Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two computer-based style programs were used to analyse the Abstracts, Introductions and Discussions of 80 educational psychology journal articles. Measures were made of the overall readability of the texts as well as of sentence lengths, difficult and unique words, articles, prepositions and pronouns. The results showed that the Abstracts scored worst on most of these measures of readability, the Introductions came next, and the Discussions did best of all. However, although the mean scores between the sections differed, the authors wrote in stylistically consistent ways across the sections. Thus readability was variable across the sections but consistent within the authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Hartley, Clarifying the abstracts of systematic reviews. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88 (4) (2000) 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. W. Lancaster, Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. The Library Association, London, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. U. K. Ahmad, Research article introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an emerging research community. In: A. Dusak (Ed.) Cognitive Styles in Academic Discourse, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1997, pp. 273–303.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. M. Swales, H. Najjar, The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4 (1987) 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. E. Maxwell, D. A. Cole, Tips for writing (and reading) methodological articles. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2) (1995) 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. B. L. Dubois, Scientific Discourse: An Analysis of Biomedical Journal Articles. Discussion Sections. (Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol XLVI) Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Hopkins, T. Dudley-Evans, A genre-based investigation of discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7 (1988) 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. C. Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Berkenkotter, T. Huckin, Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. M. Swales, C. B. Feak, Academic Writing for Graduate Students: A Course for Non-native Speakers of English. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. M. Swales, C. B Feak, English in Today.s Research World: A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Hartley, M. Trueman, A. J. Meadows, Readability and prestige in scientific journals. Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. C. Roberts, R. H. Fletcher, S. W. Fletcher, Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272 (2) (1994) 119–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. G. B. Dronberger, G. T. Kowitz, Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26 (2) (1975) 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Hartley, Three ways to improve the clarity of abstracts, British Journal of Educational Psychology. 64 (1994) 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Hartley, Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: the case for structure. Science Communication, 24 (4) (2003) 366–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. J. Hartley, M. Benjamin, An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (3) (1998) 443–456.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. A. King, A comparison of the readability of abstracts with their source documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (2) (1976) 118–121.

    Google Scholar 

  20. L. Leydesdorff, In search of epistemic networks. Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 76–110.

    Google Scholar 

  21. L. Leydesdorff, The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. DSWO Press, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, R. J. Booth, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC. Erlbaum, Mahwah N.J., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Flesch, A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (1948) 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. J. Hartley, J. W. Pennebaker, C. Fox, Using new technology to assess the academic writing styles of male and female pairs and individuals. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33 (2003) (in press).

  25. A. Davison, G. M. Green, Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. A. Loxterman, I. L. Beck, M. McKeown, The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students. comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1994) 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J. Hartley, From structured abstracts to structured articles: A modest proposal. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29 (3) (1999) 121–138.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. M. Lea, B. Street, Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: An academic literacies approach. In: M. LEA, B. STEIRER (Eds), Student Writing in Higher Education. Open University Press, Buckingham, 2000, pp. 32–46.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Hartley, Designing Instructional Text (3rd ed.) Kogan Page, London, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. Tenopir, P. Jacso, Quality of abstracts. Online, 17 (3) (1993) 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Sydes, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. S. L. Mailloux, M. E. Johnson, D. G. Fisher, T. J. Pettibone, How reliable is computerized assessment of readability? Computers in Nursing, 13 (5) (1995) 221–225.

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Glover, G. Hirst, Detecting stylistic inconsistencies in collaborative writing. In: M. SHARPLES, T. VAN DER GEEST (Eds), The New Writing Environment: Writers at Work in a World of Technology, Springer-Verlag, London, 1996, pp.147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. Harrison, P. Bakker, Two new readability predictors for the professional writer: Pilot trials. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (2) (1998) 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. M. A. K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edit.). Arnold, London, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  36. D. Biber, Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  37. E. Vidal-Abarca, H. Reyes, R. Gilabert, J. Calpe, E. Soria, A. C. Graesser, ETAT: Expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34 (1) (2002) 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. A. Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D. Chandler, The Act of Writing. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  40. M. Sharples, How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. Routledge, London, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Hartley, A. Branthwaite, The psychologist as wordsmith: A questionnaire study of the writing strategies of productive British Psychologists. Higher Education, 18 (1989) 423–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. J. W. Pennebaker, L. A. King, Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (6) (1999) 1296–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. J. Hartley, M. J. A. Howe, W. J. McKeachie, Writing through time: Longitudinal studies of the effects of new technology on writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (2) (2001) 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. J. Hartley, E. Sotto, J. W. Pennebaker, Speaking versus typing: A case-study on the effects of using voice-recognition software on academic correspondence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1) (2003) 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. J. Hartley, Single authors are not alone: Colleagues sometimes help. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 34 (2) (2003) 108–113.

    Google Scholar 

  46. B. W. Speck, T. R. Johnson, C. P. Dice, L. B. Heaton, Collaborative Writing: An Annotated Bibliography. Greenwood Press, Westport Connecticut, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Keele, UK

    James Hartley & Claire Fox

  2. University of Texas, Austin, TX (, USA

    James W. Pennebaker

Authors
  1. James Hartley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James W. Pennebaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claire Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Hartley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J.W. & Fox, C. Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?. Scientometrics 57, 389–398 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025008802657

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025008802657

Keywords

Search

Navigation