Common Abstract Mistakes and How Early Researchers Can Correct Them

Saheed Akinola Esq

Most abstract rejections are not caused by weak ideas. They are caused by avoidable mistakes in how those ideas are presented. Reviewers encounter the same problems repeatedly, particularly in submissions from early researchers. These issues are rarely about intelligence or effort. They are about unfamiliarity with academic expectations.

This article examines the most common abstract mistakes and offers practical ways to correct them before submission.

Vagueness Instead of Precision

One of the most frequent problems is vagueness. Abstracts often rely on phrases such as this study explores or this paper examines without specifying what is being explored or examined. While such language sounds academic, it leaves reviewers guessing.

Correction begins with naming things clearly. State what is being studied, in what context, and with what focus. Precision does not limit a study. It strengthens it.

An Unclear Research Purpose

Some abstracts provide background but never state the purpose of the study. Others imply it indirectly, assuming the reader will infer the aim.

A strong abstract does not leave purpose to interpretation. Whether framed as an objective, a question, or an aim, the purpose should be explicit. Reviewers should not have to search for it.

Misalignment Within the Abstract

Another common issue is lack of alignment. The problem described does not clearly connect to the method. The findings do not follow naturally from the stated purpose. The contribution feels disconnected from the rest of the text.

This often occurs when abstracts are written quickly or assembled from multiple drafts. Correction requires reading the abstract as a single argument. Each part should support the next.

Trying to Say Too Much

Early researchers often attempt to include every element of their study in the abstract. The result is a dense paragraph that overwhelms rather than informs.

An abstract is a summary, not an inventory. Focus on what a reviewer needs to know in order to understand the study and assess its relevance. Clarity improves when unnecessary detail is removed.

Overstating the Contribution

Bold claims about major impact or novelty are common and usually counterproductive. Reviewers are cautious readers. They respond better to measured, specific contributions than to sweeping assertions.

A more effective approach is restraint. Describe what the study contributes and allow the coherence of the abstract to demonstrate its value.

Writing Without the Reader in Mind

Some abstracts assume the reader already understands the context or terminology. Others oversimplify to the point of losing academic substance.

Good abstracts strike a balance. They are accessible to informed readers across disciplines without sacrificing clarity or seriousness. Writing with the reviewer in mind improves both tone and effectiveness.

Treating the Abstract as a Plan Rather Than a Summary

Abstracts that read like intentions rather than summaries often raise concerns. Reviewers want to see evidence of a well defined study, not a tentative idea.

When research is ongoing, it is still possible to describe design, scope, and contribution with clarity. Uncertainty should not dominate the abstract.

Revising Before Submission

Strong abstracts are rarely produced in a single draft. Revision is where clarity emerges. Reading the abstract sentence by sentence and asking what each one contributes is a useful discipline.

Reading aloud often reveals awkward phrasing or unclear logic. Peer feedback is also valuable, especially from readers unfamiliar with the project.

Closing Reflection

Most abstract mistakes are correctable. Awareness is often all that is required. When early researchers understand what weakens abstracts, they gain control over how their work is received.

In the next article, we will move from theory to practice. We will review selected past calls for papers, examine the structure of submitted abstracts, and explain why certain submissions were accepted. This shift will allow us to see how principles discussed so far operate in real academic contexts.

Adekunle Saheed Akinola is a researcher with expertise in international environmental law and policy, focusing on the right to development, the transition to a green economy, and the rights of indigenous communities. He also specializes in comparative international human rights, particularly women’s and minority rights, as well as international investment law. Adekunle provides mentorship to early researchers and students in research paper writing, drafting conference abstracts, and developing Master’s and PhD theses. He is committed to helping scholars communicate their ideas clearly, structure their work effectively, and navigate academic submissions with confidence.

Contact:
Email: choicelandsolicitors9@gmail.com
Mobile: +2348032493960
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5346-8773