-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.02
0.024192145 = product of:
0.036288217 = sum of:
0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016003672 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.020284547 = product of:
0.040569093 = sum of:
0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040569093 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: ¬The effects of spacing and titles on judgments of the effectiveness of structured abstracts (2007)
0.01
0.0076997704 = product of:
0.02309931 = sum of:
0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02309931 = score(doc=1325,freq=6.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998)
0.01
0.007112743 = product of:
0.021338228 = sum of:
0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021338228 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to consider whether or not structured abstracts can be used efectively in non medical science periodicals. Reviews a selection of studies on structured abstracts from the medical and psychological literature, presents examples of structured abstracts published in non medical science periodicals and considers how original abstracts might be written in a structured form for these periodicals. Concludes that, in light of these example studies, editors of these periodicals should consider the value of adopting structured abstracts
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.01
0.0056345966 = product of:
0.01690379 = sum of:
0.01690379 = product of:
0.03380758 = sum of:
0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03380758 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04990557 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
