Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the current uses of subheadings that appear in medical science journal abstracts and to discuss its potential implications for medical science from the perspectives of library and information science. To conduct this study, the following nine sub-fields in medical science were selected: cancer, ethics, genetics, infectious disease, neurology, pediatrics, immunology, psychiatry, and cardiology. Random sample data were drawn based on the years 2010 to 2015 from the PubMed database. This study investigated the extent of the uses of subheadings, variants of subheadings, and common formation of subheadings with the help of a frequency analysis. The specific findings of this study are summarized as the following: 1) more traditional abstracts are used across almost all sub-fields of medical science; 2) on average, 4.1 subheadings were used in the sample dataset; and 3) the most frequently used set of subheadings is OBJECTIVES, METHODS, RESULTS, and CONCLUSIONS. This subheading set appears to be the de facto standard across all medical science journals. The analysis of subheadings in structured abstracts and the issues raised in this study can be beneficial for journal editors and other academics in medical science as well as library and information science.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
