IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v14y1963i2p149-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Criteria for acceptable abstracts: A survey of abstracters' instructions

Author

Listed:
  • Harold Borko
  • Seymour Chatman

Abstract

The need for criteria by which to judge the adequacy of an abstract is felt most strongly when evaluating machine‐produced abstracts. In order to develop a set of criteria, a survey was conducted of the instructions prepared by various scientific publications as a guide to their abstracters in the preparation of copy. One‐hundred‐and‐thirty sets of instructions were analyzed and compared as to their function, content, and form. It was concluded that, while differences in subject matter do not necessarily require different kinds of abstracts, there are significant variations between the informative and the indicative abstracts. A set of criteria for the writing of an acceptable abstract of science literature was derived. The adequacy of these criteria is still to be validated, and the authors' plans for future research in this area are specified.

Suggested Citation

  • Harold Borko & Seymour Chatman, 1963. "Criteria for acceptable abstracts: A survey of abstracters' instructions," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 149-160, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:14:y:1963:i:2:p:149-160
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090140211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140211
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090140211?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:14:y:1963:i:2:p:149-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.