- Email: [email protected]
The summary: The manuscript's bottom line
FROM THE EDITOR
The Summary: The Manuscript’s Bottom Line Through the years I have asked numerous readers of medical journals which journal they read monthly and how they select which articles to read in a particular journal. The responses to the latter question indicate that the most frequent portion of a manuscript read is the manuscript’s title, and next the manuscript’s summary. If the latter is unappealing,
most readers do not pursue other portions
of the manuscript. But is the summary given the same attention by the author as it is given by the reader? I think not. When writing medical papers with young associates, rarely have I been presented with a rough draft of a manuscript containing a summary. The summary, I suspect, tends to be written by many authors just before the final typing of the manuscript. Thus, when written last, the
Because the summary is so important to a manuscript, I suggest that an author write this portion first (after the title) rather than last. By so doing, one may focus better on the number of points the particular manuscript is trying to make. If the manuscript has essentially
only 1 point, the
summary can be particularly crisp and short; if more than 1 point, the summary provides an outline of the points to be made. After the point or points of the manuscript are clearly in focus, the remainder of the paper can more readily build the case demonstrating the validity of each point. The summary then needs to be given the same emphasis and importance by authors as it receives from readers.
summary tends to be disjointed as it attempts to tie together the important points of the paper. When written first, the summary serves as an outline, focusing the thrust of the manuscript. Moreover, by being done last, the summary may not receive the thoughtful portions of the manuscript.
deliberation
given other
William C. Roberts, MD Editor-in-Chief
The Summary: The Manuscript’s Bottom Line Through the years I have asked numerous readers of medical journals which journal they read monthly and how they select which articles to read in a particular journal. The responses to the latter question indicate that the most frequent portion of a manuscript read is the manuscript’s title, and next the manuscript’s summary. If the latter is unappealing,
most readers do not pursue other portions
of the manuscript. But is the summary given the same attention by the author as it is given by the reader? I think not. When writing medical papers with young associates, rarely have I been presented with a rough draft of a manuscript containing a summary. The summary, I suspect, tends to be written by many authors just before the final typing of the manuscript. Thus, when written last, the
Because the summary is so important to a manuscript, I suggest that an author write this portion first (after the title) rather than last. By so doing, one may focus better on the number of points the particular manuscript is trying to make. If the manuscript has essentially
only 1 point, the
summary can be particularly crisp and short; if more than 1 point, the summary provides an outline of the points to be made. After the point or points of the manuscript are clearly in focus, the remainder of the paper can more readily build the case demonstrating the validity of each point. The summary then needs to be given the same emphasis and importance by authors as it receives from readers.
summary tends to be disjointed as it attempts to tie together the important points of the paper. When written first, the summary serves as an outline, focusing the thrust of the manuscript. Moreover, by being done last, the summary may not receive the thoughtful portions of the manuscript.
deliberation
given other
William C. Roberts, MD Editor-in-Chief