Are the abstracts of high impact articles more readable? Investigating the evidence from top research institutions in the world

Journal of Information Science

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 273-281

  Gazni, Ali ^a  

^a Islamic World Science Citation Center ISC   (Iran)

Author keywords

abstract readability; citation analysis; Flesch reading ease formula; readability; scientific impact

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT READABILITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; FLESCH READING EASE FORMULA; READABILITY; SCIENTIFIC IMPACT;

RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ABSTRACTING;

EID: 79959237001     PISSN: 01655515     EISSN: 17416485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0165551511401658     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. L. Chavkin, Readability and reading ease revisited: state-adopted science textbooks, The Clearing House 70 (3) (1997) 151-1154.
2. H. Marcovitch, What medical journal editing means to me, Journalology 6 (1) (2008) 237-243.
3. P. Leya and T. Floriob, The use of readability formulas in health care, Psychology, Health and Medicine 1 (1) (1996) 7-28.
4. K. Crosier, How effectively do marketing journals transfer useful learning from scholars to practitioners ? Marketing Intelligence and Planning 22 (5) (2004) 540-556.
5. L. Wiest, Comprehension of mathematical text. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal (2003). available at: www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome17/ contents.htm (29 June 2010 ).
6. C.L. Palmer, L.C. Teffeau and C.M. Pirmann, Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment ( Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., 2009 ).
7. J.W. Janes, Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing and Management 27 (6) (1991) 629-646.
8. G.B. Dronberger and T. Kowitz, Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 26 (2) (1975) 108-111.
9. G.R. Klare, The Measurement of Readability ( Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1963 ).
10. G. Hargis, M. Carey, A. Kilty Hernandez, P. Hughes, D. Longo, S. Rouiller and E. Wilde, Developing Quality Technical Information: a Handbook for Writers and Editors ( Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998 ).
11. E. Dale and J.S. Chall, The concept of readability, Elementary English 26 (1949) 23.
12. W.H. Dubay, The Principles of Readability (Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information, 2004). available at: www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/read- ability02.pdf (accessed 29 June 2010 ).
13. A. Davison and G.M. Green, Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered ( Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1988 ).
14. J. Hartley, Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 88 (4) (2000) 332-337.
15. R. Flesch, A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (1948) 221-23.
16. S.L. Mailloux, M.E. Johnson, D.G. Fisher and T.J. Pettibone, How reliable is computerized assessment of readability ? Computers and Nursing 13 (5) (1995) 221-225.
17. M. Sydes and J. Hartley, A thorn in the Flesch: observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae, British Journal of Educational Technology 28 (2) (1997) 143-145. (Pubitemid 127518781)
18. J. Hartley, M. Trueman and A.J. Meadows, Readability and prestige in scientific journals, Journal of Information Science 14 (1988) 69-75.
19. J. Hartley and M. Trueman, Some observations on using journal articles in the teaching of psychology. Psychology Teaching Review 1 (1) (1992) 46-51.
20. R.S. Bottle, J.S. Rennie, S. Russ and Z. Sardar, Changes in the communication of chemical information I: some effects of growth. Journal of Information Science 6 (1983) 103-108.
21. M. Shelley and J.H. Schuh, Are the best higher education journals really the best? A meta-analysis of writing quality and readability, Journal of Scholarly Publishing 33 (1) (2001) 11-22.
22. J. Hartley, E. Sotto and J. Pennebaker, Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones ? Social Studies of Science 32 (2) (2002) 321-334.
23. C. Metoyer-Duran, The readability of published, accepted, and rejected papers appearing in college and research libraries, College and Research Libraries 64 (1993) 517-526.
24. J.S. Armstrong, Readability and prestige in scientific journals, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Journal of Information Science 15 (1989) 123-124.
25. J.S. Armstrong, Unintelligible management research an academic prestige, Interfaces, 10 (1982) 80-86.
26. M. Pinto and F.W. Lancaster, Abstracts and abstracting in knowledge discovery, Library Trends 48 (1) (1999) 234-248.
27. C. Tenopir and P. Jacso, Quality of Abstracts, Online 17 (3) (1993) 44-55.
28. J. Hartley, J. Pennebaker and C. Fox, Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style ? Scientometrics, 57 (3) (2003) 389-398. (Pubitemid 39109279)
29. J. Adams, L. Jackson and S. Marshall, Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report for HEFCE ( Evidence, Leeds, UK, 2007 ).
30. S. Stremersch, I. Verniers and P.C. Verhoef, The quest for citations: drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing 71 (2007) 171-193.
31. E.B. Entin and G.R. Klare, Relationships of measures of interest, prior knowledge, and readability to comprehension of expository passages, Advances in Reading/Language Research 3 (1985) 9-38.
32. W. Kintsch, E. Kozminsky, W.J. Streby, G. McKoon and J.M. Keenan, Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 (1975) 196-214.
33. Y. Woern, On the relationship between knowledge of the world and comprehension of texts: assimilation and accommodation effects related to belief structures, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 18 (1977) 130-139.
34. P.D. Pearson, J. Hansen and C. Gordon, The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior 11 (1979) 201-209.
35. W. Fass and G.M. Schumacher, Effects of motivation, subject activity, and readability on the retention of prose materials, Journal of Educational Psychology 70 (1978) 803-808.
36. J. Hartley and L. Betts, Common weakness in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 60 (10) (2009) 2010-2018.
37. J. Hartley and M. Sydes, Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones ? Journal of Research in Reading 20 (2) (1997) 122-136.