>>>>>
The purpose of an abstract is to quickly and clearly provide an overview of your work. Begin with and focus on the most important information. Lead with the hypothesis, question or problem that you have been researching. Details that are not of primary importance should be explained in the rest of the paper, not the abstract.
The tone of an abstract for a scientific paper should be objective and relatively impersonal. The language should be “lean and literal”, without “superfluous details, colloquialisms, and idioms”(Mohammed and Radix, 2020) (these descriptions were referring to the abstracts of engineering papers but the same principles apply for papers in other hard or applied sciences.) There is no need to define technical terms; anyone interested in their definitions should look for them in the paper itself. As regards format, the abstract should be written as one single paragraph. It is typically between 200 and 300 words long, but ask your tutor for specific guidelines.
Structure your abstract as follows: background, aim(s), method, results and conclusion. Here is an example of an abstract with this basic and common structure (the bold numbers in square brackets mark the beginnings of the sections, which are discussed subsequently).
[1] Regarding the background information, at sentence level, the subjects will be things that predate the project (in the example above the subjects are data, ideas and the field of data visualization). Use verbs in the present tense, reflecting the current significance of your areas of study. There is no need to explain basic concepts as readers will already have knowledge of the field.
[2] Moving on to the aim(s) of your project, the subjects of your sentences should belong directly to your project. A typical sentence in this part of the abstract might begin “The main objective of this project was to [...]”. Now that you are referring to your project, use the past simple verb tense (because the text will be read once the project is finished).
[3] As regards the methods, specifying who conducted the experiments is superfluous; therefore, it is natural to use the passive voice (a working application was devised).
[4] In the abstract shown above, we might think that the results are lacking in detail, but this is not necessarily true. The abstract lists the ways in which the application was a success (rapidly hiding points of a specific parameter for better viewing, loading multiple CSV or TXT files, and interacting with data in immersive ways); and for more details, readers should explore the paper itself.
[5] Although some authors are justified in using the first person in their conclusions, maintaining an impersonal tone using the type of construction seen here (It can be concluded that [...]) is a safe strategy.
Here is another abstract, annotated below in similar fashion but written in a different style.
[1] In this case, the background information does not follow our advice to use the present tense. It could have been written as follows: A recent study by Dr. Gwen Barnes of the University of Idaho suggests that one could distinguish [...]. However, written as it is, in the past, it does not create a bad impression.
[2] The single aim of this study has been expressed neatly and efficiently. It breaks with the trend of remaining impersonal by using the first person: Our main objective and in hopes we may find [...]. Although this is slightly unusual for a paper in this field (perhaps because the author was an undergraduate, and therefore relatively inexperienced), there is nothing wrong with it. If you feel more comfortable expressing yourself in the first person in your abstract, do so.
[3] In this description of the methods, the abbreviation of Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers is probably unnecessary.
[4] The main thing to note about the results is the honest recognition of an unexpected and unwanted result. This is good, as progress in science involves discovering the causes of mistaken predictions.
[5] It might have been interesting to include specific details of the conclusions, but this may have been impossible due to the word limit.
Finally, here is one more abstract, annotated in the same way but again quite different in style.
[1] The background is relatively lengthy, but this is perhaps necessary due to the specific and complex nature of the object of study. The use of abbreviated terms is appropriate as they are terms that require repetition within the abstract.
[2] The purpose of the study is defined clearly and without unnecessary complexity. Its tone is impersonal: This paper proposes [...].
[3] As is standard, the methods are written using the passive voice. Based on the length of this part, we can presume that the authors consider the methods to be the area that will be of most interest to fellow researchers. The level of detail shown here contrasts greatly with the results.
[4] For this final part, the authors seem to have deemed it sufficient to inform readers of nothing more than the fact that the approach worked, as a simulation.
The tone of an abstract for a scientific paper should be objective and relatively impersonal. The language should be “lean and literal”, without “superfluous details, colloquialisms, and idioms”(Mohammed and Radix, 2020) (these descriptions were referring to the abstracts of engineering papers but the same principles apply for papers in other hard or applied sciences.) There is no need to define technical terms; anyone interested in their definitions should look for them in the paper itself. As regards format, the abstract should be written as one single paragraph. It is typically between 200 and 300 words long, but ask your tutor for specific guidelines.
Structure your abstract as follows: background, aim(s), method, results and conclusion. Here is an example of an abstract with this basic and common structure (the bold numbers in square brackets mark the beginnings of the sections, which are discussed subsequently).
 | Developing an Immersive 3D Data Visualization Engine [1] As both data and ideas become increasingly complex, they become more difficult to represent. As a result, the field of data visualization is ever evolving. [2] The scope of this project was to devise a new multi-user immersive world using the popular Unity 3D Game Engine that can be used to visualize data in a simple, intuitive, manner given a data set with a number of parameters. [3] By learning C#, JavaScript, and the Unity Scripting Language, a working application was devised. Rather than merely plotting points, the application creates objects of various shapes, colors, sizes, and also contains a parameter for more information on the point (an interactive link which creates a web browser within the 3D world). [4] Evolving from a simple plotter to a complex application that features such abilities as rapidly hiding points of a specific parameter for better viewing, loading multiple CSV or TXT files, and interacting with data in immersive ways, the application has been a success. [5] It can be concluded that the Unity Engine is worthwhile in the development of data visualization software and is capable of handling hundreds of thousands of data points with ease. Further work can be done to improve the current application and more efficient programming methods could be implemented should they be found necessary. Source: Southern California Conferences for Undergraduate Research |
[1] Regarding the background information, at sentence level, the subjects will be things that predate the project (in the example above the subjects are data, ideas and the field of data visualization). Use verbs in the present tense, reflecting the current significance of your areas of study. There is no need to explain basic concepts as readers will already have knowledge of the field.
[2] Moving on to the aim(s) of your project, the subjects of your sentences should belong directly to your project. A typical sentence in this part of the abstract might begin “The main objective of this project was to [...]”. Now that you are referring to your project, use the past simple verb tense (because the text will be read once the project is finished).
[3] As regards the methods, specifying who conducted the experiments is superfluous; therefore, it is natural to use the passive voice (a working application was devised).
[4] In the abstract shown above, we might think that the results are lacking in detail, but this is not necessarily true. The abstract lists the ways in which the application was a success (rapidly hiding points of a specific parameter for better viewing, loading multiple CSV or TXT files, and interacting with data in immersive ways); and for more details, readers should explore the paper itself.
[5] Although some authors are justified in using the first person in their conclusions, maintaining an impersonal tone using the type of construction seen here (It can be concluded that [...]) is a safe strategy.
Here is another abstract, annotated below in similar fashion but written in a different style.
| Distinguishing Primary and Secondary Craters using Uplifted Crater Ejectae [1] Five years ago, Dr. Gwen Barnes of the University of Idaho partook in a study that suggested that one could distinguish between a primary crater (a crater formed on a terrestrial surface by a foreign projectile) and a secondary crater (a crater formed by ejected target rock from said primary crater) based solely upon the uplifted crater ejecta. [2] Our main objective was to focus on one specific Lunar Mare, Mare Serenitatis, in hopes that we may more clearly confirm this relation when there is consistency in the target rock. [3] In order to gather a representative data set, we classified and measured over 300 craters using NASA’s LROC and a USGS program known as ISIS, or Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers. [4] Ultimately, narrowing our research to one Mare ended up being detrimental to the study and our results did not match that which was found five years ago. [5] However, we were able to explore a handful of reasons as to why that could be and how we might fix this in future research. Source: Southern California Conferences for Undergraduate Research |
[1] In this case, the background information does not follow our advice to use the present tense. It could have been written as follows: A recent study by Dr. Gwen Barnes of the University of Idaho suggests that one could distinguish [...]. However, written as it is, in the past, it does not create a bad impression.
[2] The single aim of this study has been expressed neatly and efficiently. It breaks with the trend of remaining impersonal by using the first person: Our main objective and in hopes we may find [...]. Although this is slightly unusual for a paper in this field (perhaps because the author was an undergraduate, and therefore relatively inexperienced), there is nothing wrong with it. If you feel more comfortable expressing yourself in the first person in your abstract, do so.
[3] In this description of the methods, the abbreviation of Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers is probably unnecessary.
[4] The main thing to note about the results is the honest recognition of an unexpected and unwanted result. This is good, as progress in science involves discovering the causes of mistaken predictions.
[5] It might have been interesting to include specific details of the conclusions, but this may have been impossible due to the word limit.
Finally, here is one more abstract, annotated in the same way but again quite different in style.
| Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Controller for SOC Management of Multi-Electrical Energy Storage System [1] The ongoing reduction of the total rotational inertia in modern power systems brings about faster frequency dynamics that must be limited to maintain a secure and economical operation. Electrical energy storage systems (EESSs) have become increasingly attractive to provide fast frequency response services due to their response times. However, proper management of their finite energy reserves is required to ensure timely and secure operation. [2] This paper proposes a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) based controller to manage the state of charge (SOC) of a Multi-EESS (M-EESS), providing frequency response services to the power grid. [3] The proposed DRL agent is trained using an actor–critic method called Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (DDPG) that allows for continuous action and smoother SOC control of the M-EESS. Deep neural networks (DNNs) are used to represent the actor and critic policies. The proposed strategy comprises granting the agent a constant reward for each time step that the SOC is within a specific band of its target value combined with a substantial penalty if the SOC reaches its minimum or maximum allowable values. The proposed controller is compared to benchmark DRL methods and other control techniques, i.e., Fuzzy Logic and a traditional PID control. [4] Simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Source: F. Sanchez Gorostiza and F. M. Gonzalez-Longatt, “Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Controller for SOC Management of Multi-Electrical Energy Storage System”, in IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 5039-5050, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TSG.2020.2996274 |
[1] The background is relatively lengthy, but this is perhaps necessary due to the specific and complex nature of the object of study. The use of abbreviated terms is appropriate as they are terms that require repetition within the abstract.
[2] The purpose of the study is defined clearly and without unnecessary complexity. Its tone is impersonal: This paper proposes [...].
[3] As is standard, the methods are written using the passive voice. Based on the length of this part, we can presume that the authors consider the methods to be the area that will be of most interest to fellow researchers. The level of detail shown here contrasts greatly with the results.
[4] For this final part, the authors seem to have deemed it sufficient to inform readers of nothing more than the fact that the approach worked, as a simulation.
Recommended citation:
«Abstract» [en línia]. A: Llibre d’estil de la Universitat de Barcelona. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Serveis Lingüístics. <https://www.ub.edu/llibre-estil/criteri.php?id=3367> [consulta: 3 desembre 2024].