Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research letter

How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors

Marcus Müllner, Fabian Waechter, Sara Schroter and Barbara Squire
CMAJ January 18, 2005 172 (2) 203-205; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040559
Marcus Müllner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabian Waechter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Schroter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Squire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2005 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Abstract

SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC AND GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS publish full-length articles on their Web sites and abridged versions in their print journals. We surveyed a stratified random sample of BMJ readers and authors to elicit their preferred format for the abridged print version. Each participant received a research paper abridged in 3 different formats: conventional abridged version, journalistic version and enhanced-abstract version. Overall, 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%–48%) of the respondents said they liked the conventional version most, 31% (95% CI 28%–34%) preferred the journalistic version and 25% (95% CI 22%–27%) preferred the enhanced-abstract version. Twenty-eight percent (95% CI 25%–32%) indicated that use of the journalistic format for abridged articles would very likely stop them from submitting papers to BMJ, and 13% (95% CI 11%–16%) said the use of the enhanced-abstract version would stop them from submitting to BMJ. Publishers of general medical journals who publish shortened articles should consider that authors and readers prefer a more conventional style of abridged papers.

To allow critical appraisal of a scientific paper, a certain amount of space is needed to describe the methods and results. Editorial space is scarce, however, and editors struggle to meet the expectations of both authors and readers. Moreover, it seems that many readers read only parts of scientific papers. Now that electronic publishing is available, several scientific and general medical journals have adopted strategies to publish detailed articles on their Web sites, often in advance of the print journal publication, with a more concise presentation appearing in the print journal.

Since 2000 most papers in BMJ have been published in their full-length form on the journal's Web site and in an abridged form in the print journal.1 Currently the abridgement is simply a condensed version of the full-length paper (about 30%–50% shorter). The conventional structure of scientific papers is maintained, and the original wording is hardly altered.

There are many alternative forms of presenting abridged scientific information. “Serious” magazines such as The Economist use a journalistic approach, presenting the salient information at the beginning and more technical details later in the text. Medical journals such as Evidence-Based Medicine use enhanced abstracts, in which details of the results are presented (including a table or figure), and the main text — if there is any — provides context and interpretation.

We performed a survey to find which format of short version — the conventional approach, a journalistic version or a version with an enhanced abstract — of scientific articles is preferred by readers and authors. We randomly sampled 2 papers each of 6 study designs (randomized controlled trial, systematic review, meta-analysis, cohort study, case–control study and qualitative study) published in conventional abridged form2,3 in BMJ between January 2000 and June 2002. The conventional format is a condensed version of the full-length paper and contains 1300–1500 words; the structure of the paper (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) is retained.3 For each paper we prepared 2 additional abridged formats: a journalistic version4 and an enhanced-abstract version (see the online appendix at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/2/203/DC1 for a sample of 3 abridgements of 1 paper). The journalistic version was based on a style typically used by “serious” newspapers, with the following subheadings: “Why we carried out this study,” “The background,” “What were the main findings?,” “How did we perform the study?” and “Why are these results important?” This format had no abstract, the paper starting instead with the main findings and conclusions in the first paragraph, followed by less salient details. The enhanced-abstract version provided detailed results in the abstract (including a table or figure), and the main body of the text was explanatory, focusing on the context and discussion.

We drew a stratified random sample from 1728 UK and non-UK readers and 360 corresponding authors of a research paper published in BMJ between January 2000 and June 2002. Each participant received all 3 abridged versions of 1 of 12 research papers. The study design of the paper and the order of versions were allocated randomly to each participant.

We asked the respondents to rank the 3 versions in order of preference and to indicate how strongly they felt about their preference. We also asked participants whether use of either of the journalistic or enhanced-abstract formats instead of the conventional format would prevent them from submitting papers to BMJ in the future. We offered a book voucher as an incentive and sent 2 reminders to nonrespondents.4

Of the sample of 2088 respondents, 55 were excluded (43 had incorrect mailing addresses, and 12, being both readers and authors, were selected more than once because of overlap in the databases). Of the 2033 eligible participants, 1002 (49%) responded. The response rate was higher for authors (220/321 [68%]) than readers (782/1712 [46%]). Item nonresponse was minimal.

A total of 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42%–48%) of the respondents (446/997) (42% of readers and 56% of authors) said that they liked the conventional abridged version most (Fig. 1). The next most preferred format was the journalistic version (31% [95% CI 28%–34%] [306/997]), followed by the enhanced-abstract version (25% [95% CI 22%–27%] [245/997]). When we stratified for location (UK v. non-UK) and audience (reader v. author), the conventional abridged version remained the preferred version, except among UK readers, who gave the 3 versions similar rankings (Fig. 1).

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Fig. 1: Type of short version of scientific article most preferred by BMJ authors and readers, stratified for audience (authors v. readers) and geographic location (UK v. non-UK). Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval.

Most respondents (87% [95% CI 85%–89%] [863/994]) liked their first choice “a lot.” Thirteen percent (95% CI 11%–15%) (127/994) liked their first choice only “a little,” and none said they “don't like it at all.” Four respondents (0.4%) did not have an opinion.

A total of 268 respondents said they were unlikely to submit a paper to BMJ in the future. Of the remaining 734 respondents, 28% (95% CI 25%–32%) indicated that use of the journalistic format for abridgement would very likely stop them from submitting papers to BMJ, and 13% (95% CI 11%–16%) said that use of the enhanced-abstract format as abridgement would.

Our findings that a conventional abridged version was preferred by BMJ authors and readers and that many respondents indicated that use of journalistic and enhanced-abstract formats would prevent them from submitting future papers to the journal are important signals for editors. They indicate that contributors' opinions should be considered when planning major changes for the presentational style of scientific papers.

The main limitation of our study is the low response rate for readers (46%), despite strategies to optimize response rates.4 However, we believe that the information we received from readers is still useful, since we have no reason to believe that any particular selection mechanism is active other than lack of interest in the presentation of research papers.

Publishers of scientific and general medical journals who use or are considering using abridgements of scientific articles should bear in mind that a conventional format of abridged papers may be the choice most likely to satisfy both readers and authors.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Contributors: All authors contributed substantially to study conception and design and to data interpretation. Fabian Waechter and Sara Schroter collected the data. Marcus Müllner performed the data analysis and wrote the first draft. All authors gave final approval of the submitted version to be published.

    Competing interests: Marcus Müllner works as an associate editor with BMJ and was involved in the conception, birth and further development of the electronic-long, paper-short model. At the time the research was conducted, Fabian Waechter was employed by the BMJ to conduct this and other research projects related to medical publishing. Sara Schroter is employed by the BMJ to conduct research into editorial processes such as peer review.

    Correspondence to: Dr. Marcus Müllner, Univ. Klinik für Notfallmedizin, Allgemeines Krankenhaus Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20 / 6D, A-1090, Austria; fax +41 1 40400 2512; marcus.muellnermeduniwien.ac.at

References

  1. 1.↵
    Delamothe T, Müllner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers [editorial]. BMJ 1999;318:888-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Müllner M, Groves T. Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible [editorial]. BMJ 2002;325:456.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Müllner M. Publishing short articles in the print journal and full articles on the Web? The BMJ is doing it with most research papers. Eur J Sci Edit 2003; 29: 6-9.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002; 324: 1183.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 172 (2)
CMAJ
Vol. 172, Issue 2
18 Jan 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors
Marcus Müllner, Fabian Waechter, Sara Schroter, Barbara Squire
CMAJ Jan 2005, 172 (2) 203-205; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040559

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors
Marcus Müllner, Fabian Waechter, Sara Schroter, Barbara Squire
CMAJ Jan 2005, 172 (2) 203-205; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040559
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Innovations in publishing BMJ research
  • The Use of the World Wide Web by Medical Journals in 2003 and 2005: An Observational Study
  • Minerva
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Neonatal exposure to active pulmonary tuberculosis in a health care professional
  • Predictive value of a self-reported history of varicella infection in determining immunity in adults
Show more Research Letter

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Journalology & publication ethics
    • Health technology

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire