FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2948613347> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2948613347 endingPage "E397" @default.
• W2948613347 startingPage "E397" @default.
• W2948613347 abstract "To the Editor: O’Donohoe et al1 make a fervent plea to the neurosurgical community to avoid judging a book by its cover. While exhorting us to enhance the quality of abstracts, they also urge us to look beyond the abstract and delve deeper into a scientific paper absorbing the message, in its full flavor. On the same note, we hope to make a petition for a balance while judging the worth of a scientific abstract vis-à-vis the full paper. Abstracts are to science what trailers are to Hollywood blockbusters. Just as the main paper, they too aim at informing, inspiring, and innovating scientific thinking.2 The snapshot of information they provide is meant to triage a busy clinician's readership time. They contribute key words for search engines and set the stage for a deeper scientific thought process. Quite often, behind the simple-worded abstract may lie a complex story. Abstracts may sometimes glitter more than the main paper, draw undeserving attention, and cleverly camouflage a mediocre paper.2,3 Groves and Abbasi2 report that in 15% to 20% of papers submitted to the British Medical Journal, a preliminary decision was taken based on the structured abstract alone. Papers rejected by screening abstracts did not find acceptance on further evaluation of the full paper.2 Scientific readership would often fit into the following categories, and to what extent a paper is read is determined by which category one belongs to: The binge reader:With overwhelming access to journals and reading apps on tablets and smartphones, their tribe is ever increasing. Binge reading has a feel good appeal while covering a plethora of subjects in a short while.4 It does not matter even if it means just skimming through some groundbreaking abstracts for research ideas. The subject-intrigued reader:They are the readers that all authors and journals aspire to have, but they are few and far in between. They relish every bit of the paper, critically appraise it, and allow ideas to germinate further. The journal-club reader:Journal clubs generate a greater audience for the paper that may have been missed earlier by the library or smartphone reader. They lend a stamp of credibility to the idea behind the paper while critically appraising its research methodology and results. They also inspire trainees to build further on the research concept. Therefore, “abstract-centric” bibliometry merits a rethought due to the following reasons: “Map is not the territory”:This concept proposed by Alfred Korzybski in 1933 holds good for abstracts in scientific literature too.5 Thus, the roadmap is not the road, the menu is not the meal, and the abstract is not the full paper. But, maps are useful anyway and maps surely can be made better. Failed take-off:Some conference abstracts fail to take off beyond the initial poster, podium presentation, or the abstract book into a full published paper.2 The idea, however, is not always lost, as abstracts at major meetings are indexed and therefore may be developed further by a hungry researcher scouting for ideas. Many a Shakespearean slip exists in scientific literature between the abstract and the full paper. Nevertheless, let us not belittle the abstract, which often shines brighter and shouts louder than it should. Thankfully, as letters to the editor do not have an abstract, perhaps no part of this piece would be missed by the binge reader, multitasker neurosurgeon, scourging the literature for groundbreaking abstracts in a busy world. Disclosures The author has no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article." @default.
• W2948613347 created "2019-06-14" @default.
• W2948613347 creator A5059493355 @default.
• W2948613347 date "2019-06-03" @default.
• W2948613347 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2948613347 title "Letter: Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study" @default.
• W2948613347 cites W2042529745 @default.
• W2948613347 cites W2550004807 @default.
• W2948613347 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz183" @default.
• W2948613347 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31157887" @default.
• W2948613347 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2948613347 type Work @default.
• W2948613347 sameAs 2948613347 @default.
• W2948613347 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2948613347 countsByYear W29486133472019 @default.
• W2948613347 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2948613347 hasAuthorship W2948613347A5059493355 @default.
• W2948613347 hasBestOaLocation W29486133471 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConcept C82307848 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C111472728 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C138885662 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C17744445 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C199539241 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C2779530757 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C39549134 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C71924100 @default.
• W2948613347 hasConceptScore W2948613347C82307848 @default.
• W2948613347 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2948613347 hasLocation W29486133471 @default.
• W2948613347 hasLocation W29486133472 @default.
• W2948613347 hasOpenAccess W2948613347 @default.
• W2948613347 hasPrimaryLocation W29486133471 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2948613347 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2948613347 hasVolume "85" @default.
• W2948613347 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2948613347 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2948613347 magId "2948613347" @default.
• W2948613347 workType "letter" @default.