Contents and structure of abstracts Comparison of Czech, English and Slovenian scientific journals in the area of information and materials sciences
Abstract
Purpose - Publishers of some scientific journals and the ISO standard require or recommend specific information to be present in abstracts. However, little is known whether this is what scientists give when they write abstracts.
The aim of this paper is to test the structure of abstracts in Czech, Slovenian and international scientific journals in the English language in the areas of library and information science (IS) and materials science (MS). Design/methodology/approach - A total of 100 research paper abstracts were selected from each journal, and content analysis was performed both manually and using Weft QDA qualitative analysis software.
Findings - The results show that neither the ISO nor the Emerald structure is entirely appropriate. Abstracts in IS usually have the following structure: Maros (CZ): background, purpose of the research project; Knjiznica (SI): background, results only indicated; Journal of Documentation: results, methods, and purpose.
In MS, the abstracts usually report on the following. Czech MS journals: background, methods, results; Materiali in Tehnologije (SI): methods, background; Materials Science and Technology (international): methods, results.
The differences can in part be attributed to the varying disciplines and to the different roles of journals in professional societies and to cultural differences in perception regarding the role of abstracts. Social implications - It seems that purpose and results are usual for information science, while methods and results are more frequent for materials science.
Originality/value - This relatively small sample gives the first insight into the culture of writing abstracts in smaller research communities.