The abstract is the first thing your paper is judged by, and often the only thing a reviewer reads before deciding. Reviewers read dozens of abstracts in one sitting and ask one question of each: is there something new here worth presenting to the audience? A good abstract answers it in its first lines.
What the reviewer looks for
- That the paper fits the conference themes. Most abstracts are turned down because they fall outside the themes, not because they are weak. Read the call before you write, and name the theme you are submitting to.
- That the problem is clear. What question does your paper answer? If that is not clear from the first two sentences, many reviewers stop reading.
- That the paper has a method. How you reached what you reached: a corpus you analysed, a sample you studied, texts you compared.
- That it says what to expect. If the research is complete, state your main finding – that is strongest. Abstracts are often written before the work begins or early in it; then state what you expect the results to show, or what has emerged so far, in specific terms: “The study is expected to reveal…” is clearer than “The paper will discuss…” on its own.
A structure in five sentences
Not a template to follow word for word, but most accepted abstracts move through these steps in this order:
- Problem: what has not been studied yet, or has been studied incompletely.
- Aim: what this paper sets out to do, precisely.
- Method and material: how it was studied, and on which texts or data.
- Result or expected result: the main finding if the work is complete, or what it is expected to reach if it is at an early stage – specific in either case.
- Contribution: why this result matters to the reader, the specialist or the field.
Length and format
- Keep to the limit stated in the call, usually 200 to 300 words. An abstract over the limit is sometimes rejected unread.
- Three to five keywords, chosen from what specialists search for, not only from the title.
- The title should name both the subject and the material: “Phonetic explanation in Sibawayh’s Kitab” is clearer than “A reading of the heritage”.
- No references or long quotations in the abstract unless the call asks for them.
- If review is blind, do not put your name or university in the text of the abstract or in the file’s properties.
Common reasons for rejection
- The paper falls outside the conference themes.
- The abstract describes a general topic, not a specific piece of research.
- It does not say what to expect from the paper: no result and no specific expectation, only a general promise of what will be discussed.
- Language and spelling errors – Arabic-language conferences are especially sensitive to these.
- Exceeding the word limit, or ignoring the template attached to the call.
- Submitting after the deadline, or by a route other than the one the call specifies.
Before you send it
Read the abstract aloud and ask yourself: if a reviewer who does not know me read this, would they know from the first two lines what the research question is, and from the last what the result is?
Open calls for papers – sorted by what closes soonest ·
The demo conference – how an abstract is submitted and reviewed ·
Requesting leave to attend a conference
