A winning formula for abstracts

As a follow-up to yesterday's blog: 

I want to submit an abstract for a conference where the papers are published as a yearbook. As an insecure student, I thought I'd better read up on how to structure abstracts. I found plenty of advice on winning formulas. I was advised to frame it around key questions, or to 'complete the sentences' for a set of sentences that started with specific wordings, or to pick key words that would make the paper appear higher up the list when people use search engines.

 

Then I had a bright idea. I thought I'd (non-scientifically) analyse the abstracts from a previous year's book to see what their winning formula is before I got cracking on my abstract. Here's what I found...

Abstract 1

• Context
• This article will
• Key finding 

 

Abstract 2

• This paper is on the topic...
• More detail about the topic
• My claim

 

Abstract 3

• This article aims to explore
• It will focus..
• Key data
• This article concludes by

 

Abstract 4

• Framing
• Contention (nevertheless)
• Purpose of the research

 

Abstract 5

• This article is (content)
• The article explores
• This is an opportunity for me to

 

Abstract 6 

• Context
• This article (content)
• This article (source of data)
• Conclusion

 

Abstract 7

• It's about X research project
• Framing
• Key finding
• Contention

 

Abstract 8

• Explanation of title
• Why the topic is relevant
• In this article I will

 

Abstract 9

• It's about X research project
• The focus within that project

 

Abstract 10

• Context
• Importance of topic
• Questions that will be addressed in this article

If you can identify the winning formula from this lot, your brain must be wired in a different way from mine as I cannot spot a pattern. 

 

Conclusion: Be me. Don't follow a formula. Give readers the information I think will help them decide whether they want to read my article. As for the conference and publication, the idea will be worth publishing or it won't.