If you are unfamiliar with the structure of scientific articles, you may
be surprised to learn that not all of the information in the
article is present in the abstract. In fact, it is a common misconception
among the scientifically naieve that one can comprehend an article from
the abstract. The purpose of the abstract is to provide information to
let one know whether or not he or she should read the article; it is
not a substitute for reading the article.
billo
H. Kuska reply: If someone is interested in reading about the purpose of
abstracts in the scientific literature, I have 2 suggestions:
1) a Google search. These are mainly of use to the beginning student
scientist. The following are just a few hits of such a search:
http://smccd.net/accounts/goth/cours...s/abstract.pdf
http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/cl.../abstract.html
http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/writing.pdf

2) Look at the instructions to authors of the individual scientific
journals.
http://www.e-journals.org/
For example in the journal Environmental Science and Technology
https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/Show...authguide.pdf:
the following appears: "Abstract. An abstract must accompany each
manuscript. Use between 150 and 200 words to give purpose, methods or
procedures, significant new results, and conclusions. Define any
abbreviations used in the abstract. Write for literature searchers as well
as journal readers. Include major quantitative data if they can be stated
briefly, but do not include background material."

I have provided the abstract of articles (without personal interpretation)
that I feel are related to this discussion. Anyone who is interested in
reading further can go to a University Library and look at the journal or
have the library obtain a copy of the journal article through Interlibrary
Loan (or in some cases purchase it through the Internet). You can follow
the scientific comments concerning an article (i.e. see what other
scientists have to say about it) by looking in Science Citation Indexes.
There will normally be about a one year time delay before an article is
cited.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/