Example of a generic abstract (<250 words)
Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writing.
We studied the effects of a scientific-communication lecture series, alone and
combined with feedback on writing, on scientific-communication knowledge
and publication performance. During the spring 2015 semester, 50 science PhD
students in their last year at Northeast Southwest University were randomly
assigned to receive no instruction in scientific writing, attend eight 1-hour lectures
on the topic, or attend these lectures and receive feedback from classmates
and an instructor on successive parts of a scientific paper they drafted.
Members of each group then took a test of scientific-communication knowledge,
and the publication output of each group was monitored for 5 years.
Members of the groups receiving instruction scored between 80 and 98 percent
on the test of scientific-communication knowledge, whereas all but two members
of the control group scored below 65 percent. Although on average the
group receiving lectures and feedback scored higher than the lecture-only
group, the difference was not significant. During the 5-year follow-up, on average
the control-group members submitted 6.1 papers to journals and had 4.1
accepted. The corresponding figures for the lecture group were 6.5 and 4.8, and
those for the lecture-plus-feedback group were 8.3 and 6.7. Higher proportions
of the latter two groups had papers accepted by the first journal to which they
were submitted. These findings suggest that instruction in scientific writing,
especially if it includes practice and feedback, can increase knowledge of scientific
communication and promote publication success.
The part are:
"Scientists must write to succeed, but few receive training in scientific writing." This is a generic text. Recently, a reviewer complained about it, I have used this strategy.
"We studied the effects of a scientific-communication lecture series, alone and
combined with feedback on writing, on scientific-communication knowledge
and publication performance." what was done.
" During the spring 2015 semester, 50 science PhD
students in their last year at Northeast Southwest University were randomly
assigned to receive no instruction in scientific writing, attend eight 1-hour lectures
on the topic, or attend these lectures and receive feedback from classmates
and an instructor on successive parts of a scientific paper they drafted.
Members of each group then took a test of scientific-communication knowledge,
and the publication output of each group was monitored for 5 years.
Members of the groups receiving instruction scored between 80 and 98 percent
on the test of scientific-communication knowledge, whereas all but two members
of the control group scored below 65 percent." methods
"Although on average the
group receiving lectures and feedback scored higher than the lecture-only
group, the difference was not significant. During the 5-year follow-up, on average
the control-group members submitted 6.1 papers to journals and had 4.1
accepted. The corresponding figures for the lecture group were 6.5 and 4.8, and
those for the lecture-plus-feedback group were 8.3 and 6.7. Higher proportions
of the latter two groups had papers accepted by the first journal to which they
were submitted." results
"These findings suggest that instruction in scientific writing,
especially if it includes practice and feedback, can increase knowledge of scientific
communication and promote publication success.
" conclusion
We have a tool using AI that helps you to build an abstract starting from a brainstorm.
Source: Gastel, B., & Day, R. A. (2016). How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, Greenwood; 9ª edição (30 junho 2022)