PHYS 280 :: Physics Illinois :: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Model Abstract for RPv1/2
by Veteran TA Maxx Villotti, as published in IJOIS, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2016)
Title: The Current State of the US Nuclear Arsenal
Abstract: The US nuclear arsenal has reached a critical point in its existence. Approaching the end of their service lives, the weapons that make up the current arsenal must either be upgraded or replaced in order to maintain their effectiveness as deterrents. Nuclear deterrence is still necessary to prevent other states from deploying nuclear weapons, and the arsenal in its current state will not be able to serve this purpose in the near future. To create a long-term, reliable nuclear deterrent, it is recommended that the current weapons in the US nuclear arsenal be replaced with a Reliable Replacement Weapon. Current Life Extension Programs are short-term solutions that do not guarantee the United States will have a modern, reliable nuclear force well into the twenty-first century. [126 words]
See Maxx's RPv2 here.
Evaluating Abstracts
A strong abstract…
- Stands on its own / is self-contained (i.e., limits external references and avoids quotations)
- Limits its scope to the work summarized
- Summarizes the whole of the work, rather than duplicating just the introduction
- Uses text only, unless the journal invites graphical abstracts
- Conforms to journal / conference guidelines
- Stays focused on the big picture (avoids defining terms, providing examples, or going into detail)
- Gives the most important information first and ends with a statement about the research’s value
- Usually follows the structure of the full work
- Uses clear and concise language (and in the same style as the full work and its title)
- As with all contributions in a field, seeks to interest readers in reading the full work
- As with all contributions in a field, meets disciplinary expectations
A weak abstract…
- Is too long (will be rejected by the journal / conference) or too short (doesn’t give readers enough information to interest and inform them about the work)
- Forces readers to search for the purpose and importance of the work
- Doesn’t connect all points, so the logic and structure aren’t clear (i.e., doesn’t “flow”)
- Isn’t easy to read (e.g., unclear phrasing, too much jargon, inadequate copyediting, unnecessary words)
- Focuses on (passively) describing the structure of the work rather than on (actively) explaining the problem addressed, the results found, and their importance
- Doesn’t include key terms from the work (and field), which can result in readers and search engines not tuning in
Developed by Kelly Searsmith (with source reference to University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Writing Center, Abstracts; Elsevier WebShop Blog, Bad vs. good abstract)