How many of you put references in your meeting abstracts? Most program booklets I see make me think its pretty rare, so what say you dear readership? Do you always put references in the abstract? Sometimes when necessary? Or never?
-
A semi-cultured, good-natured graduate student in biomedical sciences who escaped out of the deep south and now focuses on using genetics and biochemistry to elucidate DNA repair in cells. I also rant about other things non-science related here.
Never! Who does that?
Weirdos...
Never
never ever?
Ever
I do! But it's common in my field. How the hell do you have an introduction w/o references?
to a 250 word fucking abstract?
That's not a fucking abstract, that's a tweet XD. One of these fields is not like the other *jingle jangle*.
I like the idea of having a formal 'Tweet' section before the abstract. Maybe we could suggest it to Nature Reviews?
Nope, not in the abstract. I want my reaserch to take space. Reference are for posters, presentations and such
(Maybe the questions to ask is sometimes; have you really done the stuff that you write in the abstract since the time lag from "submit an abstract" and "conference" are so big that it's hard not to have sent in the paper... maybe that's just in my field where people tend to write very 'generic' abstracts and wait until the confrence to actually show reuslts and all the fun?)
My abstract has it's own reference listing, figures and tables.
seriously, I don't, and it's not typical in my area.
I want to put "references available upon request" on mine now for shits and giggles.
Never. Abstracts do not get references.
I've seen it a few times in my field (biophysics), but it's not common. However, when I see it, it can be pretty helpful - saying "we resolve the conflict between Bessel 2007 and Fourier 2009" certainly beats "We resolve previous conflicting results."
Nevah. Evah.
I'm in a similar area to B, and have seen the same. Every so often, you have a project which needs a reference for context, but that's not the norm.