I don’t know if it’s the weather, the economy or what, but lately I’ve noticed a strange rise in the number of papers submitted to Minerals & Metallurgical Processing and Transactions that lack abstracts. It’s an easy thing to fix—a quick note to the authors to supply the deficiency usually suffices—but it got me thinking about what abstracts are and why we have them. And what it means when an author hasn’t bothered to include one.
What is an abstract? On its simplest level, it’s the heart and soul of the peer-reviewed paper, in 300 words or less. Since the number of people who read scientific articles for the sheer pleasure of the prose could fit in an old-fashioned hall closet, the abstract, first and foremost, makes a case as to why the paper needs to be read. It’s a little like the blurb on the back of a mystery novel, except that an abstract has to include who killed the vicar and why or it won't be doing its job. Novel blurbs tease. Scientific abstracts deliver the goods upfront. They have to make a bold case for their importance, summarize the evidence supporting that importance, and then leave it to the reader to decide whether she wants or needs more.
What should an abstract look like? There are scores of helpful websites that can answer that question, so I’ll say it simply: the abstract should contain the paper in miniature.
Like the full paper, the abstract should start with the broader context. Many authors, especially of extremely technical papers, dispense with this, possibly on the assumption that their only likely readers will know the context as well as they do. This may be true. But an author is in a unique position to show the reader new connections. Furthermore, not all readers of an abstract are specialists. An abstract without context is like a picture without color.
Some recent samples of context from Minerals & Metallurgical Processing:
- Dolomite [CaMg(Co3)2] is an intolerable impurity in phosphate ores, due to its MgO content. The need to develop a cost-effective method for the removal of dolomite from high-MgO phosphate ores becomes increasingly important as high-grade reserves become depleted.
- Over the last fifty years, the treatment of enargite concentrates has not received much attention, primarily because of the availability of other clean concentrates suitable for processing with existing smelting and/or leaching technologies. As traditional copper ores have become scarcer, copper-arsenic ore deposits have garnered more interest. Economical treatment options for enargite concentrates are needed.
Next, an abstract should touch on the methods. The goal here is not reproducibility. The goal is to provide those aspects critical to an understanding of the results.
- In this study, low-temperature (100-400 C) sulfuric acid baking of an enargite concentrate followed by water leaching has been evaluated.
- Described here are selective flocculation technologies that separate anatase by flocculating anatase or flocculating kaolinite from dispersed slurries.
The results are an essential component of the abstract – if the results are not interesting, the readers will not come – but they should focus on the most important, interesting or unusual results and gloss over the rest. If an abstract were to be pared down to its most elemental part, it would be the results.
- For the Plant 1 phosphate ore, a phosphate concentrate that contained 0.89% MgO was achieved with a bone phosphate of lime (BPL) recovery of 32%. For the Plant 2 phosphate ore, a phosphate concentrate that contained 1.38% MgO was achieved, with a BPL recovery of 74.7%.
- The results indicate the thermal transformation of enargite to copper sulfate happens during sulfuric acid baking, with most of arsenic being released from the concentrate into the gas phase when baking at 400 C. The condition for maximum copper extraction (~100%) from the concentrate was found to be 400 C, a sulfuric acid concentration of 0.5 m L/g and two hours baking time.
Finally, the abstract should conclude with some statement of the significance or importance of the results. As with the contextual remarks, many authors dispense with this, but I argue that they do so at the peril of diminishing the power of their paper. To avoid a conclusion suggests a disinclination to think about or analyze the results, which in turn suggests thinness or shallowness of research.
- These data suggest that the DustTrak may produce real-time data useful in providing estimates for airborne concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper and lead in copper smelter particulates.
- It is expected that, with a better understanding of the surface properties of kaolinite, further improvements in flotation separations and dewatering may be achieved.
In shaping the conclusion, return to the beginning: the abstract is the most important part of the scientific paper, and crafting one will help shape both your paper and, potentially, your research. For this is the essence of a well-written abstract, one written with consideration and care, with deliberation for what each section is doing, how it is useful to reader and how to maximize that usefulness. Once these processes are engaged for the abstract, they can be engaged for the paper and, ultimately, for the research itself.
Emily Wortman-Wunder is the managing editor of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration’s premier peer-reviewed journal, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing. Her column appears on the SME community page every other Friday.