Undergraduate Research Symposium Workshop: Abstracts

General considerations and requirements for the Undergraduate Symposium poster presentation abstracts

• All abstracts must be submitted by 4:59 p.m., March 3, 2014.
• Accepted abstracts must contain: 1) A hypothesis or research question being tested, or a disciplinary challenge being addressed and its importance or interest to you; 2)   Research and scholarly methods used;  3) Summary findings (even if preliminary); and a 4)  Conclusive statement.  Abstracts missing any of the items above will be rejected.
• All fields within the submission portal must be completed 
• Individuals who have video uploads must ensure privacy of the video submission.

Do see this Undergraduate Symposium web page when you are ready to submit your abstract.

Additional considerations for the different scholarly disciplines

• For the sciences, social sciences, humanities, and business.
• For the arts.

The example below shows two versions of an abstract. Abstract version one is the actual abstract from this article cited just below. Abstract version two is a refined version aimed at getting key, necessary points across more succinctly.  You see color on each version to show the changes made. You can maybe refine it more !

Mullins, M. M., DeLuca, J. B., Crepaz, N., & Lyles, C. M. (2013). Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?: Reporting Quality of Search Methods. Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1098

Abstract version one. Abstract "body" has 187 words (using Microsoft Word word count).  Blue indicates word deletions.

Systematic reviews are an essential tool for researchers, prevention providers and policy makers who want to remain current with the evidence in the field. Systematic review must adhere to strict standards, as the results can provide a more objective appraisal of evidence for making scientific decisions than traditional narrative reviews. An integral component of a systematic review is the development and execution of a comprehensive systematic search to collect available and relevant information. A number of reporting guidelines have been developed to ensure quality publications of systematic reviews. These guidelines provide the essential elements to include in the review process and report in the final publication for complete transparency. We identified the common elements of reporting guidelines and examined the reporting quality of search methods in HIV behavioral intervention literature. Consistent with the findings from previous evaluations of reporting search methods of systematic reviews in other fields, our review shows a lack of full and transparent reporting within systematic reviews even though a plethora of guidelines exist. This review underscores the need for promoting the completeness of and adherence to transparent systematic search reporting within systematic reviews.

Abstract version two.  Abstract "body" has 146 words (using Microsoft Word word count). Red indicates word changes.

Systematic reviews are an essential tool for researchers, prevention providers and policy makers who want to remain current with the evidence in the field. Systematic review must adhere to strict standards, as the results can provide a more objective appraisal of evidence for making scientific decisions than traditional narrative reviews. Many reporting guidelines are available to ensure the quality of systematic reviews. These guidelines note essential elements for the review process and to report in the final publication for complete transparency. We identified common elements of reporting guidelines and examined the reporting quality of search methods in HIV behavioral intervention literature. Consistent with previous evaluations of the reporting of search methods of systematic reviews in other fields, our review shows a lack of full and transparent reporting within systematic reviews. This review underscores the need for promoting complete and transparent systematic search reporting within systematic reviews.

Note the first abstract contained a sentence about the comprehensiveness of the searching.  That is different than the reporting needed to transparently show what was done in the searching.  That kind of "transparent reporting" was the focus of the research,  so that sentence could be removed.  

Writing Concisely.  The guide on this University of North Carolina site describes and gives examples for how to reduce "wordiness".

The first link below is a PowerPoint that draws on the same information from the UNC guide.  The second link below is a pdf of the same guide from UNC.