Striving for modernity: Layout and abstracts in the biomedical literature
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-02
Abstract
Most academic journals have a fairly consistent look: they are structured similarly, their text is divided into similar sections; for example, they have an abstract at the beginning of the manuscript, and their text is usually organized in two columns. There may be different reasons for this similarity, ranging from the need to contain publication costs by using less page space to conforming to an internationally well-accepted format that may be perceived as the hallmark of academic articles. We surveyed 37 medical journals founded before 1960 and looked for their change in format over time and how this was experienced by and explained to readers. We then discussed what recent research has shown about the effects of layout on reading, looking for further explanations as to why this format was so successful.
About the Authors
C. Galli
University of Parma
Italy
Italy
Carlo Galli, Department of Medicine and Surgery
Parma
M. T. Colangelo
University of Parma
Italy
Italy
Maria Teresa Colangelo, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Histology and Embryology Lab
Parma
S. Guizzardi
University of Parma
Italy
Italy
Stefano Guizzardi, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Histology and Embryology Lab
Parma
References
1. Waller R. Graphic literacies for a digital age: The survival of layout. The Information Society. 2012;28(4):236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2012.689609
2. Moys J.L. Typographic layout and first impressions: Testing how changes in text layout influence reader’s judgments of documents. Visible Language. 2014;48:40–67.
3. Sollaci L.B., Pereira M.G. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: A fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2004;92(3):364–367. PMID: 15243643
4. Yamamoto N. Genetic evolution of bacteriophage, I. Hybrids between unrelated bacteriophages P22 and fels 2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1968;62(1):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.62.1.63
5. Upton F.P. Electricity as power. Science. 1880;1(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.os-1.1.5
6. True F.W. Movement of the arms in walking. Science. 1883;1(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns1.1.11.b PMID: 17751207
7. Southall R. First principle of typographic design for document production. TUGboat. 1984;5(2):79–90. https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb05-2/tb10south.pdf
8. Landhuis E. Scientific literature: Information overload. Nature. 2016;535:457–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7612-457a
9. Haynes R.B., Mulrow C.D., Huth E.J., Altman D.G., Gardner M.J. More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1990;113(1):69–76. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69
10. Morison S. New typography of the journal. British Medical Journal. 1937;1:32–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.3965.32
11. Galli C., Sala R., Colangelo M.T., Guizzardi S. Between innovation and standardization, is there still a room for scientific reports? The rise of a formatting tradition in periodontal research. Publications. 2019;7(4):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040067
12. McCarty M. The Journal Prepares for its Second Century. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1990;172(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.172.1.1
13. Galli C., Guizzardi S. Change in format, register and narration style in the biomedical literature: A 1948 example. Publications. 2020;8(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8010010
14. Foreword (Editorial). Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1921;11:1–2.
15. Bachmeyer A.C. Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Medical Education. 1952;27(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-195201000-00001
16. Editorial. British Journal of Cancer. 1972;26:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1972.1
17. Editorial. Anaesthesia. 1977;32(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1977.tb11548.x
18. Chesterton G.K., Boulton T.B. Editorial. Anaesthesia. 1980;35(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1980.tb03710.x
19. The new format (Editorial). Angle Orthodontist. 1950;20:180.
20. Zetterström R. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica – now just Acta Paediatrica. Acta Paediatrica. 1992;81(1):95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.1992.tb12091.x
21. Moreno R., Mayer R.E. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999;91(2):358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358
22. Holsanova J., Holmberg N., Holmqvist K. Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2009;23(9):1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525
23. Cordero R.J.B., de León-Rodriguez C.M., Alvarado-Torres J.K., Rodriguez A.R., Casadevall A. Life science’s average publishable unit (APU) has increased over the past two decades. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0156983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156983
24. Lonsdale M.D.S. Typographic features of text and their contribution to the legibility of academic reading materials: An empirical study – white rose research online. Visible Language. 2016;50(1):79–111. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99942/14/MdSL_Visible%20Language%2050.1_2016.pdf
25. Tarasov D.A., Sergeev A.P., Filimonov V.V. Legibility of textbooks: A literature review. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;174:1300–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.751
26. Zaphiris P., Kurniawan H. Effects of Information Layout on Reading Speed: Differences between Paper and Monitor Presentation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2001;45(15):1210–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120104501512
27. Al-Samarraie H., Eldenfria A., Zaqout F., Price M.L. How reading in single-and multiple-column types influence our cognitive load: An EEG study. The Electronic Library. 2019;37(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2019-0006
28. Venig S.B., Solovyova V.A. Eye-tracking: Regularities of educational information searching. International Annual Edition of Applied Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2016;3:97–111.
29. Al-Samarraie H., Sarsam S.M., Umar I.N. Visual perception of multi-column-layout text: Insight from repeated and non-repeated reading. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2016;36(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1196502
30. Speer N.K., Reynolds J.R., Swallow K.M., Zacks J.M. Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science. 2009;20(8):989–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.x
31. Tenopir C., King D.W., Christian L., Volentine R. Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: A continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences. Learned Publishing. 2015;28(2):93–105. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150203
32. Burrough-Boenisch J. International reading strategies for IMRD articles. Written Communication. 1999;16(3):296–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088399016003002
33. Clark A. Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2006;10(8):370–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012
34. Clark A. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (OUP); 2008. 318 p.
Review
Supporting agencies: The authors would like to thank Lorenzo Magnani and Selene Arfini (Computational Philosophy Lab, University of Pavia) for their insights on cognitive niche construction.
For citations:
Galli C., Colangelo M.T., Guizzardi S. Striving for modernity: Layout and abstracts in the biomedical literature. Science Editor and Publisher. 2021;6(2):131–147. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-02
Views: 333
Email this article 
