Conclusion
The quality of original research, presented in abstract form, is judged by how well the scholar writes the abstract—regardless of how much he or she has really worked, or really knows. It may not be possible, within the limits of honesty, to make research work appear better that it really is. But it is certainly possible, even commonplace, to have work appear worse than it is. No scientist should willingly take on that liability.
Keywords
General Internal Medicine Scientific Meeting Silent Reader Bare Bone Common Parlance
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of Clinical Articles. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:598–604.Google Scholar
- 2.Short EM. The role of abstracts and meeting presentations in the communication of scientific information. Clin Res 1982; 30:1–8.Google Scholar
- 3.Goldman L, Loscalzo A. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med 1980; 303:255–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Plaut SM. Preparation of abstracts, slides, and presentations for scientific meetings. Clin Res 1982; 30:18–24.Google Scholar
- 5.Huth EJ. How to write and publish papers in the medical sciences. Philadelphia, ISI Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- 6.Rothman KJ. A show of confidence. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:1362–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
© Society of General Internal Medicine 1988