Page 238 - English for Writing Research Papers
P. 238

223




            13.7   Why should I download the instructions to the author?


                  Isn't it enough to check how other authors for the same
                  journal have structured their abstract?
             You cannot tell from looking at a published abstract in your journal of choice exactly
            what the editors want and do not want. This information can only be obtained by down-
            loading the journal's "instructions to authors". These instructions will tell you whether:



              •   there is a limit on the word count

              •   you can use the active or passive (   7.4   ), and whether you can use  we

              •    references are allowed

              •   you can use a note-like form in some items of a structured abstract (  13.10 ),

                 but full sentences are required in the results and conclusions
              •   you can change and/or delete the headings in a structured abstract


               It is not possible to glean the information above simply by looking at another
            author's abstract.




            13.8   What style should I use: personal or impersonal?




              There are four possible styles for writing abstracts and papers:

                 style   1  I found that x = y.
                 style 2  We found that x = y.

                 style 3  It was found that x = y.


                 style 4  The authors found that x = y.
              The style you use will depend on your discipline and on the requirements of the
            journal. Using the first person singular (Style 1), is generally only found in human-

            istic fi elds where the author's opinions are often outlined. Here is an example – an

            abstract from a paper entitled  International scientific English: Some thoughts on
            science, language and ownership.


                 style   1 The intention of this paper is to raise some questions about the ‘ownership' of scientifi c
              English. Its author is a native speaker of English and a teacher of scientific English, but it aims

              its arguments at the international scientific community communicating in English. The paper is

              deliberately somewhat provocative in parts in an attempt to raise some questions about ‘scien-

              tific English' which  I think  are important but which have not been faced to date.
   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243