Readability of Abstracts Published in SRELS Journal of Information Management (2011-2015): An Analytical Study
Authors
-
Banwarilal Bhalotia College (Govt. Sponsored), Ushagram, Asansol – 713303, West Bengal
Abhijit Chakrabarti -
Department of LIS, University of Burdwan, Burdwan – 713104, West BengalSukumar Mandal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2017/v54i4/108625Keywords:
Abstract, Sentence Count, Letter Count, SRELS Journal of Information Management, Syllable Count, Readability, Word CountAbstract
The paper analyses the readability of the abstracts of the articles published in different volumes of the journal, SRELS Journal of Information Management from 2011 to 2015. The paper examines the number of words; length of sentences, etc. and presents an average grade level according to readability formula. A total 301 abstracts of articles were selected during the period of 2011-2015 for this study. On the basis of these abstracts published in the journal, it is found that abstracts are made of 100 to 150 words. The results showed that the abstracts are not very easy to comprehend in terms of readability indices such as Gunning Fog index, Coleman Liau index, Flesch Kincaid Grade level, Automated Readability Index (ARI) and SMOG. From the study, it is clear that one requires 13 to 14 year education to understand the abstracts. At the end it is proposed that the abstracts should be more readable and clearer after the first reading.
Downloads
Metrics
References
https://www.srels.org. Accessed on 12.10.2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability. Accessed on 23.10.2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming# Readability_of_source_code. Accessed on 14.10.2016.
Klare, G.R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Bram, V.A. (1977). Factors affecting the readability of scientific and engineering texts. Communicator of Scientific and Technical Information, 33:3-5.
McLaughlin, G.H. (1969). SMOG grading - a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 22:639−46.
Seaton, J (1975). Readability tests for UK Professional Journals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 7(2):69−83. https://doi.org/10.1177/096100067500700201.
Dawkins, J.P. and Granowsky, A. (1980). Readability. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co. PMCid:PMC1537947.
Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom. England: Cambridge University Press.
Gazni, Ali. (2011). Are the abstracts of high impact articles more readable? Investigating the evidence from top research institutions in the world. Journal of Information Science, 37(3):273−81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511401658.
Charbonneau, Deborah H. (2012). Readability of menopause web sites: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Women and Aging, 24:280–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2012.708574 PMid:23098043.
Lei Lei and Yan, S. (2016). Readability and citations in information science: Evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003−2012). Scientometrics, 108(3):1155−69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2036-9.
https://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_ and_improve.jsp. Accessed on 12.11.2016.
https://readability-score.com/text/. Accessed on 20.11.2016.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.
Accepted 2017-08-29
Published 2017-08-23
