Panush R S, Delafuente J C, Connelly C S, Edwards N L, Greer J M, Longley S, Bennett F
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
J Rheumatol. 1989 Feb;16(2):145-7.
We analyzed submissions to a recent scientific program to determine (1) how abstracts were reviewed and (2) what constituted a successful abstract. We found that (1) reviewers' gradings varied from 2-29%, in some instances differing significantly; (2) many (<74%) abstracts had inadequacies in form, title, introduction, aims, methods, results, and conclusions(collectively termed "content") or lacked numerical or statistical data; (3) accepted abstracts had fewer inadequacies and better "content"; and (4) abstract grades correlated closely with "content". The quality of preparation and of individual features of abstracts led to favorable review. This information is of potential value to scientists preparing and reviewing abstracts and planning programs.
我们分析了近期一个科学项目的投稿，以确定：（1）摘要如何被评审；（2）怎样的摘要才是成功的摘要。我们发现：（1）评审者的评分从2%到29%不等，在某些情况下差异显著；（2）许多（<74%）摘要在形式、标题、引言、目的、方法、结果和结论（统称为“内容”）方面存在不足，或者缺乏数值或统计数据；（3）被接受的摘要不足之处较少，“内容”更好；（4）摘要评分与“内容”密切相关。摘要的准备质量和各个特征会带来良好的评审结果。这些信息对于撰写和评审摘要以及规划项目的科学家具有潜在价值。
