Billo, as an additional example of the acceptance of abstracts in the
scientific community, I am familiar with authors' using as a reference in a
published paper an abstract of a paper.
I have given you links to what an abstract contains.

Billo said: " Read the context, buddy. Go back and see where "meaningless"
was used
and how it was used in the sentence I was replying to. It referred to
the *reader* finding the article meaningless because he or she was not
competent to understand the article. It did not refer to anything
about the authors. Surely you are not that silly; why are you trying
to willfully misstate my position?"

My reply: The poster that you are replying to said the following: "You can
read it, but unless you are doing research in the area the
specifics are going to be meaningless." She did not say that the overall
article as described in the abstract was meaningless.

This is what you said: "This is particularly true in a scientific discussion
where one is citing articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."
Notice, you are now not referring to a "specific". Also, please note your
use of the word "them" following "articles", I interpret "them" as referring
to "articles". I interpret "one" (as used twice) as referring to the person
who cited the article (abstract) feeling that the article (abstract) was
meaningful.

If I put that paragraph into context and include the paragraph before that
one, the quote becomes:
""As a scientist" I consider it lazy and profoundly poor practice to cite
articles I have not bothered to read.
(Note a blank line appeared here in your post)
This is particularly true in a scientific discussion where one is citing
articles as if one did *not* find them meaningless."

Continuing my reply (H. Kuska): there is a world of difference between a
"specific" in a paper and the paper itself.

The "This is particularly true" contains the word "This" - which I interpret
as the being the paragraph before (not the earlier discussion of a specific
section of an actual paper). You may have meant something else; but as you
actually wrote it, you are not referring to the comments made by the person
that you originally started to reply to (which you now call "the reader")
but to the poster of abstracts ("scientific discussion where one is citing
articles "). I do not find the abstracts that I post meaningless to me - I
feel that I understant the important points.

You have indicated in your comments concerning the "Title: The teratogenic
potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R) in Wistar rats." abstract
that to study high dosages is ..... lots of words that indicate (to me)
that you feel the study was meaningless..... How can one say that a
published study is meaningless (in so many words) and not also be saying
something about the authors, editor, and reviewers? i.e. I took your
statement concerning meaningless in the context of what you have been saying
in this thread.

Yes, you started discussing the post with a third party but you broadened
your discussion. In the next set of paragraphs you also indicate that you
are no longer just talking to the poster that you started to reply to (for
example: " But, OK. I'll be happy to agree that you all are citing
articles......". Note the appearance of "you all").
..
Henry Kuska, retired

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