If you're reading this post, there's a good chance that you are working on a manuscript or preparing to submit an abstract to a scientific conference—maybe even one of our Cell Symposia (not-so-shameless plug). For manuscripts, the goal is clear—get it sent out for review. For conferences, some scientists are extremely vague about what they'll put in a conference abstract (fear of competition), but many are likely trying to be selected for a short talk and to attract other attendees to their poster.

Imagine some conference organizers who've a couple of hundred abstracts to consider for ten short talk slots, and they have about a week to do this (among many other responsibilities). If your title or abstract doesn't quickly grab their attention, then you're not likely to be selected. Journal editors will take their time and read the whole paper, but a good abstract is also important for us as well. As I discussed in an earlier post, at Molecular Cell, our first judgement is based on title and abstract, followed by a very careful reading of the full manuscript. If we do send your manuscript for review, then potential reviewers will have to decide whether to dedicate some of their precious time to reviewing your paper. If the title and abstract don't sound enticing (e.g., too vague or difficult to follow), then we'll have a more difficult time getting reviewers for your paper.

Please don't take all of this to mean that nobody pays attention to the details—we certainly do! But, you need to convince a potential reader that the details that they care about are actually in your paper or will be part of your talk or poster. Writing to engage your audience doesn't come naturally for all of us—it certainly didn't for me (as you will see shortly, it's taken about 10 years). The suggestions I'm going to make won't necessarily increase your chances for a short talk or having your paper sent out for review, but they will make it easier to get a sense of the science you are trying to share. Let's go back in time and take a look at an abstract from a paper of mine from 2006:

This version is 168 words long, and it has several issues that are highlighted and numbered. Below are some suggestions for each:

1. If possible, try to make the title declarative

This doesn't always work, but it is great way to let your reader know what you've found. In this case, we decided not to, but it is possible. This title suggests that ubiquitin can control where the polymerases go, but does it?

2. Avoid giving too much background information

It's true that these polymerases have relatively large active sites, but we weren't really focused on that in this paper. Though it is nice to call attention to this feature, a reader would still understand the point of the paper without it.

3. Try to eliminate extra words

Read each sentence out loud. See if you could say the same thing with fewer words. If something is obvious (or hardly surprising), why point it out?

4. Avoid getting into too many details

It's important to know we perturbed the interaction between ubiquitin and each polymerase, but someone who wants to know the specific mutations will read the paper

5. Be scientifically accurate

Is there anything in this abstract that suggests we tested the biological importance of this interaction? Not really. Changes in localization suggest something is happening, but we don't talk about impacting survival or replication fidelity—the real biological readouts (which were in another paper that had scooped us). If we did have this kind of evidence, we should have mentioned it.

Here are some of these edits in action:

Here is the final result, which is now 134 words. If I wanted to, I could add 16 more words and still fit the guidelines for Cell Press, but quality is always preferable to quantity.

I hope this example helps you think about how you put together your next abstract for a conference or paper. You can also try it with an old abstract of your own to see if you can make it better

Here are some key points to consider (some of which are applied in the example above):

Write for your audience, not for yourself

Avoid jargon, especially for a general audience

Keep the background statement brief and limited to essential information

Be declarative when possible

Be concise

Make sure your statements accurately reflect your findings

Keep your concluding sentence linked to the findings in your paper—avoid extrapolating too far

Avoid making novelty claims

Have any tips of your own? Share them in the comments below.