Summary
Great abstracts aren’t abstract. Even in highly theoretical work, the best scholarly abstracts anchor ideas in concrete details—objective, data, method, sample, setting, key result, and specific implication—so editors and readers can judge relevance in seconds.
How to do it: write to a tight structure (Context → Objective → Method → Result → Conclusion); prefer measurable nouns and action verbs; include numbers, units, and proper names where permitted; minimise or briefly define jargon; avoid nonstandard abbreviations; and replace big, vague claims with one precise, verifiable finding.
What to avoid: hazy generalisations, ungrounded promises, undefined acronyms, and synonym churn. Use a 7-step workflow (draft long → compress → quantify → de-jargon → cut hedges → check journal rules → proof the metadata) and a final checklist to ensure clarity and compliance.
Bottom line: concrete abstracts travel farther—they are easier to index, easier to review, and far more likely to earn clicks, reads, and citations.
📖 Full Length (Click to collapse)
Avoiding the Abstract in Scholarly Abstracts: Concrete Writing That Gets Published and Cited
Paradox: much research is conceptual, yet the best abstracts are concrete. Editors, reviewers, indexers, and search engines don’t reward mystery; they reward clarity, specificity, and verifiability. This guide shows how to replace hazy generalities with crisp, countable detail—without misrepresenting theoretical work.
1) Why “Concrete” Wins (Even for Theory-Heavy Papers)
Abstracts are not teasers; they are decision tools. In 150–300 words, a reader must decide whether to invest time in your paper, assign it to students, cite it in a review, or desk-reject it. Concrete information—objective, population, method, dataset, analytic lens, effect size, uncertainty, and consequence—enables those decisions quickly and fairly. By contrast, abstract claims (“we explore,” “we discuss,” “we provide insights”) force readers to guess.
Concrete: “We analyse 1,284 moderation decisions from a European social platform (Jan–Jun 2024) and show that adding per-post rationales increased user appeal success by 18% (95% CI 12–25%).”
Even in philosophy or theory, you can ground the abstract in objects (texts, authors, corpora), moves (distinguish, formalise, extend, refute), and outcomes (a new definition, a proof, a typology, a normative claim and its consequence).
2) A Robust Abstract Structure (Works Across Disciplines)
Use the following five-part frame, adapting headings to your target journal’s house style and word limit:
- Context/Gap (1–2 sentences): One sentence of field background + the precise gap or problem.
- Objective/Claim (1 sentence): The main research question or thesis in plain terms.
- Method/Materials (1–3 sentences): Design, data, setting, timeframe, analytic approach; include numbers and units.
- Results/Findings (2–3 sentences): The single most important result + key secondary results; quantify and qualify uncertainty.
- Conclusion/Implication (1–2 sentences): What changes because of this work (theory, method, policy, practice), with scope limits.
3) Make Abstractions Earn Their Place
Some concepts are inherently abstract (e.g., modality, justice, consciousness). Keep them, but anchor them to specifics:
- Specify the object: “We examine Rawls’ difference principle in pandemic triage policies (UK, 2020–2022).”
- Name the move: “We formalise the intuition using modal logic S5.”
- State the deliverable: “We propose a three-part test and apply it to two case laws.”
4) Language That Carries Information
| Weak/Abstract | Stronger/Concrete | Why It’s Better |
|---|---|---|
| “We explore,” “we discuss,” “we provide insights” | “We test,” “we estimate,” “we derive,” “we compare,” “we formalise” | Names a method action you actually performed. |
| “Large dataset,” “significant effect” | “n=14,203 comments (2019–2024),” “β=0.37, p<.001, ΔR²=.09” | Quantifies scope and magnitude. |
| “Improved outcomes” | “30-day readmissions decreased from 16.2% to 12.1%” | Specifies metric, baseline, and change. |
| “Various methods” | “Pre-registered RCT; mixed-effects logistic regression; thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke)” | Disambiguates approach for reviewers and indexers. |
5) Jargon, Acronyms, and Abbreviations: Use Sparingly, Define Once
Abstracts have no room for decoding puzzles. When discipline-specific terms are essential, add a five-word gloss the first time they appear. Avoid nonstandard abbreviations; if unavoidable, prefer the full term unless the journal allows “term (abbr.)” on first use.
Ask, “Which costs more words—writing the term or defining the abbreviation?” Choose the shorter total.
6) Numbers Are Your Friends (and Your Filters)
Editors scan for scope and credibility signals. Provide just enough numeracy to ground your claims:
- Design/scale: n, sampling frame, years, sites.
- Key result: effect direction + magnitude + uncertainty (CI or SE) where meaningful.
- Limits: power, generalisability, or domain constraints in one clause.
7) Templates You Can Reuse
Empirical (quantitative) template
Qualitative template
Theory/Conceptual template
8) Before → After: Concrete Repairs
BEFORE (abstract, vague) We discuss sustainability in urban design and offer insights for future practice. AFTER (concrete, specific) We analyse 187 municipal planning documents (2015–2024) from six UK cities and identify three enforceable sustainability levers—material audits, water-use caps, and on-site PV quotas—associated with 9–14% reductions in projected lifecycle CO₂e.
BEFORE Our method improves accuracy significantly on several datasets. AFTER On CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Tiny-ImageNet, our method improves top-1 accuracy by 2.8–4.3 points over a ResNet-50 baseline with the same FLOPs.
9) Word Economy: Say More With Fewer Words
- Kill filler verbs: replace “it is important to note that” → “notably,” or delete.
- Prefer singular, specific nouns: “policy ban” over “policy action.”
- Compress paired redundancies: “each and every” → “each.”
- Use colon logic: “We find:” + result (for journals that allow colons in abstracts).
- Pack evidence: “(n=312; AUROC 0.79)” parenthetical figures save words if allowed.
10) Discipline Notes (Philosophy, Math, Law, Humanities)
Philosophy/Theory: Name the question, the move, and the upshot. Anchor to texts, arguments, or cases. Avoid “we interrogate…” unless you specify what and how.
Mathematics: State object class and result type: “We prove existence and uniqueness for … under L¹ boundary conditions and provide a counterexample for …”.
Law: Specify jurisdiction, time span, sources, and doctrinal contribution: “Analysing 73 CJEU decisions (2016–2024)…”
History/Lit: Name archive/corpus, period, and method: “Close-reading 312 letters (1890–1893) from the X archive…”
11) The 7-Step Abstract Workflow
- Draft long (250–300 words) with the five-part structure. No self-censorship.
- Underline concretes: data, method, scale, timeframe, named objects. Add what’s missing.
- Quantify: insert n, units, effect sizes, or deliverable names.
- De-jargon: swap or gloss field terms; remove nonstandard abbreviations.
- Compress to limit (e.g., 150/200/250 words). Delete hedges, keep one core result.
- Match journal rules: structure, word/character limits, trial registration, keywords, funding statements.
- Proof metadata: title, keywords, author order, affiliations; ensure abstract text mirrors what paper actually delivers.
12) Keywords and Discoverability (Without Gaming)
Choose 5–8 keywords your target readers actually search. Mirror important terms already present in the abstract to reinforce indexing (but avoid clumsy repetition). Pair a specific term with a broader one: “preregistration; clinical trials; outcome switching; research integrity; bias”.
13) Compliance Pitfalls to Avoid
- Undefined abbreviations: instant desk-rejection risk for some journals.
- Claims not supported in the paper: reviewers will flag mismatch.
- Missing trial or preregistration IDs where required (e.g., clinical trials, preregistered experiments).
- Over-hedged language: “might possibly suggest” → “suggests.” Use scope clauses instead (“in two urban schools”).
14) Abstract Checklist (Print This)
- [ ] One-sentence gap and objective in plain language.
- [ ] Method named with design, data, timeframe, and scale (include n or corpus size).
- [ ] Key result stated once with magnitude and, if applicable, uncertainty.
- [ ] Implication clearly scoped (theory/method/policy/practice).
- [ ] Minimal jargon; all necessary terms glossed; no nonstandard acronyms.
- [ ] Numbers and units included where meaningful.
- [ ] Within the word limit; aligns with journal/discipline conventions.
- [ ] Title, keywords, and abstract tell the same concrete story.
15) Closing Thought: Precision Is Persuasion
The abstract is your paper’s storefront: a small space that must invite the right readers inside. Do not decorate it with vague claims and cotton-wool phrasing. Stock it with what matters—objective, method, data, result, and consequence—expressed in language that any careful reader can verify. Even for philosophically rich or methodologically novel work, you can make the intellectual move visible by anchoring it to objects, actions, and outcomes. That concreteness is not just stylistic polish; it is scholarly ethics. It respects the reader’s time and enables fair evaluation.
Need help compressing a dense paper into a lean, concrete abstract? Our editors can draft structured versions (150/200/250 words), tune keywords for discoverability, and align style with your target journal’s author guidelines.
