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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Hartley, Clarifying the abstracts of systematic reviews. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88 (4) (2000) 332–337.
F. W. Lancaster, Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. The Library Association, London, 1991.
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.
J. M. Swales, H. Najjar, The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4 (1987) 175–192.
S. E. Maxwell, D. A. Cole, Tips for writing (and reading) methodological articles. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2) (1995) 193–198.
B. L. Dubois, Scientific Discourse: An Analysis of Biomedical Journal Articles. Discussion Sections. (Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol XLVI) Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1995.
A. Hopkins, T. Dudley-Evans, A genre-based investigation of discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7 (1988) 113–121.
C. Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989.
C. Berkenkotter, T. Huckin, Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1995.
J. M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
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.
J. M. Swales, C. B Feak, English in Today.s Research World: A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000.
J. Hartley, M. Trueman, A. J. Meadows, Readability and prestige in scientific journals. Journal of Information Science, 14 (1988) 69–75.
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.
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.
J. Hartley, Three ways to improve the clarity of abstracts, British Journal of Educational Psychology. 64 (1994) 333–343.
J. Hartley, Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: the case for structure. Science Communication, 24 (4) (2003) 366–379.
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.
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.
L. Leydesdorff, In search of epistemic networks. Social Studies of Science, 21 (1991) 76–110.
L. Leydesdorff, The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. DSWO Press, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 1995.
J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, R. J. Booth, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC. Erlbaum, Mahwah N.J., 2001.
R. Flesch, A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (1948) 221–223.
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).
A. Davison, G. M. Green, Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1988.
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.
J. Hartley, From structured abstracts to structured articles: A modest proposal. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29 (3) (1999) 121–138.
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.
J. Hartley, Designing Instructional Text (3rd ed.) Kogan Page, London, 1994.
C. Tenopir, P. Jacso, Quality of abstracts. Online, 17 (3) (1993) 44–55.
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.
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.
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.
S. Harrison, P. Bakker, Two new readability predictors for the professional writer: Pilot trials. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (2) (1998) 121–138.
M. A. K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edit.). Arnold, London, 1994.
D. Biber, Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.
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.
R. A. Day, How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
D. Chandler, The Act of Writing. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 1995.
M. Sharples, How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. Routledge, London, 1999.
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.
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.
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.
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.
J. Hartley, Single authors are not alone: Colleagues sometimes help. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 34 (2) (2003) 108–113.
B. W. Speck, T. R. Johnson, C. P. Dice, L. B. Heaton, Collaborative Writing: An Annotated Bibliography. Greenwood Press, Westport Connecticut, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025008802657