ABSTRACTS, EXTRACTS, ANNOTATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES

An abstract covers the main points of a piece of writing, using the same level of technical
language and expertise found in the document itself. They are typically 150 to 250 words long
and follow set patterns (Colorado State University 2012).
An extract is a condensed version of a document created by pulling sentences directly from
the document in sequential order. For example, key sentences from the abstract, first and last
sentences of paragraphs, and several from the results and conclusions.
An annotation is a very short and brief (often only a few sentences) content indicator that
quickly describes a document (Lancaster 2003). It usually contains a concise summary of
content and a short one or two sentence analysis or evaluation. This is not to be confused with a
critical abstract, which is a full abstract of several hundred words, and it both abstracts and
evaluates the document.
An executive summary is a preview of main points at the head of a report. Usually, it is a
straightforward, nontechnical description in detail of what is to follow. A good executive
summary familiarizes readers with the report without necessarily having to read it in its entirety.

● TYPES OF ABSTRACTS
In the literature, types of abstract are defined in various ways in an attempt to categorize
them. Although this is useful, the ambiguity that exists is because, in reality, abstract writers
tend to ignore the gray lines of formal definition and write abstracts that are a combination of
the arbitrarily defined different types. Traditionally, abstracts have been classified by the way
they are written, by their use, and by who writes them.
Indicative abstracts or descriptive disclose that significant information and specific data can
be found in the document. For example, an indicative abstract might state that “the number of
onions grown in California was determined and reported in this article.” An indicative abstract
simply describes what type of document is being abstracted and what it is about. In most cases,
the indicative abstract is somewhat shorter, written in general terms, and does not give the user
a progressive account of the document’s development. It has often been described as an alerting
device and is never expected to replace the document itself. It guides users to the item by telling
them what can be found there. To accomplish this, the abstract cannot be too general. At the
minimum it must give essential information, such as the purpose of the document and the
results.
An informative abstract actually presents the specific data. In the example, the abstract would
read: “According to this article, a billion seventy-five onions were grown in California.” An
informative abstract tries to present as much quantitative and qualitative data as possible. This
type of abstract is the most useful for documents reporting on experimental investigations. It
abridges the principal ideas and facts and contains actual data. Informative abstracts have been
compared to a skeleton with all the flesh missing; the viewer is given enough detail to
accurately reconstruct what the departed soul must have looked like. The user
often does not have to retrieve the document for further information, because such things as
formulas, statistical results, and parts of tables are often included in the abstract.
An informative abstract should cover four essential points:

1. Objective and scope of the work

2. Methods used
3. Results
4. conclusions

Item 1 is important because it may allow users to determine, without reading any more of the
abstract, that they have no use for the document. Item 2 must cover the equipment used and all
the methodological details so that the user will gain a good understanding of the investigation.
Critical abstracts make a value judgment or editorial comment on the document. In our
example, the abstract would now state: “This document reports on the number of onions grown
in California, but because it doesn’t indicate which years, or compare the data with other states,
the information is not of much value.” The critical abstract is generally recognized as a third
type of abstract, although it is questionable if it is indeed a third category. If it is heavily
editorial it cannot convey much basic information and is really a review of the document rather
than a true indicator of document content. Some abstractors do not like critical abstracts. They
feel strongly that an abstract should avoid the bias and personal viewpoint of the abstractor.
Critical abstracting can be a powerful tool. The key, of course, is that the abstractors are
sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject and the methodologies in the document so that
they can make quality judgments. This kind of abstract is most often used on general documents
with broad overviews, on reviews, and on monographs, but it is also used for single documents.
Another type of abstract is the telegraphic abstract. The term telegraphic abstract is not often
used nowadays, although it still exists in practice. Basically, it is an abstract that uses key words
from the document with very little syntactic integrity. In other words, it reads like a telegram,
for example, “Millions onions grown in California.”
Although many abstracts are clearly either indicative or informative, in actual practice they
are often combined and perform an indicative, informative, and critical function. Indexing and
abstracting services often indicate that the abstracting will be indicative, informative, or a
combination of both according to the nature of the material being abstracted.
All three types of abstracts serve a useful purpose, although the most popular one, and
probably the most important one, is the informative type. A vast majority of abstracting results
in informative abstracts, because a majority of abstractable materials lend themselves to this
form. However, reviews, books, essays, and the like lend themselves to indicative abstracts and
occasionally to critical ones. Once again, the type of material and the eventual users are the
basis for a decision on which type of abstract should be used.

CATEGORIZING ABSTRACTS BY PURPOSE