. 1975. Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 26:108-11.
8. Flesch, R. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32:221-23.
9. Froom, P., and J. Froom. 1993. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46:591-94.
10. Goldmann, D. R. 1997. Medical writing: A new section for annals, Annals of Internal Medicine 126:83.
11. Harbourt, A. M., L. S. Knecht, and B. L. Humphries. 1995. Structured abstracts in MEDLINE 1989-91. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 83:190-95.
12. Hartley, J. 1994. Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts. British Journal of Educational Psychology 64:331-43.
13. _. 1999a. Applying ergonomics to applied ergonomics. Applied Ergonomics 30:535-41.
14. _. 1999b. From structured abstracts to structured articles: A modest proposal. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 29:255-70.
15. _. 2000a. Are structured abstracts more or less accurate than traditional ones? A study in the psychological literature. Journal of Information Science 26:273-77.
16. _. 2000b. Typographic settings for structured abstracts. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30:355-65.
17. _. 2002. Do structured abstracts take up more space? And does it matter? Journal of Information Science 28:437-42.
18. Hartley, J., and M. Benjamin. 1998. An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68:443-56.
19. Hartley, J., and F. Ganier. 2000. Which do you prefer? Some observations on preference measures in studies of structured abstracts. European Science Editing 26:4-7.
20. Hartley, J., E. Sotto, and J. W. Pennebaker. 2002. Style and substance in psychology articles: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones? Social Studies of Science 32:321-34.
21. Hartley, J., and M. Sydes. 1995. Structured abstracts in the social sciences: Presentation, readability and recall. R&D report no. 6211. London: British Library.
22. _. 1997. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? Journal of Research in Reading 20:122-36.
23. Hartley, J., M. Sydes, and A. Blurton. 1996. Obtaining information accurately and quickly: Are structured abstracts more efficient? Journal of Information Science 22:349-56.
24. Haynes, R. B. 1993. More informative abstracts: Current status and evaluation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46:595-97.
25. Haynes, R. B., C. D. Mulrow, E. J. Huth, D. G. Altman, and M. J. Gardner. 1990. More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 113:69-76.
26. Kircz, J. G. 1998. Modularity: The next form of scientific information presentation. Journal of Documentation 54:210-35.
27. Kirkman, J. 2001. Third person, past tense, passive voice for scientific writing. Who says? European Science Editing 27:4-5.
28. Klare, G. R. 1963. The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
29. McIntosh, N. 1995. Structured abstracts and information transfer. R&D report no. 6142. London: British Library.
30. McIntosh, N., G. Duc, and G. Sedin. 1999. Structure improves content and peer review of abstracts submitted to scientific meetings. European Science Editing 25:43-47.
31. Mulrow, C. D., S. B. Thacker, and J. A. Pugh. 1988. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Annals of Internal Medicine 108:613-15.
32. O'Rourke, A. J. 1997. Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases: A literature survey. Health Informatics Journal 3:17-20.
33. Ottenbacher, K. 1983. Quantitative reviewing: The literature review as scientific inquiry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 37:313-19.
34. Pennebaker, J. W., M. E. Francis, and R. J. Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Pinto, M., and F. W. Lancaster. 1999. Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery. Library Trends 48:234-48.
36. Pitkin, R. M., and M. A. Branagan. 1998. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:267-69.
37. Pitkin, R. M., M. A. Branagan, and L. Burmeister. 1999. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. Journal of the American Medical Association 281:1110-11.
38. Porter, A. L., A. Kongthorn, and J. C. Lu. 2002. Research profiling: Improving the literature review. Scientometrics 53:351-70.
39. Riggle, K. B. 1998. Using the active and passive voice appropriately in on-the-job writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 28:85-117.
40. Roberts, J. C., C. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher. 1994. Effects of peer reviewing and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 272:119-21.
41. Siebers, R. 2000. How accurate is data in abstracts of research articles? New Zealand Journal of Medical Laboratory Science 54:22-23.
42. _. 2001. Data inconsistencies in abstracts of articles in Clinical Chemistry. Clinical Chemistry 47:1.
43. Sugarman, J., D. C. McCrory, and R. C. Hubal. 1998. Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults: A structured literature review of empirical research. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 46:517-24.
44. Swales, J. M., and C. B. Feak. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students: A course for non-native speakers of English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45. Taddio, A., T. Pain, F. F. Fassos, H. Boon, A. L. Ilersich, and T. R. Einarson. 1994. 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 150:1611-15.
46. Tenopir, C., and P. Jacso. 1993. Quality of abstracts. Online 17:44-55.
47. Trakas, K., A. Addis, D. Kruk, Y. Buczek, M. Iskedjian, and T. R. Einarson. 1997. Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of original research articles in selected journals. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 31:423-38.
48. Wilczynski, N. L., C. J. Walker, K. A. McKibbon, and R. B. Haynes. 1995. Preliminary assessment of the effect of more informative (structured) abstracts on citation retrieval from MEDLINE. Medinfo 8:1457-61.