Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: a personal reflection

s for the journal Biological Abstracts. The maximum number of words is thus estimated from this, and the object is to express intelligibly within these limits as much information as possible. The composition is often more difficult than that of the article itself, because it involves selection of information according to its importance from the reader’s point of view, and the selection and re-selection of words and phrases without descending to an abbreviated or ‘‘telegraphic’’ mode of expression. In many articles a lower maximum can be set, but the same technique can be applied. In an audiotaped conversation with William Silverman (Chalmers, 2015, personal communication), Bradford Hill relates this discussion with Hugh Clegg, then editor of the BMJ: I want to have a very long abstract to my paper . . .Many people will read nothing but that summary. They’re not going to look at all those statistics in the long article. A precis of everything of importance that’s in the paper has got to be in that summary. And you needn’t complain because I’ve been through the text of the paper. I’ve taken out every adjective and every adverb which is unnecessary. It’s not very difficult; [but] it is difficult. And I’ve put in short words where I had long ones. And he agreed. It is worth noting that both Mainland and Bradford Hill were excellent research methodologists and distinguished teachers (I learned a lot from the writings of both of them during my research training), but their purpose in these statements has more to do with digestion than highlighting features of studies that allow appraisal of scientific merit.