If you want your readers to enjoy your Abstract, tell them a good story. Capture their attention with the first sentence and they’re likely to continue reading – a significant accomplishment since scientists have so much to read and so little time to read everything.
To prove the validity of my claim, I checked out the first sentences of nine Abstracts listed below in the 7 September 2006 volume of Nature.
1. The worldwide spread of H5N1 avian influenza has raised concerns that this virus might acquire the ability to pass readily among humans and cause a pandemic. P. 45
2. Explosive volcanic eruptions are driven by exsolution of H2O-rich vapour from silicic magma. P. 76
3. Categorization is a process by which the brain assigns meaning to sensory stimuli. P. 85
4. Sex and recombination are widespread, but explaining these phenomena has been one of the most difficult problems in evolutionary biology. P. 89
5. Benthic foraminifera are unicellular eukaryotes found abundantly in many types of marine sediments. Many species survive and possibly reproduce in anoxic habitats, but sustainable anaerobic metabolism has not been previously described. P.93
6. The ability of organs such as the liver or the lymphoid system to maintain their original size or regain it after injury is well documented. However little is known about how these organs sense that equilibrium is breached, and how they cease changing when equilibrium is reached. P. 97
7. Male infertility is a long-standing enigma of significant medical concern. P. 101
8. Polarized cellular distribution of the phytohormone auxin and its carriers is essential for normal plant growth and development. P. 106
9. RNA degradation is a determining factor in the control of gene expression. P.110
Example #1 piques my interest because I can readily identify the subject “worldwide spread of H5N1 avian influenza” and the problem “this virus might acquire the ability to pass readily among humans”. Interestingly, this strong sentence makes a specific statement about the problem and does not depend on the weak linking verb “to be”. (Not surprisingly perhaps, the rest of this Abstract is easy and enjoyable to read.)
Introductory sentences 2,4,5,8 all have the verb “to be” construction in the form of sentence subject + ”are driven”, “are widespread”, “ “are found”, “is essential”.
My point here is that this pattern, because it’s overused, can be boring. The information in these sentences tends to be general in nature and not very exciting for the reader.
Sentences 3,7,9 follows the “is a …” structure as in “categorization is a process”, “male infertility is a long-standing enigma”, “ RNA degradation is a determining factor”. Again the information here tends to be broad and seems to be an unnecessarily slow wind up to the real story the writers want to tell.
Based on this brief analysis, I’d like to suggest the following guidelines:
By identifying the specific subject (“the worldwide spread of H5N1 influenza”) and the specific problem (“this virus might acquire the ability to pass readily among humans”) and avoiding the overused “is a” and “subject + are” constructions, you’re more likely to ensure that the first sentence of the Abstract is content rich, that it carries important information. And if you follow these principles, you’re also more likely to capture your readers’ attention as well as the excitement behind your research.
Hi Linda, thanks for the interesting post. You make it sound so simple.
My friend, a fairly senior scientist, believes the more confusing one constructs his/her sentences, the more difficult it is for reviewers to fully understand the work, and therefore criticize the manuscript. Hope this is not a general belief among other scientists!
Ha, ha, Jeff, that’s funny!
No, wait, it’s so sad.
Learning good writing should be a compulsory subject during (at least) PhD studies. Especially because bad habits tend to be inherited from advisors to students, if the latter don’t get proper training (which is the rule, at least in Spain). Of course, it’s even worse when English is not your first language…
Please, Linda, keep writing posts. You have readers (this is one), don’t be discouraged if comments aren’t flowing as they should.
Cheers!
Hi Jeff and Cesar,
I think I’d rather believe that when scientists write in a confusing style it’s because they haven’t had formal training in clear writing – and not because they hope to trip up the reviewer. Probably what’s also going on is that researchers simply don’t spend enough time revising their work – possibly because they don’t know how. As well, it seems to me that a confused paper often reflects the researchers own confusion about her/his work.
Whatever the forces that drive such a writing style (or lack of style), the end result is the same – a lost and bewildered reader!
Hi Linda, I absolutely agree with you that a confused paper reflects the researcher’s own confusion about his/her work (as is certainly the case with the senior scientist I know!). Learning to write clearly is not emphasized enough during one’s PhD training compared to learning to design or perform experiments. The result is often a technically proficient scientist who can’t write an effective proposal or a manuscript.
Thanks for the informative blog, I look forward to your next deconstruction!
Hi Linda — I just found this blog this week, which is a good thing because I’m in the process of writing my first paper. My formal training focused on grant formatting but had lacked any emphasis for style, clarity, or general readability. I’ll be looking forward to more of your insightful posts as my guide!
Hi Lesly Anne,
Thanks for your comments. You’re right that researchers seldom pay attention to “style” when they write a paper. Too often writers depend on the “cut-and-paste” method to help them construct their texts. They copy overused terms and phrases found in published articles to express their ideas rather than precisely and carefully explaining the significance of their research.
George Orwell found “ready-made phrases” particularly objectionable because as he said in “Politics and the English Language”, “they will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you … and at need will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning – even from yourself.”
So it’s good that you’re aware of style as you start your writing career. There are many techniques that you can apply to your texts to make them readable, clear, precise, and vigorous. I’ll do my best to help you as you go along.
Linda
While I agree with the general point, Linda’s particular case does not really convince me. I have doubts that there is anything inherent about the combinations “is+adjective” and “is+noun” that makes it sound boring or too general. Imagine you start your paper with a controversial claim, which you give evidence for. “We argue that X is Y” (while it is widely believed that X is Z. You can use the “is a” construction in an exciting way, too. So the more general point is not to start abstracts/papers with uninteresting self-evident claims. Like the ones that Linda shows, e.g. “Male infertility is a long-standing enigma of significant medical concern.”
You’re right Radek that writers can use “be” verbs effectively, but often sentences with “be” as a weak linking verb lack vigor and precision. Also, I wanted to make the point that first sentences tend to be formulaic and hence boring. In the Nature issue that I used as an example, the best abstract had an effective – and “be” verb-free opening sentence – not a mere coincidence, I think.