scientific reports abstract word count

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• SpringerLink shop

Title, Abstract and Keywords

The importance of titles.

The title of your manuscript is usually the first introduction readers (and reviewers) have to your work. Therefore, you must select a title that grabs attention, accurately describes the contents of your manuscript, and makes people want to read further.

An effective title should:

• Convey the  main topics  of the study
• Highlight the  importance  of the research
• Be  concise
• Attract  readers

Writing a good title for your manuscript can be challenging. First, list the topics covered by the manuscript. Try to put all of the topics together in the title using as few words as possible. A title that is too long will seem clumsy, annoy readers, and probably not meet journal requirements.

Does Vaccinating Children and Adolescents with Inactivated Influenza Virus Inhibit the Spread of Influenza in Unimmunized Residents of Rural Communities?

This title has too many unnecessary words.

Influenza Vaccination of Children: A Randomized Trial

This title doesn’t give enough information about what makes the manuscript interesting.

Effect of Child Influenza Vaccination on Infection Rates in Rural Communities: A Randomized Trial This is an effective title. It is short, easy to understand, and conveys the important aspects of the research.

Think about why your research will be of interest to other scientists. This should be related to the reason you decided to study the topic. If your title makes this clear, it will likely attract more readers to your manuscript. TIP: Write down a few possible titles, and then select the best to refine further. Ask your colleagues their opinion. Spending the time needed to do this will result in a better title.

Abstract and Keywords

The Abstract is:

• A  summary  of the content of the journal manuscript
• A time-saving  shortcut  for busy researchers
• A guide to the most important parts of your manuscript’s written content

Many readers will only read the Abstract of your manuscript. Therefore, it has to be able to  stand alone . In most cases the abstract is the only part of your article that appears in indexing databases such as Web of Science or PubMed and so will be the most accessed part of your article; making a good impression will encourage researchers to read your full paper.

A well written abstract can also help speed up the peer-review process. During peer review, referees are usually only sent the abstract when invited to review the paper. Therefore, the abstract needs to contain enough information about the paper to allow referees to make a judgement as to whether they have enough expertise to review the paper and be engaging enough for them to want to review it.

Your Abstract should answer these questions about your manuscript:

• What was done?
• Why did you do it?
• What did you find?
• Why are these findings useful and important?

Answering these questions lets readers know the most important points about your study, and helps them decide whether they want to read the rest of the paper. Make sure you follow the proper journal manuscript formatting guidelines when preparing your abstract.

TIP: Journals often set a maximum word count for Abstracts, often 250 words, and no citations. This is to ensure that the full Abstract appears in indexing services.

Keywords  are a tool to help indexers and search engines find relevant papers. If database search engines can find your journal manuscript, readers will be able to find it too. This will increase the number of people reading your manuscript, and likely lead to more citations.

However, to be effective, Keywords must be chosen carefully. They should:

• Represent  the content of your manuscript
• Be  specific  to your field or sub-field

Manuscript title:  Direct observation of nonlinear optics in an isolated carbon nanotube

Poor keywords:  molecule, optics, lasers, energy lifetime

Better keywords:  single-molecule interaction, Kerr effect, carbon nanotubes, energy level structure

Manuscript title:  Region-specific neuronal degeneration after okadaic acid administration Poor keywords:  neuron, brain, OA (an abbreviation), regional-specific neuronal degeneration, signaling

Better keywords:  neurodegenerative diseases; CA1 region, hippocampal; okadaic acid; neurotoxins; MAP kinase signaling system; cell death

Manuscript title:  Increases in levels of sediment transport at former glacial-interglacial transitions

Poor keywords:  climate change, erosion, plant effects Better keywords:  quaternary climate change, soil erosion, bioturbation

Back │ Next

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How Long Should an Abstract Be? Word Count & Length

The abstract is perhaps the most important section of your research paper. Apart from the title, it may be the only part of the paper anyone reads. Whether they read further  depends in part on how good an impression your abstract makes .

The abstract may also be the only part of your paper that has a word limit. Most word limits specify a maximum of  between 250 and 300 words , and some journals require that abstracts be as short as 150 words. Writing a great abstract is almost an art—but writing an abstract that meets word limits is, well, a  science .

 Why do journals impose abstract word limits?

There are several reasons your abstract needs to be short and concise. Journals want readers to buy your article, and they want other researchers to cite your study in their own articles. More citations means a higher impact factor for the journal. The best way to sell your study is to grab the reader’s attention with a great title and abstract. Finally, there is the issue of space. Journals want your abstract to fit on half a page so that a reader won’t have to scroll to read all of it.

When it comes to abstracts, less is more. Only essential information needs to be presented. A short, powerful abstract will draw readers into your research and help the journal attract more readers and receive more citations. The trick is how to trim your abstract to get under the word limit. Here are some time- and researcher-tested ways to pull that off.

Omit Needless Words and Adverbs

In their acclaimed guide to English writing,  The Elements of Style , William Strunk, Jr, and E. B. White teach the key to meeting abstract word limits: Omit needless words. Many writers, especially academic writers, pepper their writing with words that simply don’t need to be there.

A “hedge” is a word or phrase you use when you are concerned about making a claim instead of stating a fact. It’s always a good idea to be careful, especially in academic writing, but many authors use hedge words when they don’t need to. Among the most overused hedge words are the verbs “seem” and “appear.” In the examples below, you’ll see why taking away the hedge words does not alter the meaning.

Hedge : Maroney syndrome  seems   to impair quality of life. No Hedge : Maroney syndrome  impairs   quality of life.

Hedge : Ibuprofen  appears   to diminish pain in most patients. No Hedge : Ibuprofen  diminishes   pain in most patients.

In both pairs, the first and second sentences have essentially the same meaning, except that the second sentence omits the hedge word. Notice how the second examples are more powerful and straightforward without this extra verbiage.

Cutting out needless adverbs is another easy way to limit the number of words in an abstract.

With needless adverbs : We  slowly and carefully  dissected the vagus nerve. Without needless adverbs : We dissected the vagus nerve.

By definition, “dissection” is slow and careful (or  should  be!). Removing the needless adverbs “slowly” and “carefully’ leaves you with a sentence with the same meaning and three fewer words. Same your adverbs for situations in which they truly impact the meaning or have an impact on the reader or interpretation.

Remove Awkward and Unnecessary Transitions

Conjunctive adverbs are better known as “ transition terms ,” and although they can be very useful in creating structure and flow within the body of a paper, in the abstract they are often redundant or even incorrectly used. Among the more commonly used conjunctive adverbs are: however, moreover, therefore, furthermore, additionally, and thus.

The conjunction “moreover” is perhaps the most commonly used needless adverb in scientific papers. Some writers use it because they believe it makes them sound more “academic.” Others use it because they may know that it’s a grammatical faux-pas to start a sentence with the conjunction “And.” Nevertheless, “moreover” can virtually  always  be removed from a sentence without altering the meaning. Watch what happens when we remove the word “moreover from these sentences.

With a transition :  Moreover , we dissected the vagus nerve. Without a transition : We dissected the vagus nerve.

In the instance above, “moreover” does not really make sense as a transition term. Even other transition terms (furthermore, therefore, in addition, etc.) would be somewhat unnecessary when discussing how the study or experiment was performed.

With a transition :  Furthermore , patients with Boney-Maroney syndrome are likely to experience hot flashes and fatigue. Without a transition : Patients with Boney-Maroney syndrome are likely to experience hot flashes and fatigue.

Note that these two sentences have exactly the same meaning with and without the transition term “furthermore.”  These transitions can be much more useful in the longer sections of the paper’s body, especially in the Introduction and Discussion/Conclusion sections.

Use the Active Voice Instead of Passive Voice

One way to shorten your abstract is to apply a rule you might have learned in primary school: use active voice instead of passive voice . In active voice constructions, the subject carries the action. In passive voice, the subject is acted upon, usually by an unnamed actor. Scientists seem to be in love with the passive voice, as it can be found in many papers, simply adding to the word count and making the writing less engaging. Because of this longstanding convention, many believe it makes them sound more “scientific.” Others shun active voice because they feel as though it is too personal. That is a shame. Your sentences will often sound more convincing and powerful in active voice, as the following examples demonstrate:

Passive voice : Pituitary cells  were grown  in dishes that had been subjected to irradiation (12 words). Active voice :  We grew  pituitary cells in irradiated dishes (7 words). Passive voice : Three-hundred and forty-five patients  who had undergone  ovariectomy at our institution  were enrolled  in the present study (17 words). Active voice :  We enrolled   345 patients whom we had ovariectomized (eight words).

Remember, studies don’t conduct themselves;  scientists  conduct studies. Avoid using the passive voice in the abstract—save it for the Methods section!

Do not Include Statistical Methods or Findings in the Abstract

Most scientific articles include statistics. Usually, the statistical methods are described in detail in the Methods section of a paper. But many authors feel compelled for some reason to mention statistics in the abstract, perhaps to get the details out first. But unless your paper is primarily about statistics, it is best to keep statistics out of the abstract and stick to language that expresses the most important use and findings of the study. Not only do statistics add to your word count, but they also interrupt the flow of your argument. You certainly do not need to tell the reader what statistical tests you used or the version of the statistics program you used—that is what the Methods section is for. And never go into detail about EXACTLY which findings your study yielded—that is what the Results section is for.

Consent, Approval, and Other Info That Doesn’t Belong in an Abstract

Some authors place information about patient consent and institutional review board approval in the abstract. Whereas this information is indeed essential, it is not necessary to put it in the abstract. Like statistics, consent and approval statements interrupt the flow of your argument. Readers expect to find information about consent and approval in the Methods section. Leaving this out of your abstract will certainly free up your space to describe the importance of your study.

Abstract Word Limits Are not Targets

Keep in mind that a limit of 250 words does not mean that you should attempt to come as close as possible to the limit. The best abstracts include all essential information well before reaching word limit. Use the above tips to help you create a leaner, tighter abstract that will hook readers and entice them to read your full study.

For more helpful suggestions on academic and research writing, check out the links below or visit the Wordvice Academic Resources page. And be sure to receive professional  English editing services , including  paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

• Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Literature Review
• Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section
• How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction
• Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!
• APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing
•   “Abstract Guide for Research Papers.”  (Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited)
• “How many words should be in the abstract?”  (Research Gate)
• Strunk and White.  The Elements of Style. ( PDF)
• “Organizing Your Social Science Research Paper: The Abstract.”  (USC Libraries)

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to write an...

How to write an abstract that will be accepted

• Related content
• Peer review
• Mary Higgins , fellow in maternal fetal medicine 1 ,
• Maeve Eogan , consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist 2 ,
• Keelin O’Donoghue , consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, and senior lecturer 3 ,
• Noirin Russell , consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist 3
• 1 Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 2 Rotunda Hospital Dublin, Ireland
• 3 Cork University Maternity Hospital, Ireland
• mairenihuigin{at}gmail.com

Researchers do not always appreciate the importance of producing a good abstract or understand the best way of writing one. Mary Higgins and colleagues share some of the lessons they have learnt as both researchers and reviewers of abstracts

Effective abstracts reflect the time, work, and importance of the scientific research performed in the course of a study. A last minute approach and poor writing may not reflect the good quality of a study.

Between the four of us we have written over 150 published papers, as well as having reviewed numerous abstracts for national and international meetings. Nevertheless, we have all had abstracts rejected, and this experience has emphasised a number of teaching points that could help maximise the impact of abstracts and success on the world, or other, stage.

An abstract is the first glimpse an audience has of a study, and it is the ticket to having research accepted for presentation to a wider audience. For a study to receive the respect it deserves, the abstract should be as well written as possible. In practice, this means taking time to write the abstract, keeping it simple, reading the submission guidelines, checking the text, and showing the abstract to colleagues.

It is important to take the necessary time to write the abstract. Several months or years have been spent on this groundbreaking research, so take the time to show this. Five minutes before the call for abstracts closes is not the time to start putting it together.

Keep it simple, and think about the message that needs to be communicated. Some abstracts churn out lots of unrelated results and then have a conclusion that does not relate to the results, and this is just confusing. Plan what points need to be made, and then think about them a little more.

Read the submission guidelines and keep to the instructions provided in the call for abstracts. Don’t submit an unstructured abstract if the guidance has asked for a structured one. Comply with the word or letter count, and do not go over this.

An abstract comprises five parts of equal importance: the title, introduction and aims, methods, results, and conclusion. Allow enough time to write each part well.

The title should go straight to the point of the study. Make the study sound interesting so that it catches people’s attention. The introduction should include a brief background to the research and describe its aims. For every aim presented there needs to be a corresponding result in the results section. There is no need to go into detail in terms of the background to the study, as those who are reviewing the abstract will have some knowledge of the subject. The methods section can be kept simple—it is acceptable to write “retrospective case-control study” or “randomised controlled trial.”

The results section should be concrete and related to the aims. It is distracting and irritating to read results that have no apparent relation to the professed aims of the study. If something is important, highlight it or put it in italics to make it stand out. Include the number of participants, and ensure recognition is given if 10 000 charts have been reviewed. Equally, a percentage without a baseline number is not meaningful.

In the conclusion, state succinctly what can be drawn from the results, but don’t oversell this. Words like “possibly” and “may” can be useful in this part of the abstract but show that some thought has been put into what the results may mean. This is what divides the good from the not so good. Many people are capable of doing research, but the logical formation of a hypothesis and the argument of its proof are what make a real researcher.

Once you have written the abstract, check the spelling and grammar. Poor spelling or grammar can give the impression that the research is also poor. Show the abstract to the supervisor or principal investigator of the study, as this person’s name will go on the abstract as well. Then show the abstract to someone who knows nothing about the particular area of research but who knows something about the subject. Someone detached from the study might point out the one thing that needs to be said but that has been forgotten.

Then let it go; abstracts are not life and death scenarios. Sometimes an abstract will not be accepted no matter how wonderful it is. Perhaps there is a theme to the meeting, into which the research does not fit. Reviewers may also be looking for particular things. For one conference, we limited the number of case reports so that only about 10% were accepted. It may be that your research is in a popular or topical area and not all abstracts in that area can be chosen. On occasions, politics play a part, and individual researchers have little control over that.

Finally, remember that sometimes even the best reviewer may not appreciate the subtleties of your research and another audience may be more appreciative.

Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

How to Write a Conference Abstract

• Finding Conferences
• Abstract Preparation

What is a Scientific or Research Abstract?

Author information, writing a title, background or introduction, conclusion or discussion, graphs and charts.

• How to Write a Case Report Abstract
• How to Write a Quality Improvement Project Abstract
• Writing Tips
• Reasons for Rejection

Scientific or research abstracts show your original investigative work. A scientific abstract is much like an abstract you read in a journal, and uses traditional sections like background, methods and results.

• You should aim for completeness; Use full names and formal credentials; department and institution worked. The author information usually does NOT count against the total word count but be sure you check the instructions.
• There may be a limit on how many authors can be on the submission.
• The first author is the one who conceived the study and did most of the work; will be the person who presents. Sometimes you have to be a member of an association to submit an abstract, so check for those rules as well.
• Full disclosure on sponsors.
• Check how your abstract is being reviewed. Is it blind? You may see instructions like, To ensure blinded peer-review, no direct references to the author(s) or institution(s) of origin should be made anywhere in the title, body, tables or figures.

Your best strategy in writing a title: Write the abstract first. Then pull out 6-10 key words or key phrases found in the abstract, and string them together into various titles. Brainstorm lots of keywords to help find the best mix. Use action words that concisely portrays the message of your project.

The title should be:

• Ideally 10-12 words long. Look for a limit on how many characters this title could be. Look for further rules about the title: Upper- and lowercase letters only.
• Make the title a description of what was investigated (not the results or conclusion); convey as much as possible about the context and aims of the study. You may want to place your methodology or trial type at the end of your title.
• Avoid low-impact phrases like ‘effect of... ‘ or ‘influence of…’; Do not include jargon or unfamiliar acronyms
• 2-4 sentences long
• Should answer: why did you start this research?
• The introduction provides context/explanation for doing the study; as well as what is already known about the topic
• What is the problem the research addresses? What is the research gap? What is the research question? What is the relevance to the field?
• State the aim of the study and include a concise statement of study’s hypothesis
• 5-6 sentences long
• Most difficult part to write; must be scaled down but detailed enough to judge validity​
• ​Section most often identified by reviewers as the reason for rejection​
• ​May be longer and more fully developed than other sections of the abstract​
• ​Should answer: What did you do?​
• ​Describe the nature of the subjects, methods of selection (meaning the key eligibility criteria of the study’s participants). The total number of the participants must be included and how many participants were included in each group of the study (i.e. study group(s), control group).​
• ​Materials (including manufacturers' names and locations—city and state or country), and all procedures. ​
• ​Design - A statement of the study's basic design (e.g., randomized controlled trial, double-blind, cohort, survey, cost-effectiveness analysis). Note: Make sure you include in the design statement a notation that the research study was approved by the IRB (institutional review board)​
• ​Setting - A one-sentence description of the clinical circumstances of the setting (e.g., general community, primary care center, hospitalized care).​
• ​Interventions—A brief description of any interventions administered. (e.g. medications, etc.)​
• ​Main Outcome Measure(s) - A brief description of the study’s outcome measurements. (e.g. blood pressure, symptom scores, patient satisfaction scales) ​
• ​Also according to SIR​: Organize yourself: The methods section should describe your methods for collecting and analyzing data. It should be presented in a logical, orderly fashion. Include your selection (inclusion/exclusion) criteria and data sources. ​
• ​Is there sufficient detail here to suggest rigor and expertise?​
• 3-5 sentences long
• Should answer: What does it mean? Why study’s findings are important and what the author believes they mean.​
• Restate the issue you studied.​
• Accept or reject your initial hypothesis.​
• Conclusions should be reasonable and supportable by the findings.​
• Report of a succinct take-home message (increasingly, these messages are related to translating findings into practice); are these interesting and significant to the field?

You often can include graphs and charts on a scientific abstract submission. Be careful: graphs and charts often count against the word count! Look for this in the call for proposals.​

• Research abstract example
• << Previous: Abstract Preparation
• Next: How to Write a Case Report Abstract >>
• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 8:15 AM
• URL: https://guides.temple.edu/howtowriteaconferenceabstract

Temple University

University libraries.

See all library locations

• Library Directory
• Locations and Directions
• Frequently Called Numbers

Need help? Email us at [email protected]

Making Every Word Count: Keys to a Strong Research Abstract

• First Online: 27 April 2021

Cite this chapter

• Lorelei Lingard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-3355 10 &
• Christopher Watling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-795X 10  

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 19))

2513 Accesses

Strong research abstracts are simultaneously informative and persuasive. In this chapter, we consider the contexts abstracts function within, the purposes they serve, and the audiences they must reach. We adapt the Problem/Gap/Hook heuristic to enable writers to make the most of the limited word count that an abstract allows. We outline strategies for writing abstracts that are accessible, economic, and convincing. And we offer tips for crafting each section of an abstract for maximum impact. These approaches will ensure that abstracts can fulfil their role as ambassadors of our work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Cook, D. A., & Bordage, G. (2016). Twelve tips on writing abstracts and title: How to get people to use and cite your work. Medical Teacher, 38 (11), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1181732 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Groves, T., & Abbasi, K. (2004). Screening research papers by reading abstracts: Please get the abstract right, because we may use it alone to assess your paper. BMJ, 329 , 470–471. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7464.470 .

Johnson, C. E., Keating, J. L., & Molloy, E. K. (2020). Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it? Medical Education, 54 (6), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14154 .

Schimel, J. (2012). Writing science: How to write papers that get cited, and proposals that get funded . New York: Oxford University Press USA.

Google Scholar  

Stupp, R., Mason, W. P., Van Den Bent, M. J., Weller, M., Fisher, B., Taphoorn, M. J., et al. (2005). Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant Temozolomide for glioblastoma. New England Journal of Medicine, 352 (10), 987–996. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043330 .

Taylor, T. S., Raynard, A. L., & Lingard, L. (2019). Perseverance, faith, and stoicism: A qualitative study of medical student perspectives on managing fatigue. Medical Education, 53 (12), 1221–1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13998 .

Varpio, L., Amiel, J., & Richards, B. F. (2016). Writing competitive research conference abstracts: AMEE Guide No. 108. Medical Teacher, 38 (9), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1211258 .

Venance, S. L., LaDonna, K. A., & Watling, C. J. (2014). Exploring frontline faculty perspectives after a curriculum change. Medical Education, 48 , 998–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12529 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON, Canada

Lorelei Lingard & Christopher Watling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Lingard, L., Watling, C. (2021). Making Every Word Count: Keys to a Strong Research Abstract. In: Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_10

Published : 27 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-71362-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-71363-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Submission Guidelines

Related information for authors

• PLOS Writing Center
• Submission system
• Journal scope and publication criteria
• Getting started guide
• Guidelines for revisions
• Publication fees
• APC Support

Style and Format

Manuscript organization.

Manuscripts should be organized as follows. Instructions for each element appear below the list.

• Download sample title, author list, and affiliations page (PDF)
• Download sample manuscript body (PDF)

Parts of a Submission

Include a full title and a short title for the manuscript.

Titles should be written in sentence case (only the first word of the text, proper nouns, and genus names are capitalized). Avoid specialist abbreviations if possible. For clinical trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses, the subtitle should include the study design.

Author list

Author names and affiliations.

Enter author names on the title page of the manuscript and in the online submission system.

On the title page, write author names in the following order:

• First name (or initials, if used)
• Middle name (or initials, if used)
• Last name (surname, family name)

Each author on the list must have an affiliation. The affiliation includes department, university, or organizational affiliation and its location, including city, state/province (if applicable), and country. Authors have the option to include a current address in addition to the address of their affiliation at the time of the study. The current address should be listed in the byline and clearly labeled “current address.” At a minimum, the address must include the author’s current institution, city, and country.

If an author has multiple affiliations, enter all affiliations on the title page only. In the submission system, enter only the preferred or primary affiliation. Author affiliations will be listed in the typeset PDF article in the same order that authors are listed in the submission.

Corresponding author

The submitting author is automatically designated as the corresponding author in the submission system. The corresponding author is the primary contact for the journal office and the only author able to view or change the manuscript while it is under editorial consideration.

The corresponding author role may be transferred to another coauthor. However, note that transferring the corresponding author role also transfers access to the manuscript. (To designate a new corresponding author while the manuscript is still under consideration, watch the video tutorial below.)

Only one corresponding author can be designated in the submission system, but this does not restrict the number of corresponding authors that may be listed on the article in the event of publication. Whoever is designated as a corresponding author on the title page of the manuscript file will be listed as such upon publication. Include an email address for each corresponding author listed on the title page of the manuscript.

Consortia and group authorship

If a manuscript is submitted on behalf of a consortium or group, include its name in the manuscript byline. Do not add it to the author list in the submission system. You may include the full list of members in the Acknowledgments or in a supporting information file.

PubMed only indexes individual consortium or group author members listed in the article byline. If included, these individuals must qualify for authorship according to our criteria .

Author contributions

Provide at minimum one contribution for each author in the submission system. Use the CRediT taxonomy to describe each contribution. Read the policy and the full list of roles .

Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work. The submitting author is responsible for completing this information at submission, and we expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time.

PLOS ONE will contact all authors by email at submission to ensure that they are aware of the submission.

Cover letter

Upload a cover letter as a separate file in the online system. The length limit is 1 page.

The cover letter should include the following information:

• Summarize the study’s contribution to the scientific literature
• Relate the study to previously published work
• Specify the type of article (for example, research article, systematic review, meta-analysis, clinical trial)
• Describe any prior interactions with PLOS regarding the submitted manuscript
• Suggest appropriate Academic Editors to handle your manuscript ( see the full list of Academic Editors)
• List any opposed reviewers

IMPORTANT: Do not include requests to reduce or waive publication fees in the cover letter. This information will be entered separately in the online submission system.

The title, authors, and affiliations should all be included on a title page as the first page of the manuscript file.  

The Abstract comes after the title page in the manuscript file. The abstract text is also entered in a separate field in the submission system.  

The Abstract should:

• Describe the main objective(s) of the study
• Explain how the study was done, including any model organisms used, without methodological detail
• Summarize the most important results and their significance
• Not exceed 300 words

Abstracts should not include:

• Abbreviations, if possible

Introduction

The introduction should:

• Provide background that puts the manuscript into context and allows readers outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of the study
• Define the problem addressed and why it is important
• Include a brief review of the key literature
• Note any relevant controversies or disagreements in the field
• Conclude with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved

Materials and Methods

The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. Specific information and/or protocols for new methods should be included in detail. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references.

Supporting reproducibility with protocols

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend and encourage you to make your protocols public. There are several options:

Protocols associated with Research Articles

Protocol documents may be uploaded as Supporting Information or linked from the Methods section of the article. For laboratory protocols, we recommend protocols.io. Include the DOI link in the Methods section of your manuscript using the following format: http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.[PROTOCOL DOI]. This allows editors and reviewers to consult the detailed step-by-step protocol when evaluating your manuscript. You can choose to keep the protocol private on the protocols.io platform until your article is published—at which time it will be published automatically. 

Protocols published in their own right

PLOS ONE offers two options for publishing stand-alone protocol articles: Lab Protocols that describe reusable methodologies and Study Protocols that describe detailed plans and proposals for research projects. Specific guidelines apply to the submission of Lab Protocol and Study Protocol manuscripts. Read the detailed instructions for submitting Lab Protocols and Study Protocols .

Results, Discussion, Conclusions

These sections may all be separate, or may be combined to create a mixed Results/Discussion section (commonly labeled “Results and Discussion”) or a mixed Discussion/Conclusions section (commonly labeled “Discussion”). These sections may be further divided into subsections, each with a concise subheading, as appropriate. These sections have no word limit, but the language should be clear and concise.

Together, these sections should describe the results of the experiments, the interpretation of these results, and the conclusions that can be drawn.

Authors should explain how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study and provide a succinct explanation of the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to previous related studies and potential future directions for research.

PLOS ONE editorial decisions do not rely on perceived significance or impact, so authors should avoid overstating their conclusions. See the PLOS ONE Criteria for Publication for more information.

Acknowledgments

Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Any and all available works can be cited in the reference list. Acceptable sources include:

• Published or accepted manuscripts
• Manuscripts on preprint servers, providing the manuscript has a citable DOI or arXiv URL.

Do not cite the following sources in the reference list:

• Unavailable and unpublished work, including manuscripts that have been submitted but not yet accepted (e.g., “unpublished work,” “data not shown”). Instead, include those data as supplementary material or deposit the data in a publicly available database.
• Personal communications (these should be supported by a letter from the relevant authors but not included in the reference list)
• Submitted research should not rely upon retracted research. You should avoid citing retracted articles unless you need to discuss retracted work to provide historical context for your submitted research. If it is necessary to discuss retracted work, state the article’s retracted status in your article’s text and reference list.

Ensure that your reference list includes full and current bibliography details for every cited work at the time of your article’s submission (and publication, if accepted). If cited work is corrected, retracted, or marked with an expression of concern before your article is published, and if you feel it is appropriate to cite the work even in light of the post-publication notice, include in your manuscript citations and full references for both the affected article and the post-publication notice. Email the journal office if you have questions.

References are listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the order that they appear in the text. In the text, cite the reference number in square brackets (e.g., “We used the techniques developed by our colleagues [19] to analyze the data”). PLOS uses the numbered citation (citation-sequence) method and first six authors, et al.

Do not include citations in abstracts. 

Make sure the parts of the manuscript are in the correct order  before  ordering the citations.

​ Formatting references

PLOS uses the reference style outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also referred to as the “Vancouver” style. Example formats are listed below. Additional examples are in the ICMJE sample references .

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases . 

Supporting information

Authors can submit essential supporting files and multimedia files along with their manuscripts. All supporting information will be subject to peer review. All file types can be submitted, but files must be smaller than 20 MB in size.

Authors may use almost any description as the item name for a supporting information file as long as it contains an “S” and number. For example, “S1 Appendix” and “S2 Appendix,” “S1 Table” and “S2 Table,” and so forth.  

Supporting information files are published exactly as provided, and are not copyedited.

Supporting information captions

List supporting information captions at the end of the manuscript file. Do not submit captions in a separate file.

The file number and name are required in a caption, and we highly recommend including a one-line title as well. You may also include a legend in your caption, but it is not required.

In-text citations

We recommend that you cite supporting information in the manuscript text, but this is not a requirement. If you cite supporting information in the text, citations do not need to be in numerical order.

Figures and tables

Do not include figures in the main manuscript file. Each figure must be prepared and submitted as an individual file.

Cite figures in ascending numeric order at first appearance in the manuscript file.

Figure captions

Figure captions must be inserted in the text of the manuscript, immediately following the paragraph in which the figure is first cited (read order). Do not include captions as part of the figure files themselves or submit them in a separate document.

At a minimum, include the following in your figure captions:

• A figure label with Arabic numerals, and “Figure” abbreviated to “Fig” (e.g. Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 3, etc). Match the label of your figure with the name of the file uploaded at submission (e.g. a figure citation of “Fig 1” must refer to a figure file named “Fig1.tif”).
• A concise, descriptive title

The caption may also include a legend as needed.

Cite tables in ascending numeric order upon first appearance in the manuscript file.

Place each table in your manuscript file directly after the paragraph in which it is first cited (read order). Do not submit your tables in separate files.

Tables require a label (e.g., “Table 1”) and brief descriptive title to be placed above the table. Place legends, footnotes, and other text below the table. 

Statistical reporting

Manuscripts submitted to PLOS ONE are expected to report statistical methods in sufficient detail for others to replicate the analysis performed. Ensure that results are rigorously reported in accordance with community standards and that statistical methods employed are appropriate for the study design.

Consult the following resources for additional guidance:

• SAMPL guidelines , for general guidance on statistical reporting
• PLOS ONE guidelines , for clinical trials requirements
• PLOS ONE guidelines , for systematic review and meta-analysis requirements
• EQUATOR , for specific reporting guidelines for a range of other study types

Reporting of statistical methods

In the methods, include a section on statistical analysis that reports a detailed description of the statistical methods. In this section:

• List the name and version of any software package used, alongside any relevant references
• Describe technical details or procedures required to reproduce the analysis
• Provide the repository identifier for any code used in the analysis (See our code-sharing policy .)

Statistical reporting guidelines:

• Identify research design and independent variables as being between- or within-subjects
• Describe any analysis carried out to confirm the data meets the assumptions of the analysis performed (e.g. linearity, co-linearity, normality of the distribution).
• If data were transformed include this information, with a reason for doing so and a description of the transformation performed
• Provide details of how outliers were treated and your analysis, both with the full dataset and with the outliers removed
• If relevant, describe how missing/excluded data were handled
• Define the threshold for significance (alpha)
• If appropriate, provide sample sizes, along with a description of how they were determined. If a sample size calculation was performed, specify the inputs for power, effect size and alpha. Where relevant, report the number of independent replications for each experiment.
• For analyses of variance (ANOVAs), detail any post hoc tests that were performed
• Include details of any corrections applied to account for multiple comparisons. If corrections were not applied, include a justification for not doing so
• Describe all options for statistical procedures. For example, if t-tests were performed, state whether these were one- or two-tailed. Include details of the type of t-test conducted (e.g. one sample, within-/between-subjects).
• Report the alpha level used
• Discuss whether the variables were assessed for collinearity and interaction
• Describe the variable selection process by which the final model was developed (e.g., forward-stepwise; best subset). See SAMPL guidelines .
• For Bayesian analysis explain the choice of prior trial probabilities and how they were selected. Markov chain Monte Carlo settings should be reported.

Reporting of statistical results

Results must be rigorously and appropriately reported, in keeping with community standards.

• Units of measurement. Clearly define measurement units in all tables and figures.
• Properties of distribution. It should be clear from the text which measures of variance (standard deviation, standard error of the mean, confidence intervals) and central tendency (mean, median) are being presented.
• Regression analyses. Include the full results of any regression analysis performed as a supplementary file. Include all estimated regression coefficients, their standard error, p-values, and confidence intervals, as well as the measures of goodness of fit.
• Reporting parameters. Test statistics (F/t/r) and associated degrees of freedom should be provided. Effect sizes and confidence intervals should be reported where appropriate. If percentages are provided, the numerator and denominator should also be given.
• P-values. Report exact p-values for all values greater than or equal to 0.001. P-values less than 0.001 may be expressed as p < 0.001, or as exponentials in studies of genetic associations.
• Displaying data in plots. Format plots so that they accurately depict the sample distribution. 3D effects in plots can bias and hinder interpretation of values, so avoid them in cases where regular plots are sufficient to display the data.
• Open data. As explained in PLOS’s Data Policy , be sure to make individual data points, underlying graphs and summary statistics available at the time of publication. Data can be deposited in a repository or included within the Supporting Information files.

Data reporting

All data and related metadata underlying the findings reported in a submitted manuscript should be deposited in an appropriate public repository, unless already provided as part of the submitted article.

See instructions on providing underlying data to support blot and gel results .

Repositories may be either subject-specific (where these exist) and accept specific types of structured data, or generalist repositories that accept multiple data types. We recommend that authors select repositories appropriate to their field. Repositories may be subject-specific (e.g., GenBank for sequences and PDB for structures), general, or institutional, as long as DOIs or accession numbers are provided and the data are at least as open as CC BY. Authors are encouraged to select repositories that meet accepted criteria as trustworthy digital repositories, such as criteria of the Centre for Research Libraries or Data Seal of Approval. Large, international databases are more likely to persist than small, local ones.

To support data sharing and author compliance of the PLOS data policy, we have integrated our submission process with a select set of data repositories. The list is neither representative nor exhaustive of the suitable repositories available to authors. Current repository integration partners include  Dryad and FlowRepository . Please contact [email protected] to make recommendations for further partnerships.

Instructions for PLOS submissions with data deposited in an integration partner repository:

• Deposit data in the integrated repository of choice.
• Once deposition is final and complete, the repository will provide you with a dataset DOI (provisional) and private URL for reviewers to gain access to the data.
• Enter the given data DOI into the full Data Availability Statement, which is requested in the Additional Information section of the PLOS submission form. Then provide the URL passcode in the Attach Files section.

If you have any questions, please email us .

Accession numbers

All appropriate data sets, images, and information should be deposited in an appropriate public repository. See our list of recommended repositories .

Accession numbers (and version numbers, if appropriate) should be provided in the Data Availability Statement. Accession numbers or a citation to the DOI should also be provided when the data set is mentioned within the manuscript.

In some cases authors may not be able to obtain accession numbers of DOIs until the manuscript is accepted; in these cases, the authors must provide these numbers at acceptance. In all other cases, these numbers must be provided at full submission.

Identifiers

As much as possible, please provide accession numbers or identifiers for all entities such as genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc., for which there is an entry in a public database, for example:

• Entrez Gene
• Mouse Genome Database (MGD)
• Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)

Identifiers should be provided in parentheses after the entity on first use.

Striking image

You can choose to upload a “Striking Image” that we may use to represent your article online in places like the journal homepage or in search results.

The striking image must be derived from a figure or supporting information file from the submission, i.e., a cropped portion of an image or the entire image. Striking images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel images, and should ideally avoid containing added details such as text, scale bars, and arrows.

If no striking image is uploaded, we will designate a figure from the submission as the striking image.

Additional Information Requested at Submission

Financial disclosure statement.

This information should describe sources of funding that have supported the work. It is important to gather these details prior to submission because your financial disclosure statement cannot be changed after initial submission without journal approval. If your manuscript is published, your statement will appear in the Funding section of the article.

Enter this statement in the Financial Disclosure section of the submission form. Do not include it in your manuscript file.

The statement should include:

• Specific grant numbers
• Initials of authors who received each award
• Full names of commercial companies that funded the study or authors
• Initials of authors who received salary or other funding from commercial companies
• URLs to sponsors’ websites

Also state whether any sponsors or funders (other than the named authors) played any role in:

• Study design
• Data collection and analysis
• Decision to publish
• Preparation of the manuscript

If they had no role in the research, include this sentence: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If the study was unfunded, include this sentence as the Financial Disclosure statement: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Competing interests

This information should not be in your manuscript file; you will provide it via our submission system.

All potential competing interests must be declared in full. If the submission is related to any patents, patent applications, or products in development or for market, these details, including patent numbers and titles, must be disclosed in full.

Manuscripts disputing published work

For manuscripts disputing previously published work, it is  PLOS ONE  policy to invite a signed review by the disputed author during the peer review process. This procedure is aimed at ensuring a thorough, transparent, and productive review process.

If the disputed author chooses to submit a review, it must be returned in a timely fashion and contain a full declaration of all competing interests. The Academic Editor will consider any such reviews in light of the competing interest.

Authors submitting manuscripts disputing previous work should explain the relationship between the manuscripts in their cover letter, and will be required to confirm that they accept the conditions of this review policy before the manuscript is considered further.

Related manuscripts

Upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to  PLOS ONE  or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions.

We strongly discourage the unnecessary division of related work into separate manuscripts, and we will not consider manuscripts that are divided into “parts.” Each submission to  PLOS ONE  must be written as an independent unit and should not rely on any work that has not already been accepted for publication. If related manuscripts are submitted to  PLOS ONE , the authors may be advised to combine them into a single manuscript at the editor's discretion.

PLOS encourages authors to post preprints to accelerate the dissemination of research. Posting a manuscript on a preprint server does not impact consideration of the manuscript at any PLOS journal.

Authors posting preprints on  bioRxiv or medRxiv can choose to concurrently submit their manuscripts to relevant PLOS journals through the direct transfer service.

Authors submitting manuscripts in the life and health sciences to PLOS ONE  may choose to have PLOS forward their submission to bioRxiv or medRxiv, depending on the scope of the paper, for consideration for posting as a preprint.

Guidelines for Specific Study Types

Study design, reporting, and analyses are assessed against all relevant research and methodological technique standards held by the community. Guidelines for specific study types are outlined below.

Registered Reports

Submission and format requirements for Registered Report Protocols and Registered Reports are similar to those for a regular submission and may be specific to your study type. For instance, if your Registered Report Protocol submission is about a Clinical Trial or a Systematic Review, follow the appropriate guidelines.

For Registered Report Protocols:

• Provide enough methodological detail to make the study reproducible and replicable
• Confirm that data will be made available upon study completion in keeping with the PLOS Data policy ​
• Include ethical approval or waivers, if applicable
• Preliminary or pilot data may be included, but only if necessary to support the feasibility of the study or as a proof of principle 
• For meta-analyses or Clinical Trials, use the protocol-specific reporting guidelines PRISMA-P or SPIRIT respectively

For more guidance on format and presentation of a protocol, consult the sample template hosted by the Open Science Framework . Discipline-specific and study-specific templates are also available.

For Registered Report Research Articles:

• Report the results of all planned analyses and, if relevant, detail and justify all deviations from the protocol. 
• The manuscript may also contain exploratory, unplanned analyses.

Read more about Registered Report framework .

Human subjects research

Manuscripts should conform to the following reporting guidelines:

• Studies of diagnostic accuracy:  STARD
• Observational studies:  STROBE
• Microarray experiments:  MIAME
• Other types of health-related research: Consult the  EQUATOR  web site for appropriate reporting guidelines

Methods sections of papers on research using human subjects or samples must include ethics statements that specify:

• The name of the approving institutional review board or equivalent committee(s) . If approval was not obtained, the authors must provide a detailed statement explaining why it was not needed
• Why written consent could not be obtained
• That the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent
• How oral consent was documented

For studies involving humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, authors should:

• Explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations
• Define categories in as much detail as the study protocol allows
• Justify their choices of definitions and categories, including for example whether any rules of human categorization were required by their funding agency
• Explain whether (and if so, how) they controlled for confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, nutrition, environmental exposures, or similar factors in their analysis

In addition, outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. Examples: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate); “cancer victims” should be changed to “patients with cancer.”

For papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, authors must download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal , which the individual, parent, or guardian must sign once they have read the paper and been informed about the terms of PLOS open-access license. The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but authors should securely file it in the individual's case notes and the methods section of the manuscript should explicitly state that consent authorization for publication is on file, using wording like:

The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details.

For more information about  PLOS ONE  policies regarding human subjects research, see the  Publication Criteria  and  Editorial Policies .

Manuscripts describing observational clinical studies are subject to all policies regarding human research  and community standards for reporting observational research as outlined by the STROBE statement. Furthermore, authors submitting work of this nature should pay special attention to the following requirements:

• If the submitted manuscript is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature.
• The sampling strategy and eligibility criteria of enrolled subjects should be described in sufficient detail.
• Sample size calculations should be justified with relevant inputs defined.
• Independent and dependent variables considered for statistical analysis should be clearly defined and justified.
• The validity and reliability testing of self-developed data collection tools should be reported.
• Conclusions should be appropriate for the study design, with indications on how the study results will contribute to the base of academic knowledge.

Clinical trials

Clinical trials are subject to all  policies regarding human research .  PLOS ONE  follows the  World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of a clinical trial :

All clinical trials must be registered in one of the publicly-accessible registries approved by the  WHO  or  ICMJE  (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). Authors must provide the trial registration number. Prior disclosure of results on a clinical trial registry site will not affect consideration for publication. We reserve the right to inform authors' institutions or ethics committees, and to reject the manuscript, if we become aware of unregistered trials.

PLOS ONE  supports prospective trial registration (i.e. before participant recruitment has begun) as recommended by the ICMJE's  clinical trial registration policy .  Where trials were not publicly registered before participant recruitment began , authors must:

• Register all related clinical trials and confirm they have done so in the Methods section
• Explain in the Methods the reason for failing to register before participant recruitment

Clinical trials must be reported according to the relevant reporting guidelines, i.e.  CONSORT  for randomized controlled trials,  TREND  for non-randomized trials, and  other specialized guidelines  as appropriate. The intervention should be described according to the requirements of the  TIDieR checklist and guide . Submissions must also include the study protocol as supporting information, which will be published with the manuscript if accepted.

Authors of manuscripts describing the results of clinical trials must adhere to the  CONSORT  reporting guidelines appropriate to their trial design, available on the  CONSORT Statement web site . Before the paper can enter peer review, authors must:

• The name of the registry and the registration number must be included in the Abstract.
• Provide a copy of the trial protocol as approved by the ethics committee and a completed  CONSORT checklist  as supporting information (which will be published alongside the paper, if accepted). This should be named S1 CONSORT Checklist.
• Include the  CONSORT flow diagram  as the manuscript's “Fig 1”

Any deviation from the trial protocol must be explained in the paper. Authors must explicitly discuss informed consent in their paper, and we reserve the right to ask for a copy of the patient consent form.

The name of the registry and the registry number must be provided in the Abstract. If the trial is registered in more than one location, please provide all relevant registry names and numbers.

Lab Protocols

Lab Protocols consist of two interlinked components: a step-by-step protocol hosted on protocols.io , and a peer-reviewed article in  PLOS ONE that contextualises the protocol.

The PLOS ONE   article component must comply with the general PLOS ONE   submission guidelines (detailed above) and criteria for publication . In addition, the PLOS ONE article component should:

• Describe the value that the protocol adds to the published literature. Lab Protocols describing routine methods or extensions and modifications of routine methods that add little value to the published literature will not be considered for publication.
• Linking, in the Introduction section, to at least one supporting peer-reviewed publication in which the protocol was applied to generate data. or
• Providing validation or benchmarking data, which demonstrates that the underlying method achieves its intended purpose.
• Provide the step-by-step protocol as a supporting information (S1) file. 

We encourage you to post your protocol to the protocols.io platform before submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE . Posting your protocol prior to submission is not considered prior publication by PLOS ONE and will not affect your eligibility to publish a Lab Protocol.

Authors submitting a Lab Protocol can also use protocols.io’s protocol entry service  at no cost: the team at protocols.io will enter your protocol for you and format it in a way that takes advantage of the platform’s features. You will have an opportunity to review and make further changes before your protocol is shared with anyone else. 

If you would like to use protocols.io's protocol entry service in connection with a Lab Protocol submission, please contact [email protected] to request the customer code.

If you prefer to submit your manuscript to PLOS ONE before posting your protocol to protocols.io, then you must still provide your step-by-step protocol as a supporting information (S1) file in a format of your choosing. You will be expected to replace this file with a protocols.io PDF later in the editorial process.

Study Protocols

Study Protocols describe plans for conducting research projects and consist of a single article on  PLOS ONE .

Study Protocols must comply with the  PLOS ONE  general submission guidelines (detailed above in this article) and any guidelines specific to the related research study type. In addition, the protocol must:

• Relate to a research study that has not yet generated results.
• Be submitted before recruitment of participants or collection of data for the study is complete.
• Meet the same standards for ethics of experimentation and research integrity as the research study. If it involves human or animal subjects, cell lines or field sampling , or has potential biosafety implications , prior approval from the relevant ethics body must be obtained prior to submission. Please contact us if you have a valid reason for not obtaining approval. 

Additional prerequisites apply for these study types:

• The trial must be registered prior to submission of your protocol in one of the publicly accessible registries approved by the WHO or ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).
• The name of the registry and the trial or study registration number must be included in the Abstract.
• A copy of the protocol that was approved by the ethics committee must be submitted as a supplementary information file. Please provide an additional English translation if the original document is not in English. Please note that the protocol will be published with the manuscript if accepted.
• A SPIRIT schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments must be included as the manuscript’s Figure 1, and a completed SPIRIT checklist must be uploaded as Supporting Information file S1.
• A completed PRISMA-P checklist must be provided as a supporting information (SI) file. See PRISMA-P Explanation and Elaboration for more information on completing your checklist.

Study Protocols must also comply with general PLOS ONE   criteria for publication and in addition you should:

• include the word “Protocol” in your Title.
• the aim, design, and settling
• the sample size calculation
• how data saturation will be determined (for qualitative studies)
• the characteristics of participants e.g., inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample selection criteria, variables to be measured, randomization and blinding criteria (where applicable), and how informed consent will be obtained 
• how materials will be selected and used e.g., where and how they will be sourced, the processes, interventions, or comparisons to be used, the outcomes to be measured, and when and how they will be measured
• the data management plan
• safety considerations
• the type of data and statistical analyses to be used
• the status and timeline of the study, including whether participant recruitment or data collection has begun
• where and when the data will be made available. See our Data Availability policy for more.
• include an analysis of preliminary or pilot data, only if it is necessary to support the feasibility of the study or as a proof of principle. This is optional.
• we encourage authors you to register with OSF and provide the your registration number in the Materials and Methods section. This is optional.
• optionally add any other SI files, figures or tables that elaborate or authenticate the protocol: e.g., any reporting checklists applicable to your study type.

Read the supporting information guidelines for more details about adding SI files.

Study Protocols are subject to the same editorial and peer review process as all other articles, and are eligible for both signed and published peer review .

You can expedite the review process by providing:

• proof of external funding. This is typically your funding approval letter and a list of the names and credentials of the funders who conducted the external peer review of the protocol. Include an English translation if needed.
• proof of ethics approval (if required). This is typically the approval or waiver letter from the relevant ethics body and a copy of the protocol approved by this body. 

The proof of external funding and approval or waiver letter are used for internal purposes and do not form part of the published Study Protocol. Expedited review is conducted by an internal Staff Editor only and bypasses the external review process. 

If the Study Protocol describes a replication study or involves re-analysis of published work, we will invite the author of the initial or replicated study to provide a signed review. 

We encourage you to share your Study Protocol with other researchers, either before or after submission. You can publish it on your website or  protocols.io , or submit it for posting on  medRxiv  or another preprint server.

Animal research

All research involving vertebrates or cephalopods must have approval from the authors' Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics committee(s), and must have been conducted according to applicable national and international guidelines. Approval must be received prior to beginning research.

Manuscripts reporting animal research must state in the Methods section:

• The full name of the relevant ethics committee that approved the work, and the associated permit number(s).
• Where ethical approval is not required, the manuscript should include a clear statement of this and the reason why. Provide any relevant regulations under which the study is exempt from the requirement for approval.
• Relevant details of steps taken to ameliorate animal suffering.

This study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the University of Minnesota (Protocol Number: 27-2956). All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Authors should always state the organism(s) studied in the Abstract. Where the study may be confused as pertaining to clinical research, authors should also state the animal model in the title.

To maximize reproducibility and potential for re-use of data, we encourage authors to follow the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for all submissions describing laboratory-based animal research and to upload a completed  ARRIVE Guidelines Checklist  to be published as supporting information.

Non-human primates

Manuscripts describing research involving non-human primates must report details of husbandry and animal welfare in accordance with the recommendations of the Weatherall report, The use of non-human primates in research , including:

• Information about housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment.
• Steps taken to minimize suffering, including use of anesthesia and method of sacrifice, if appropriate.

Random source animals

Manuscripts describing studies that use random source (e.g. Class B dealer-sourced in the USA), shelter, or stray animals will be subject to additional scrutiny and may be rejected if sufficient ethical and scientific justification for the study design is lacking.

Unacceptable euthanasia methods and anesthetic agents

Manuscripts reporting use of a euthanasia method(s) classified as unacceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association or use of an anesthesia method(s) that is widely prohibited (e.g., chloral hydrate, ether, chloroform) must include at the time of initial submission, scientific justification for use in the specific study design, as well as confirmation of approval for specific use from their animal research ethics committee. These manuscripts may be subject to additional ethics considerations prior to publication.

Humane endpoints

Manuscripts reporting studies in which death of a regulated animal (vertebrate, cephalopod) is a likely outcome or a planned experimental endpoint, must comprehensively report details of study design, rationale for the approach, and methodology, including consideration of humane endpoints. This applies to research that involves, for instance, assessment of survival, toxicity, longevity, terminal disease, or high rates of incidental mortality.

Full details of humane endpoints use must be reported for a study to be reproducible and for the results to be accurately interpreted.

For studies in which death of an animal is an outcome or a planned experimental endpoint, authors should include the following information in the Methods section of the manuscript:

• The specific criteria (i.e. humane endpoints) used to determine when animals should be euthanized.
• The duration of the experiment.
• The numbers of animals used, euthanized, and found dead (if any); the cause of death for all animals.
• How frequently animal health and behavior were monitored.
• All animal welfare considerations taken, including efforts to minimize suffering and distress, use of analgesics or anaesthetics, or special housing conditions.

If humane endpoints were not used, the manuscript should report:

• A scientific justification for the study design, including the reasons why humane endpoints could not be used, and discussion of alternatives that were considered.
• Whether the institutional animal ethics committee specifically reviewed and approved the anticipated mortality in the study design.

Observational and field studies

Methods sections for submissions reporting on any type of field study must include ethics statements that specify:

• Permits and approvals obtained for the work, including the full name of the authority that approved the study; if none were required, authors should explain why
• Whether the land accessed is privately owned or protected
• Whether any protected species were sampled
• Full details of animal husbandry, experimentation, and care/welfare, where relevant

Paleontology and archaeology research

Manuscripts reporting paleontology and archaeology research must include descriptions of methods and specimens in sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Data sets supporting statistical and phylogenetic analyses should be provided, preferably in a format that allows easy re-use.  Read the policy .

Specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location, are required for publication. Locality information should be provided in the manuscript as legally allowable, or a statement should be included giving details of the availability of such information to qualified researchers.

If permits were required for any aspect of the work, details should be given of all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority. This should be accompanied by the following statement:

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

Manuscripts describing paleontology and archaeology research are subject to the following policies:

• Sharing of data and materials.  Any specimen that is erected as a new species, described, or figured must be deposited in an accessible, permanent repository (i.e., public museum or similar institution). If study conclusions depend on specimens that do not fit these criteria, the article will be rejected under  PLOS ONE 's  data availability criterion .
• Ethics.   PLOS ONE   will not publish research on specimens that were obtained without necessary permission or were illegally exported.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

A systematic review paper, as defined by The Cochrane Collaboration , is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses explicit, systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. These reviews differ substantially from narrative-based reviews or synthesis articles. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.

Reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should include a completed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and flow diagram to accompany the main text. Blank templates are available here:

• Checklist: PDF or Word document
• Flow diagram: PDF or Word document

Authors must also state in their “Methods” section whether a protocol exists for their systematic review, and if so, provide a copy of the protocol as supporting information and provide the registry number in the abstract.

If your article is a systematic review or a meta-analysis you should:

• State this in your cover letter
• Select “Research Article” as your article type when submitting
• Include the PRISMA flow diagram as Fig 1 (required where applicable)
• Include the PRISMA checklist as supporting information

Meta-analysis of genetic association studies

Manuscripts reporting a meta-analysis of genetic association studies must report results of value to the field and should be reported according to the guidelines presented in Systematic Reviews of Genetic Association Studies  by Sagoo  et al.

On submission, authors will be asked to justify the rationale for the meta-analysis and how it contributes to the base of scientific knowledge in the light of previously published results. Authors will also be asked to complete a  checklist (DOCX)  outlining information about the justification for the study and the methodology employed. Meta-analyses that replicate published studies will be rejected if the authors do not provide adequate justification.

Personal data from third-party sources

For all studies using personal data from internet-based and other third-party sources (e.g., social media, blogs, other internet sources, mobile phone companies), data must be collected and used according to company/website Terms and Conditions, with appropriate permissions. All data sources must be acknowledged clearly in the  Materials and Methods section .

In the Ethics Statement, authors should declare any potential risks to individuals or individual privacy, or affirm that in their assessment, the study posed no such risks. In addition, the following Ethics and Data Protection requirements must be met.

For interventional studies , which impact participants’ experiences or data, the study design must have been prospectively approved by an Ethics Committee, and informed consent is required. The Ethics Committee may waive the requirement for approval and/or consent.

For observational studies  in which personal experiences and accounts are not manipulated, consultation with an Ethics or Data Protection Committee is recommended. Additional requirements apply in the following circumstances:

• If information used could threaten personal privacy or damage the reputation of individuals whose data are used, an Ethics Committee should be consulted and informed consent obtained or specifically addressed.
• If authors accessed any personal identifying information, an Ethics or Data Protection Committee should oversee data anonymization. If data were anonymized and/or aggregated before access and analysis, informed consent is generally not required.

Authors reporting research using cell lines should state when and where they obtained the cells, giving the date and the name of the researcher, cell line repository, or commercial source (company) who provided the cells, as appropriate.

Authors must also include the following information for each cell line:

For  de novo  (new) cell lines , including those given to the researchers as a gift, authors must follow our policies for  human subjects research  or  animal research , as appropriate. The ethics statement must include:

• Details of institutional review board or ethics committee approval; AND
• For human cells, confirmation of written informed consent from the donor, guardian, or next of kin

For established cell lines , the Methods section should include:

• A reference to the published article that first described the cell line; AND/OR
• The cell line repository or company the cell line was obtained from, the catalogue number, and whether the cell line was obtained directly from the repository/company or from another laboratory

Authors should check established cell lines using the  ICLAC Database of Cross-contaminated or Misidentified Cell Lines  to confirm they are not misidentified or contaminated. Cell line authentication is recommended – e.g., by karyotyping, isozyme analysis, or short tandem repeats (STR) analysis – and may be required during peer review or after publication.

Blots and gels

Please review PLOS ONE ’s requirements for reporting blot and gel results and providing the underlying raw images .

Manuscripts reporting experiments using antibodies should include the following information:

• The name of each antibody, a description of whether it is monoclonal or polyclonal, and the host species.
• The commercial supplier or source laboratory.
• The catalogue or clone number and, if known, the batch number.
• The antigen(s) used to raise the antibody.
• For established antibodies, a stable public identifier from the Antibody Registry .

The manuscript should also report the following experimental details:

• The final antibody concentration or dilution.
• A reference to the validation study if the antibody was previously validated. If not, provide details of how the authors validated the antibody for the applications and species used. 

Small and macromolecule crystal data

Manuscripts reporting new and unpublished three-dimensional structures must include sufficient supporting data and detailed descriptions of the methodologies used to allow the reproduction and validation of the structures. All novel structures must have been deposited in a community endorsed database prior to submission (please see our list of recommended repositories ).

Small molecule single crystal data

Authors reporting X-Ray crystallographic structures of small organic, metal-organic, and inorganic molecules must deposit their data with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC), the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD), or similar community databases providing a recognized validation functionality. Authors are also required to include the relevant structure reference numbers within the main text (e.g. the CCDC ID number), as well as the crystallographic information files (.cif format) as Supplementary Information, along with the checkCIF validation reports that can be obtained via the International Union of Crystallography (IUCr).

Macromolecular structures

Authors reporting novel macromolecular structures must have deposited their data prior to initial submission with the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB), the Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank (BMRB), the Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMDB), or other community databases providing a recognized validation functionality. Authors must include the structure reference numbers within the main text and submit as Supplementary Information the official validation reports from these databases.

Methods, software, databases, and tools

PLOS ONE  will consider submissions that present new methods, software, databases, or tools as the primary focus of the manuscript if they meet the following criteria:

Software submissions

Manuscripts whose primary purpose is the description of new software must provide full details of the algorithms designed. Describe any dependencies on commercial products or operating system. Include details of the supplied test data and explain how to install and run the software. A brief description of enhancements made in the major releases of the software may also be given. Authors should provide a direct link to the deposited software from within the paper.

Database submissions

For descriptions of databases, provide details about how the data were curated, as well as plans for long-term database maintenance, growth, and stability. Authors should provide a direct link to the database hosting site from within the paper.

New taxon names

Zoological names.

When publishing papers that describe a new zoological taxon name, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) . Effective 1 January 2012, the ICZN considers an online-only publication to be legitimate if it meets the criteria of archiving and is registered in ZooBank, the ICZN's official registry.

For proper registration of a new zoological taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

In the  Results  section, the globally unique identifier (GUID), currently in the form of a Life Science Identifier (LSID), should be listed under the new species name, for example:

You will need to contact  Zoobank  to obtain a GUID (LSID). Please do this as early as possible to avoid delay of publication upon acceptance of your manuscript. It is your responsibility to provide us with this information so we can include it in the final published paper.

Please also insert the following text into the  Methods  section, in a sub-section to be called “Nomenclatural Acts”:

All PLOS articles are deposited in  LOCKSS . If your institute, or those of your co-authors, has its own repository, we recommend that you also deposit the published online article there and include the name in your article.

Botanical names

When publishing papers that describe a new botanical taxon, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The following guidelines for publication in an online-only journal have been agreed such that any scientific botanical name published by us is considered effectively published under the rules of the Code. Please note that these guidelines differ from those for zoological nomenclature, and apply only to seed plants, ferns, and lycophytes.

Effective January 2012, the description or diagnosis of a new taxon can be in either Latin or English. This does not affect the requirements for scientific names, which are still to be Latin.

Also effective January 2012, the electronic PDF represents a published work according to the ICN for algae, fungi, and plants. Therefore the new names contained in the electronic publication of PLOS article are effectively published under that Code from the electronic edition alone, so there is no longer any need to provide printed copies.

Additional information describing recent changes to the Code can be found  here .

For proper registration of the new taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

Journal staff will contact IPNI to obtain the GUID (LSID) after your manuscript is accepted for publication, and this information will then be added to the manuscript during the production phase

In the  Methods  section, include a sub-section called “Nomenclature” using the following wording:

Fungal names

When publishing papers that describe a new botanical taxon, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The following guidelines for publication in an online-only journal have been agreed such that any scientific botanical name published by us is considered effectively published under the rules of the Code. Please note that these guidelines differ from those for zoological nomenclature.

You will need to contact either  Mycobank  or  Index Fungorum  to obtain the GUID (LSID). Please do this as early as possible to avoid delay of publication upon acceptance of your manuscript. It is your responsibility to provide us with this information so we can include it in the final published paper. Effective January 2013, all papers describing new fungal species must reference the identifier issued by a recognized repository in the protologue in order to be considered effectively published.

In the  Methods  section, include a sub-section called “Nomenclature” using the following wording. Note that this example is for taxon names submitted to MycoBank; please substitute appropriately if you have submitted to Index Fungorum using the prefix http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research studies use non-quantitative methods to address a defined research question that may not be accessible by quantitative methods, such as people's interpretations, experiences, and perspectives. The analysis methods are explicit, systematic, and reproducible, but the results do not involve numerical values or use statistics. Examples of qualitative data sources include, but are not limited to, interviews, text documents, audio/video recordings, and free-form answers to questionnaires and surveys.

Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist  or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist . Further reporting guidelines can be found in the Equator Network's  Guidelines for reporting qualitative research .

You may be eligible for APC support

Many institutional partners globally have publishing agreements with PLOS to allow their corresponding authors to publish with reduced or no APCs. To determine if your corresponding author is eligible, please visit our institutional partners page  to determine what kind of agreement your institution has with PLOS.

If your corresponding author is affiliated with a participating institution, they must follow the instructions below to demonstrate eligibility.

If your corresponding author is not from a participating institution and requires assistance paying publishing fees, please consider applying for a fee waiver at submission.

Academic & Employability Skills

Subscribe to academic & employability skills.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 411 other subscribers.

Email Address

Writing an abstract - a six point checklist (with samples)

Posted in: abstract , dissertations

The abstract is a vital part of any research paper. It is the shop front for your work, and the first stop for your reader. It should provide a clear and succinct summary of your study, and encourage your readers to read more. An effective abstract, therefore should answer the following questions:

• Why did you do this study or project?
• What did you do and how?
• What did you find?
• What do your findings mean?

So here's our run down of the key elements of a well-written abstract.

• Size - A succinct and well written abstract should be between approximately 100- 250 words.
• Background - An effective abstract usually includes some scene-setting information which might include what is already known about the subject, related to the paper in question (a few short sentences).
• Purpose  - The abstract should also set out the purpose of your research, in other words, what is not known about the subject and hence what the study intended to examine (or what the paper seeks to present).
• Methods - The methods section should contain enough information to enable the reader to understand what was done, and how. It should include brief details of the research design, sample size, duration of study, and so on.
• Results - The results section is the most important part of the abstract. This is because readers who skim an abstract do so to learn about the findings of the study. The results section should therefore contain as much detail about the findings as the journal word count permits.
• Conclusion - This section should contain the most important take-home message of the study, expressed in a few precisely worded sentences. Usually, the finding highlighted here relates to the primary outcomes of the study. However, other important or unexpected findings should also be mentioned. It is also customary, but not essential, to express an opinion about the theoretical or practical implications of the findings, or the importance of their findings for the field. Thus, the conclusions may contain three elements:
• The primary take-home message.
• Any additional findings of importance.
• Implications for future studies.

Example Abstract 2: Engineering Development and validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the pelvic bone.

Abstract from: Dalstra, M., Huiskes, R. and Van Erning, L., 1995. Development and validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the pelvic bone. Journal of biomechanical engineering, 117(3), pp.272-278.

And finally...  A word on abstract types and styles

Abstract types can differ according to subject discipline. You need to determine therefore which type of abstract you should include with your paper. Here are two of the most common types with examples.

Informative Abstract

The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the researcher presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the paper. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract [purpose, methods, scope] but it also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is usually no more than 300 words in length.

Descriptive Abstract A descriptive abstract indicates the type of information found in the work. It makes no judgements about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. It does incorporate key words found in the text and may include the purpose, methods, and scope of the research. Essentially, the descriptive abstract only describes the work being summarised. Some researchers consider it an outline of the work, rather than a summary. Descriptive abstracts are usually very short, 100 words or less.

Adapted from Andrade C. How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;53(2):172-5. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.82558. PMID: 21772657; PMCID: PMC3136027 .

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Click here to cancel reply.

• Email * (we won't publish this)

Write a response

Navigating the dissertation process: my tips for final years

Imagine for a moment... After months of hard work and research on a topic you're passionate about, the time has finally come to click the 'Submit' button on your dissertation. You've just completed your longest project to date as part...

8 ways to beat procrastination

Whether you’re writing an assignment or revising for exams, getting started can be hard. Fortunately, there’s lots you can do to turn procrastination into action.

My takeaways on how to write a scientific report

If you’re in your dissertation writing stage or your course includes writing a lot of scientific reports, but you don’t quite know where and how to start, the Skills Centre can help you get started. I recently attended their ‘How...

• Tricks for concise scientific writing #w ...

Tricks for concise scientific writing #wordcountchop

Posted by Alex Eve , on 18 March 2022

Often in scientific writing, we are up against strict limits, whether it be the number of words for a conference abstract, the number of pages for a grant proposal or even just the number of characters in a Tweet. Below, I’ve summarised a list of writing tricks to help you reduce the number of words in your scientific writing purely by changing the grammar and without sacrificing key information, clarity or accuracy. If you are not trying to fit within a specific word limit, then these tricks need not apply and instead write however you like. I do, however, think there is a case that concise writing can be clearer and more accessible, but that’s a matter of style and preference.

I’ve organised these tips in tables, in order from the easiest changes to do ( remove and replace ) to those changes that require more thought ( rephrase ). Within each table, tricks are organised in descending order with the most effective (i.e. most words chopped) at the top.

Take a look at the Twitter thread and #wordcountchop , for the list and other contributions from the community and add your own tips using the comments below.

First, aim to remove all unnecessary or redundant words and phrases to streamline your text and focus on the key points.

Don’t be overzealous with cuts, sometimes it is necessary to re-orientate the reader or relate various concepts with each other. Here, you can replace some lengthy phrases or unweidly grammar with shorter, or more precise, alternatives.

3. Rephrase

Finally, use grammar to your advantage. These tricks require a bit more conscious editing to rephrase the whole sentence or clause properly but, generally, you can convey the same message just as clearly.

Last updated: 22/03/2022

Tags: concise , how to , science writing , tips , tricks , word count , writing Categories: Education , Resources

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Get involved

Create an account or log in to post your story on the Node.

Sign up for emails

Subscribe to our mailing lists.

Most-read posts in April

• Lab meeting with the Koltowska lab
• Who was Rita Levi-Montalcini? by Alex Neaverson
• Transitions in development
• Lab meeting with the Tsakiridis Lab
• The shrimp Parhyale hawaiensis – a non-model organism research story with Dr. Michalis Averof by Alexandra Bisia
• SciArt profile: Maja Mielke

Do you have any news to share?

Our ‘Developing news’ posts celebrate the various achievements of the people in the developmental and stem cell biology community. Let us know if you would like to share some news.

Browse our topic pages

• A day in the life…
• Alternative careers
• Behind the paper stories
• Forgotten classics
• Honest conversations
• Lab meetings
• Meeting reports
• Monthly preprint list
• New PI diaries
• SciArt profiles
• About the Node
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• The Company of Biologists
• Development

© 2024. The Company of Biologists Ltd | Registered Charity 277992 Registered in England and Wales | Company Limited by Guarantee No 514735 Registered office: Bidder Building, Station Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF, UK

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Ready to submit

To give your manuscript the best chance of publication, ensure that you have completed the manuscript submission checklist below. Please review the submission guidelines again if necessary.

Manuscript submission checklist

To download the manuscript submission checklist, please click here .

Once you have successfully completed the checklist, you're ready to submit your manuscript. Please click on the button below to proceed.

Go to the online submission system

Revised submissions

If you have been invited to revise your paper, please use the link provided in the decision letter to resubmit. When resubmitting, in addition to your cover letter and revised manuscript files, you should include a response to the reviewers’ comments. This is an important part of your revised manuscript submission, and our guide to writing a response to the reviewers’ comments provides advice for maximising its effectiveness.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies