“It is easier to write an abstract if you remember that all abstracts have a basic structure” (Hartley 2008, p. 31).
Quite rightly, advice about writing research papers commonly recommends that the abstract is written only after the text of the paper is completed, at least in draft (see, for example, Goldbort 2006, p. 248; Hartley 2008, p. 31; Silvia 2014, p. 168). This advice is sound, but there is then the danger that the abstract will be rushed on the way to completion. Indeed, the laziest of authors will make an abstract by cut-and-pasting sentences from their text—do not do this. Your abstract should be a fresh summary of your paper, not the same old, same old (A. L. Allcock, written comm., 22 July 2019).
Instead, take your time; your abstract needs to be carefully constructed as you pack the essential parts of the paper into it (Day 1998, pp. 29–30). Complete the paper and at least sleep on it before writing the abstract; give the essential points a chance to percolate through and become logically ordered in your mind before writing them down. In particular, in systematic palaeontology, care needs to be taken to ensure that the abstract is more than just a list of species. Your abstract needs to be as comprehensive and structured as possible in the limited space available. That is, it “… needs to be both informative and compelling, a research paper in miniature” (Silvia 2014, p. 168).
One aid to writing that is used effectively by some journals, more commonly in medicine and social sciences, is the structured abstract (Hartley and Benjamin 1998; Bayley and Eldredge 2003; Hartley 2004, 2008, pp. 31–36; Nakayama et al. 2005; Hartley and Betts 2007). The structured abstract has a set form in any given journal, as defined by the ‘Instructions for authors’ and commonly comprising of an ordered set of five to eight subheadings. A common form might include five subheadings, such as ‘Background’, ‘Aims’, ‘Method’, ‘Results’ and ‘Conclusions’ (Hartley 2008, fig. 2.3.1a). I have taken the (unstructured) abstract of a recent taxonomic paper of my own to test its comprehensiveness and flexibility if presented in structured form. I believe it demonstrates that an abstract can be structured even without subheadings; this structure is a responsibility of the author.
“Well-preserved specimens, such as complete individuals, crowns and cups, are the common focus for crinoid systematic research. Yet the majority of specimens are disarticulated ossicles which are essentially ignored. The incompleteness of the fossil record is even more so when we ignore potential sources of data. A new species of crinoid comes from a monospecific assemblage from the Pennsylvanian (Upper Carboniferous) of western Ireland. All specimens are from a float block of the Clare Shale Formation (Bashkirian stage) at Fisherstreet Bay, Doolin, County Clare, western Ireland. Heloambocolumnus (col.) harperi gen. et sp. nov. has a pentagonocyclic, heteromorphic column; the small, central lumen is in a shallow, circular claustrum; the articulation is radial symplectial; the crenulae are slightly swollen and peg-like close to the circumference; nodals have rounded, unsculptured epifacets; nodal articular facets are sunken and in which narrow internodals are situated; and circlets of tubercles on epifacet surround priminternodals. These columnals are associated with robust, uniserial brachial ossicles. This crinoid is most likely a cladid” (after Donovan and Doyle 2019).
Without addition or rewriting, this abstract fits into a structured abstract format, as below. I admit that the fit of the structured abstract could be improved with some rewriting, but nonetheless illustrates how the sense of an abstract on a topic in systematics follows that of a structured abstract. Rather than ‘Methods’, as mentioned above, I have chosen a subheading ‘What we did’ (suggested by A. L. Allcock, written comm., 22 July 2019) which may fit abstracts in systematic palaeontology rather better.
Background. Well-preserved specimens, such as complete individuals, crowns and cups, are the common focus for crinoid systematic research. Yet the majority of specimens are disarticulated ossicles which are essentially ignored.
Aims. The incompleteness of the fossil record is even more so when we ignore potential sources of data.
What we did. A new species of crinoid comes from a monospecific assemblage from the Pennsylvanian (Upper Carboniferous) of western Ireland. All specimens are from a float block of the Clare Shale Formation (Bashkirian stage) at Fisherstreet Bay, Doolin, County Clare, western Ireland.
Results.Heloambocolumnus (col.) harperi gen. et sp. nov. has a pentagonocyclic, heteromorphic column; the small, central lumen is in a shallow, circular claustrum; the articulation is radial symplectial; the crenulae are slightly swollen and peg-like close to the circumference; nodals have rounded, unsculptured epifacets; nodal articular facets are sunken and in which narrow internodals are situated; and circlets of tubercles on epifacet surround priminternodals. These columnals are associated with robust, uniserial brachial ossicles.
Conclusions. This crinoid is most likely a cladid (Donovan, new).
The fit is good in parts, such as ‘Background’ and ‘Results’; poor in others, particularly ‘Aims’; and the remainder are worthy, at least. Yet even this imperfect structured abstract is instructive, informing me, as the author, where it might be improved. ‘Aims’ might have been stronger if it simply stated that it was intended to describe a new species of crinoid, but is this even necessary? Perhaps a slightly different suite of subheadings tailored to suit systematic palaeontology, as I have tentatively used above, would be better than the more general set that are already widely used and needs to evolve.